
Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon - agreen
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/open-letter-new-york-state-budget-director-robert-mujica-regarding-amazon
======
ddebernardy
I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company
that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter.

> Incredibly, I have heard city and state elected officials who were opponents
> of the project claim that Amazon was getting $3 billion in government
> subsidies that could have been better spent on housing or transportation.
> This is either a blatant untruth or fundamental ignorance of basic math by a
> group of elected officials. The city and state 'gave' Amazon nothing. Amazon
> was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state
> $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits,
> and the state through Excelsior Tax credits - a program approved by the same
> legislators railing against it - would provide up to $3 billion in tax
> relief, IF Amazon created the 25,000-40,000 jobs and thus generated $27
> billion in revenue. You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know
> that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner.

Actually, you do. Amazon already created jobs in NYC, without any handouts
needed. Google recently announced they'd create more jobs, and they didn't
expect a handout to do so. By the above logic, a 9:1 return for Amazon jobs is
a good deal. What about the Google jobs? Do those count as infinite return?

If so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please.

Or is there something else at work here?

~~~
asabjorn
You are addressing the quote:

> You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one
> return on your investment is a winner.

I think you are here making a moral argument of sorts. Why is it morally
better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives
that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? I simply don't see a
viable argument that this was morally right, and wonder what argument you have
that the facts we know support this proposition.

So far the opponents have not provided a "morally better" alternative to
provide Queens with 25-40k jobs, unionized secure jobs for vast amounts of
families, and a tax base necessary to invest in Queens that has received very
little investment in decades. They have "hopes and dreams", but destroy the
only path we had to get there.

Due to this we can't improve the offerings of progressive government services
for the people living in Queens. Real kids, families, elderly and youth
seeking opportunity is affected by this. These facts seems to show
conclusively that this what the activists achieved was morally wrong.

~~~
icelancer
> Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a
> project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k
> jobs?

Because people who rail against deals like this take zero responsibility for
any of the consequences. It's all of the fun moral policing and none of the
downside. It's great to be an activist.

~~~
bilbo0s
In fairness, the real reason, at least in NYC...

is that they _never_ end up in a situation where they get 100% of nothing.
Google and Amazon have thousands of jobs in NYC, and they will move thousand
more there in the future. For these people in NYC, they don't know the
consequences of not having loads of places to work. For them, it really is a
situation of "Heads we win! Tails we win slightly less!".

~~~
afiori
Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not
receive the 3 billions in tax relief

~~~
speedplane
> Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not
> receive the 3 billions in tax relief

The problem of the deal wasn't the mechanics, it was how it was sold to the
public. A competition putting cities against cities, negotiated without any
public input, a large tax break to one of the richest companies in the world,
choosing already popular cities rather than really investing in a newer one.
Amazon could have definitely closed this deal if they pitched it properly.

~~~
afiori
Maybe, but as it is pointed out many times here and in the open letter this
was basically a replay of Brexit. another commenter said that his mom believed
the city would give amazon 3 billions up front. the public approved of the
deal, the only demographic to disapprove was the internet.

70% of local residents approved of the deal. that is a lot.

~~~
bobthepanda
I'm skeptical of any polling for the issue, mostly because polls have huge
issues with data collecting and getting a representative sample, particularly
on things like local issues.

Depending on

* how the question was framed ("Do you think the second headquarters of Amazon will be a positive?" vs. "Do you think the deal with Amazon will be positive?" vs. "Do you think tax breaks for Amazon are good?")

* how informed the voter was required to be; people are notoriously uninformed and uninterested about anything that isn't a presidential election

* how residents were contacted (was it a landline poll? mail? survey on the street? online? because these all have different populations to be accounted for)

* who counts as a valid resident for the survey? someone who lives in Buffalo? someone who lives in Westchester? someone who lives in Manhattan? someone who lives in Flushing? etc.

Polls predicted that AOC would lose her race, and that clearly didn't happen.

------
presty
Quote of the Day:

"The seventy percent of New Yorkers who supported Amazon and now vent their
anger also bear responsibility and must learn that the silent majority should
not be silent because they can lose to the vocal minority and self-interested
politicians."

~~~
k_sh
I'm glad we're waking up to this fact.

It's not enough to hold a belief... in our system, action is required. I think
this is why young people are so frequently screwed by political decisions and
policy - we are, uncoincidentally, the age group that votes least often.

~~~
pmoriarty
Voting alone is not enough. In some parts of the world, like Australia, voting
is mandatory and as a result lot of people just vote randomly.

A good education in civics and history is necessary, as is a belief in the
political system and a desire to make a difference in the world through
political action. Finally, a strong and independent media that does a lot of
deep investigative journalism and does a good job of providing context and
background on important issues instead of catering to the lowest common
denominator is key, as without it people are much more easily manipulated and
mislead.

~~~
intothemild
As a politics major from an Australian university, and as someone who now
lives in Norway. You’re about 50% right.

Yes in Australia mandatory voting has some people who “donkey vote” or as you
call it “vote randomly” that percentage is almost all the 18-22 range. It’s
not till they have to sit through a full one or two election cycles before
they start to give a shit.

As such my generation has seen the bullshit that’s been handed to us, we won’t
stand for it. It is generational because of the two major parties, their
“young” version hasn’t had anyone transition from the young party to the major
party for members of GenX. It’s only now when the boomers are retiring are we
starting to see some younger blood. Why? Cause those that didn’t give a shit,
now care and it’s a huge wave of people.

Politics are so much more left here in Norway, because people are educated and
give a shit. The fucking Christian Right party just came up with the policy to
decriminalise all drugs because putting people in jail and fining them wasn’t
working. So why not try to help them with counsellors instead. No fines, no
jail time... just help if they want it.

What’s Australia doing? Well we just voted to dump a bunch of shit in the
middle of the Great Barrier Reef because it’s inconvinent for the super rich
assholes to ship their exports around it. Got to make a way through it for the
ships.

That shit won’t last with my generation.

------
smallgovt
I think it's sad that the vocal minority was able to alter this decision. As
the letter mentions, the project would have brought $27b in revenue to the
state. This magnitude of revenue is material considering the fact that the
state only collected $76b in taxes in the last reported fiscal year.

I think there's reason to debate whether large corps should be able to hold an
auction like this, but given the place we find ourselves in today, there's no
question this would have been a huge win for NY.

~~~
spamizbad
I'm glad they dropped it. There are some grounded concerns:

* Amazon is one of the most successful enterprises in human history and should not require support from taxpayers beyond their voluntary patronage of Amazon itself.

* Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight

* While amazon is talking about bringing middle and upper-income jobs to these communities, overall amazon has a documented history of paying poverty wages despite its tremendous financial success

* State and local governments probably shouldn't be diverting billions of their citizen's tax revenue to lure corporations who will only impact a tiny subset of their citizenry. Does the taxpayer in Buffalo New York benefit if their tax money goes to fund some HQ in Queens, if the bulk of the state's tax capture is just "handed" right back to Amazon?

With that said, there's nothing wrong with large organizations asking state
and local governments to expedite things like site identification, planning,
zoning, permitting, licensing, environmental studies, etc since you're talking
about a MASSIVE undertaking during a short window of time. But beyond that,
governments should avoid a race to the bottom with this stuff.

~~~
Permit
> * Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the
> public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and
> presented without community input or oversight

> * State and local governments probably shouldn't be diverting billions of
> their citizen's tax revenue to lure corporations who will only impact a tiny
> subset of their citizenry.

I haven't been following this closely. What did New York offer Amazon that it
does not offer any other company? In the linked article the author states that
Amazon would have been claiming existing tax credits. Did they receive
anything else (not offered to any other new businesses)?

If so, the linked article seems to be presenting the argument in bad faith.

If not, you seem to be describing the offer in bad faith.

~~~
spamizbad
Rezoning and eminent domain, resulting in massive windfall for Plaxall
[https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-
company-a...](https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-company-
another-winner-blockbuster-amazon-deal)

(Yes, some of that land is being purchased in a private sale, but its value is
now significantly greater because of the city's rezoning and ability to stich-
together workable parcels through eminent domain)Long island City residents
aren't terribly happy about that.

Then there's the whole Excelsior tax credit scheme which Amazon really
stretches. It's normally just 6.85% of wages per net new job. Amazon's is
significantly greater. [https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-
program](https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program)

~~~
chrismcb
Use of eminent domain is disgusting and that alone is enough to kill the deal
IMHO. Using eminent domain for a private business is wrong. It seems like New
York does that too often.

------
protomyth
_Ironically, much of the visible 'local' opposition, which was happy to appear
at press conferences and protest at City Council hearings during work hours,
were actual organizers paid by one union: RWDSU. (If you are wondering if that
is even legal, probably not)._

That is a pretty strong accusation to put in writing. I get the feeling that
some investigation is going to happen on that one. Paid protestors presented
as "concerned citizens" is not exactly a new tactic, but money is a lot easier
to track these days.

~~~
Spooky23
Its very common in NY for high profile issues.

When fracking was the cause de jure, hundreds of people were being bussed to
Albany weekly to protest.

I’m not sure if it’s good or bad, but it’s a thing.

~~~
protomyth
We do have some experience with it out here in the middle. I have a relative
(by marriage) who did a pipeline protest then went to "protest a volcano in
Hawaii". Apparently, it was a good gig.

I'm just surprised that the NY government put it in a press release. It really
seems odd, but maybe that union has really separated itself from the herd,
politically.

~~~
drak0n1c
Yes, there were people paid to blockade and prevent the construction of a new
state-of-the-art science telescope on Mauna Kea. They were successful in
pressuring the state to renege on the contract and block construction.

I live in Seattle now, and I remember talking to a petition signature gatherer
for the recently passed gun control measure (petitions get them on the
ballot). He was paid per-signature by a non-profit funded by the Open Society
foundation. He said he was doing it Arizona before Seattle, and will keep
going around to areas they pay for.

~~~
protomyth
One does wonder if the individual you met and others paid there proper income
taxes in each state they worked? I get the feeling that will come up before
long.

------
tombert
As someone who actually lives in NYC and would probably benefit personally
from their HQ2 opening since my property-value would probably go up, I
honestly wasn't terribly upset to hear that Amazon was leaving.

I am a little annoyed that _only_ New Yorkers are paying the brunt of
criticism on this. "If NYers hadn't complained so much then we'd have
$27billion of revenue!!". But that's ridiculous; Amazon _left_ NY because they
felt like they had resistance, but you wouldn't know this based on the follow-
up conversations.

------
unethical_ban
I understand the tragedy of the commons, cities' race to the bottom, Amazon
not needing breaks, so on.

I also think some of this could have been avoided if people felt like they
were part of the process, instead of being told by the state "Hey we
negotiated with a behemoth company for them to take over your community -
trust me, you'll like it".

~~~
tehlike
You cant involve public with everything, or it would lead to big overhead

~~~
icelancer
For billions of dollars of tax breaks? I don't think it's asking too much.
Washington State manages to have non-binding advisory votes on topics just
like this without much complaint.

------
imh
>The seventy percent of New Yorkers who supported Amazon and now vent their
anger also bear responsibility and must learn that the silent majority should
not be silent because they can lose to the vocal minority and self-interested
politicians.

This like makes me frustrated. It shouldn't be everyone's responsibility to go
on twitter or wherever and be loud. Maybe politicians should put in real
effort to learn about who they represent. They could engage in the same kind
of polling they do during election season, rather than just paying attention
to whoever is loudest.

~~~
jshaqaw
In a perfect world yes. In reality what matters is not how many people support
a position but how many will vote based on that issue. If you support
something but it is not in your top ten of voting factors (assuming you even
vote) then in reality your view doesn’t matter to the powers that be.

------
avar
> "The RWDSU Union was interested in organizing the Whole Foods grocery store
> workers. [...]. Organizing Amazon, or Whole Foods workers, or any company
> for that matter, is better pursued by allowing them to locate here and then
> making an effort to unionize the workers, rather than making unionization a
> bar to entrance."

I'm not familiar with how this works in New York. Someone who's registering a
company needs to negotiate in advance whether the people they hire are part of
some pre-existing union or not?

Wouldn't Amazon just have started hiring workers, and if those workers decided
to organize into a union or join an existing one they'd have had to deal with
that then? It seems not, so how does this work?

~~~
johncolanduoni
Perhaps they were looking for Amazon to guarantee they would only hire
unionized workers (or X% unionized workers) for certain positions, as part of
the deal?

------
jayventura
Interestingly, although 70% of New Yorkers felt positively about the Amazon
HQ2, I wonder what that percentage looks like for the actual current
inhabitants of LIC. For many of the folks I know who rent in Queens, they were
very much against the HQ2 and fearful of how it may affect their ability to
afford living in Queens. Additionally, many New Yorkers I know who are around
my age were very much against HQ2 because we felt that it was already so
incredibly hard to even think about owning property in NYC, and that this was
just one more notch that would make us feel like the possibility was slipping
away. Not everyone works in tech/finance/RE and enjoys the salaries in those
industries. Another common fear was how will this affect the subway system?

For many of the people I know who were against HQ2, it wasn't about the tax
relief. It was about the feeling that the most valuable corporation in the
world was going to move a lot more money into the city, and make it a lot
harder for folks not in the industry to live.

A lot of these concerns where not addressed. It was always about jobs, jobs,
jobs. And if they were addressed, it was not communicated effectively.

------
viburnum
If they start handing out billions for corporate HQs it won't stop with
Amazon. Google and everybody else will like up for theirs too.

~~~
asabjorn
Amazon would generate $30b in tax revenue over the deal length, for which it
would be given a $3b break given certain conditions.

That is not a handout, because amazon generated all the money in question.

~~~
viburnum
Okay fine whatever, every other big employer will be lining up for the same
deal or threatening to leave.

~~~
asabjorn
When Queens has attracted enough campuses like Amazons to become an ecosystem
no incentives should be necessary.

The deal has positives and negatives for Amazon due to its location, and lack
of an ecosystem. After Amazon moved 25k jobs there there it would have been
hard for them to leave.

------
throw2016
This reads too much like a one sided political letter by a state functionary.
It's curious no such 'open letter' was forthcoming from any public functionary
accounting for the losses due to the long list of bank frauds and bailouts?

Many here swear by free markets, fair competition and a level playing field
and yet do not see the contradiction of letting large companies play regions
against each other to extract concessions.

Too many times we just see pro business narratives that rehash arguments by
lobbyists, bought economists and the business press to support specific
business interests and these one sided narratives are now being challenged.

~~~
prolikewhoa
These people you talk about don't live in those communities and haven't lived
in communities that have been destroyed and made worse by big corporations
like this. How's Seattle doing? Great for the rich, but not for anyone else.
Walk the city streets in Seattle, head down to city mission in Pioneer Square,
you'll figure out what the word "despair" really means.

I'm glad the public stood up. The workers have power.

Guessing this was just another Amazon game to slam unions to portray a massive
negative image of AOC & worker power, like they did to collect city data.

~~~
lamarpye
Unfortunately, some other community will have to suffer having so many high
paid workers.

~~~
prolikewhoa
And then face the crippling poverty, homelessness, death, drug problems that
come with those high paid workers. They contribute nothing to society, see
Amazon in Seattle. Where are the Bezos schools, Bezos housing communities for
the poor, where are the Bezos fire departments, Bezos parks? Nowhere.

Just because you have different priorities, priorities that are "infinite
growth" (cancer), doesn't mean its automatically a good idea. Those workers
weren't being employed from NYC and surrounding areas, and you know it. They
were coming there to displace people already living there.

It's time the lower end of society starts getting a fucking say too.

------
zaroth
Just as a business can grow organically and through capital acquisitions, a
city can grow organically or through capital investment.

A city can spend money (billions) on infrastructure and public spaces which
serves the workers of the companies, and the campuses of those companies. A
city can also ask companies to spend billions to help build out those spaces
and that infrastructure and in return offer tax incentives. It works out
exactly the same. Both subsidies serve the workers and the companies paying
those workers in the same fashion.

------
afiori
> Ironically, much of the visible 'local' opposition, which was happy to
> appear at press conferences and protest at City Council hearings during work
> hours, were actual organizers paid by one union: RWDSU. (If you are
> wondering if that is even legal, probably not). Even more ironic is these
> same elected officials all signed a letter of support for Amazon at the Long
> Island City location and in support of the application. They were all for it
> before Twitter convinced them to be against it.

Twitter as of now is a cancer in our society. Is is a fine social and
sometimes fun, but do not form your opinion on it.

------
mirimir
Great letter!

And as much as I support unions, RWDSU really messed up on this.

------
jinushaun
People are upset about the beauty pageant.

If Amazon had never done their stupid HQ2 search which resulted in the two
most obiovus cities “winning”, they would have an HQ2 in NYC already with the
same tax breaks. It would’ve all happened behind closed doors.

------
warp_factor
This story is so good because it perfectly illustrates the issue with politics
today:

\- A vocal minority of leftists managed to force a silent majority. Once they
won, they didn't really know what to do. Now everyone realizes that New York
is worse off.

\- All of the outrage started and snowballed on Twitter, where self-centered
politicians decided to use it as a way to virtue-signal.

\- The press did an awful job on this story: every article got a baked in
narrative (From "Amazon was defeated and NYC won", to "NYC Lost and Amazon
won"). It is simply very difficult to know what actually happened.

~~~
meesterdude
> Once they won, they didn't really know what to do. Now everyone realizes
> that New York is worse off.

Not sure how you've reached this conclusion. "Worse off" is subjective.

------
tamaharbor
Has anyone from NY tried to get Amazon back?

------
numair
The fact that this guy is writing this open letter on behalf of the governor’s
office, and seems to believe we still live in a 2008-esque Change-We-Can-
Believe-In view of tech company largesse, shows how clueless Albany really is.

If we have ACTUALLY learned anything from the past century of corporate
relationships with muncipalities, it’s that you really do NOT want to
encourage corporate monocultures within your cities. It distorts the local
economy, creates its own social subculture that often overtakes the town’s
existing culture, and presents a giant economic and existential crisis should
the corporate giant need to downsize or exit the city (which they seem to
always do, and always for someplace that has far more diversity, or a new host
for their parasitism).

New York State is, if anything, Exhibit A for all of this. The story of Kodak
and Rochester, and the years of decline in Kodak’s absence (and before anyone
mentions it, yes, I know there’s been a very recent Renaissance) is a story
known to pretty much every urban planner who’s been educated in the past 25
years. Yes, you get a really easy bump in total jobs that is hard to replicate
through more organic means; but you know, if you want to live in an
interesting, dynamic society, you’re going to choose to go about it the hard
way.

Maybe the evil labor unions ruined the deal. Maybe the politicians flip-
flopped. Maybe the tax credits pencil out. It doesn’t matter. There are large
numbers of people who didn’t want Long Island City to turn into another
Rochester. Or, to put it in a context that might be more understandable to the
crowd here, they didn’t want to see Amazon do to their neighborhood what
Snapchat and Google did to Venice Beach over the past 10 years. I’m sure the
tax receipts are way, way up in 90291; at the same time, it’s not really
Venice anymore, and those revenues have allowed the tech firms to hold the
community hostage for whatever they want (for example, Google had an
arbitrarily placed stop sign and crosswalk put in for their use, and managed
to get the LAPD to cart off longtime homeless residents in the process (who,
by virtue of the law of unintended consequences, have been replaced by far
more aggressive and transient homeless people)).

I’d love to see some of these politicians run on the “I stood firm on
welcoming Amazon” platform for their next election. I don’t think the ones who
flip-flopped into the negative are idiots; rather, they’re smart enough to see
the writing on the wall. The tide is shifting, and fast.

------
sitkack
TIL Amazon sells Banana Republics and we all clamor for canoes and paddles.

------
starpilot
San Francisco-ization it seems. Liberals going against their own interests.
Reminds me of an apartment complex under construction in SF that was forced to
include a larger amount of low-income units. The builders found it would no
longer be profitable, and ceased building. So lose-lose, prisoner's dilemma,
vocal social media forces "won," lacking the cooperative biases that humans
normally have. They all end up with nothing.

~~~
prolikewhoa
Should shelter, a basic human need, be for-profit? If so, why?

~~~
lamarpye
Here's a thought; do you want to rely on the goodwill of people you don't
know, that live hundreds or thousands of miles away, to get up at 4am to farm
and create food (a basic human need) for you?

Or do you want to rely on the profit motive? If not, why?

~~~
49531
Life is a bit more nuanced than profit-motive vs charity. I'd guess most of
the folks on HN work for a salary at a company. There isn't a ton of "profit-
motive" in the work. You don't necessarily get more money if you do a better
job. At least not reliably (it's up to the discretion of the company usually).

So if a lot of people are willing to do work for a salary, why wouldn't a
farmer or landlord be willing to do work for a salary? Why does a landlord
need a profit motive? Why does a farmer need a profit motive?

I don't think you can argue that landlords are more attentive because they
receive profit over a salary.

~~~
travisoneill1
The term "profit motive" as generally used applies equally to money made from
salary or equity.

------
gammateam
> The union that opposed the project gained nothing and cost other union
> members 11,000 good, high-paying jobs.

I want to see this feature film so people stop wasting their time with them

------
droithomme
Every NY voter needs to read this letter.

------
gcb0
> First, some labor unions attempted to exploit Amazon's New York entry.

When a company sees a market opportunity and increases prices to take
advantage of it (or benefit from tax exceptions, which is the same as
generating inflation on everything but their prices), it is praised. When a
labor union does the same, it is evil.

The 1% want to have the capitalism cake and eat it too.

And for some reason we are boasting a letter from the person bought to defend
the tax break in the first place. If you want one single proof that this is an
"advertisement" for public opinion, i will give one on the very first
paragraph: he compares "25,000-40,000 jobs" as if 100% oscillation is an
acceptable negotiation scale (hey, i can pay you $100 to $200k a year if you
accept _now_ to work 12h a day every day!") and then proceeds to compare it to
non-tax exempt jobs. Which is like comparing one thing to another completely
different, for either incompetence or malice. Since he is a Budget Director, i
will bet the later.

------
blacksqr
"If New York only allows unionized companies to enter, our economy is
unsustainable"

Dear workers: you must remain poor and powerless forever, for the greater
good.

~~~
tptacek
Did you miss the surrounding context? His point is that NY has very strong
worker protections, and that it's much better to let a non-unionized company
set up in NY _and then_ organize it, rather than trying to make organization a
condition to entry.

~~~
blacksqr
Isn't the validity and relevance of those points something for the unions to
decide for themselves?

Some people are still able to distinguish reality from a sales pitch.

~~~
tptacek
No? I don't understand how you're connecting these dots.

It's not like we have to wonder whether the union strategy worked here. It
demonstrably failed. Amazon didn't buckle, they didn't accept Whole Foods
unionization as a condition of setting up shop in Queens, and the union will
not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what happened.

~~~
blacksqr
"the union will not in fact see a single additional job as a result of what
happened"

That assumes that all union organizing will now cease or come to nothing, and
the unions will get no benefit from keeping a huge, dedicated anti-union
company out of their back yard.

~~~
tptacek
No, it just means that this particular transaction was net-negative for
unions.

~~~
blacksqr
So your argument is that the unions should have just taken the deal as
dictated to them without considering their larger self-interest?

~~~
tptacek
Yes? "As dictated to them" is a weird way of putting it, since they were the
ones making the demands.

~~~
blacksqr
Dear workers: you must remain poor and powerless forever, for the greater
good.

~~~
tptacek
Once again, we don't have to wonder whether this particular strategy worked.
It demonstrably did not. Workers in NY state _and at Whole Foods_ are worse
off than they would have been. This is a setback for the effort to unionize
Whole Foods.

~~~
blacksqr
You seem to be confusing strategy (long term thinking) with tactics (short
term thinking)

I wish I could understand why you seem to think it's a no-brainer that workers
should unilaterally resign what they see as their long term interests to
accept unquestioningly a corporate agenda with uncertain benefits for them in
an indeterminate future.

~~~
tptacek
It doesn’t matter who’s side we’re on. I think Whole Foods should unionize.
What was done here to try to accomplish that backfired, spectacularly. Labor
will have less of a voice in similar negotiations in the future.

~~~
blacksqr
What is keeping unions from continuing to try to organize Whole Foods in New
York?

------
alexandercrohde
Reads as unreliable (presumably factually accurate but too motivated to be
trusted as presenting a full picture).

Anybody who pretends to be thinking about "loss for the city," is full of
themselves. It's all politics, and disingenuous to imply otherwise. And
morally, most other areas in the country need this more than NYC does.

It sounds like the thrust of the article is "Look how stupid the decision
making process was!" Well, true politics is petty and unreliable especially at
large-scale. But that has no bearing on the larger issue.

~~~
rossjudson
Factually accurate is a pretty good place to start. If you feel part of the
"full picture" or "larger issue" is missing, then feel free to provide it.

~~~
alexandercrohde
I did. It's a disingenuous political move, swinging clumsily at unions, and
hoping to rile up New Yorkers (such as myself).

------
gesman
While economical illiteracy of loud-voiced minority politicians is a fact that
played here, I think Bezos just made out of himself a "rich jerk cry baby" who
threw "i'm in control and don't need your candy" tantrum.

Lose-lose.

PS: That said, I'd be scared of how that would affect NYC traffic patterns if
plans would go forward.

------
matchagaucho
RWDSU... you really need to wake up. The Labor Union movement was making
_great_ progress with AMZN, raising the minimum wage of fulfillment centers to
$15 hr.

Negotiating is a series of compromises. AMZN basically reflected your
brinkmanship strategy back into your face.

While I wish corporate America was above this, the Unions are the ones that
need to learn a lesson here.

AMZN conceded to 11,000 Labor Union jobs for construction and services. But
RWDSU, you wanted it all... including operational jobs.

AMZN just will _not_ capitulate to these tactics. And in fact, they'll go so
far as to punish them and set precedence for future projects.

~~~
morpheuskafka
RWDSU didn't care about the construction jobs being unionized. Why? Because
construction workers don't pay union dues to RWDSU. Unions are businesses.
They exist to make money via dues, and do enough to benefit employees to get
voted in. Once in, they benefit from laws that make it very hard to get them
back out. RWDSU saw the dollar signs and looked to enroll new members--mostly
people who didn't even live in the state yet and were not members of the
local. Because NY is not a right to work state, they would be forced to begin
paying dues to RWDSU without any vote or input.

A union's product is supposed to be advocacy for workers. But unlike lawyers
or publicists, who are hired and fired by the people they advocate for, unions
get voted in or established through hiring halls and high-level deals like
these, and then they use the law to force workers to pay them for often
unwanted or low-quality services.

------
graycat
The problem is old, going back, one example after another, continually to a
famous quote of Jefferson about sewage news at

[http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_spe...](http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html)

So, for a fix, first, mostly ignore the newsies (a word from a Bogart
character in the movie _The Maltese Falcon_ ).

Second, much of _politics_ is trying to get votes from name recognition from
shocking statements based on gossip, lies, distortions, made up nonsense, etc.

Well, then, the newsies and the politicians have a strong interest in common:
For name recognition for votes the politicians want their shocking stories
told, and for ad revenue from eyeballs the newsies want shocking stories to
tell. There was a similar remark in the movie _Lawrence of Arabia_.

So, the second step is mostly to ignore the politicians.

A third step is, for information that might be in the news, fall back to and
insist on at least common high school term paper writing standards, rational,
responsible content with thorough references to objective, credible, primary
sources. With this third step will entertain:

Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see and still will
believe twice too much.

Measure twice and saw once.

Essentially everything you see in the media was put there and paid for by
someone who wants to influence your opinion (Sharyl Attkissson).

It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you do know
for sure that just ain't so (In the movie _The Big Short_ and there attributed
to Mark Twain).

Will conclude that for nearly all the news, printed on paper it can't compete
with Charmin and on the Internet is useless for wrapping dead fish heads.

A hope is that the Internet will enable many more new information sources with
some with lots of credibility and narrow specialization and that the best of
these sources will help the US and civilization.

