I just wanted to offer this warning to the younger set who seem to think that unions are one piece to fixing the problems that ail the workplace: in every place I've worked with a union, the union did little to protect me or my colleagues. They were sort of a junior, parallel branch of management that would usually favor some groups more than others. I have friends who were essentially targeted by the factions in the unions. So the idea that unions are some how always thinking of the worker has been untrue in my experience.
There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with rewarding them.
Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get in the way and collect dues.
i use to like r/antiwork on Reddit but dumped it over a year ago. It isnt about "antiwork" but "union drives". The answer to almost any workplace issue seems to be "join a union" but what about the major Union failures?
Here (Canada) we had an issues with a meat processing plant in Alberta. It didnt take long for the striking workers to lash out at their union as well for lack of support. The union felt there were not enough people for them to get involved. while they were content to take their union dues, they were reluctant to get involved in costly legal battles?
Unions are also a business as well, subject to the exact same "corruption" charges as any other organization, so it is ironic that r/Antiwork advocates them?
Look at the recent news from the head of the very powerful auto workers union (which also includes clergy?) here and his mystery $25,00. Naturally his excuse is his "prescription medication and alcohol abuse made me do it".
People complain about the "CEO" pay, but how much do union leaders earn?
Unions were very good in the past and did a lot for the country, but people would be far better off changing laws instead of joining unions.
This is what really kills me about r/anitwork. Not everyone can join a union, but legal changes apply to everyone. I actually had someone tell me once "why should my union fight to help ohters"?
Thanks. You have experience with unions in the real world, which the vast majority of American "progressives" don't.
The union often turns into another bureaucracy which has forgotten its original mission, and now exists just to feed itself. Your meat processing plant example is a good one -- the union leaders apparently just want to keep their cushy life and avoid trouble.
Nonetheless, as I said, if you're an Amazon warehouse worker and the company doesn't give a shit about you, then yeah, a union could look like the least-bad alternative.
Not sure where you are, but spend a few mins and see all the not-so-good things the unions have done here (Ontario, canada).
The idea of "forgotten its missing" really rings true here.
Every election they create some sort of "working family coalition" or such and spend millions on attack-ads. They have their guy in government and want them to win?
Why exactly are unions involved in politics? Why is this even allowed? Is this something the dues-paying members support, having millions of their dollars used on attack-ads?
The law was struck down as "unconstitutional" so the leading party used the "notwithstanding" clause to make it pass.
Look who was fighting it - "Working Families Ontario " This is not families, but unions. I dont know why they dont simply say "Ontario unions" instead of "working families"?
I think a common reply to this would be that it’s hard to change laws when an oligarchy has so much power, and siphoning the money and power from the oligarchs has to come first. Unions are one approach to attempt to do this. Unions are the workers that join them, and one of the more positive developments lately is the push to have more democratic unions. The teamsters even just changed their leadership drastically in this direction.
I'm Canadian but lived in the US for several years.
One takeaway from my time in the US is they really need to address its "lobbying" rules. We have a bit of a lobbying problem here, but no where near the level we see to the south.
When you do crazy things like rule that corporations are "natural people" when clearly they are not..
I have no clue how to fix this, but Lobbying is really bad which is why it is tightly controlled in most other countries.
One proposed solution is to get rid of Sunshine laws. Make legislative votes secret again, and legislators are harder to hold to account. Cuts both ways, but it might have an outsized effect on moneyed interests' ability to buy their way.
The younger American middle-classs hate their HOAs but want unions at work. If you don’t like your HOA telling you how to cut your grass you’re also not going to like your union telling you how to do your job. Both are ostensibly democratic but in practice oppressive.
The HOA comparison doesn't make much sense here. Unions give people a democratic way to exercise power against an existing powerful organization (corporations), in what would otherwise be an authoritarian workplace. HOAs are a way to exercise power as a group against individuals in the group. It's true that democratic institutions can be frustrating, but this (obvious) fact is not the clever gotcha you seem to think of is.
This is solving a problem with the wrong tool. I shouldn't need another layer of bureaucracy in order to exercise my power as a citizen/employee against a powerful organization. The same way i don't need a priest to hook me up w/ the guy in the sky.
I'd take Democratic but imperfect over authoritarian any day. The company can also tell you how to "cut your grass", only you have no say at all in their leadership.
My union is fighting to raise my stake in the business I work for. Even if that means there are a couple new rules from the union it's still a hugely net positive.
Presumably these are the arguments that led to the HOAs? ‘More democratic’, ‘everyone has a say’, etc. In practice it’s a tyranny of the majority, right? Same in a union, the majority have power and may act against your interests.
This is a common anti-union talking point but I’ve never seen anything like it at that anywhere I’ve worked - the unions have been what shut down those actions by management.
I’m sure there are some bad unions but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the concept any more than bad moves by companies means we should give up on the concept of private business.
The union will only push back if I’m in a majority group. If I’m part of a minority they won’t push back and will also prevent me negotiating individually with my manager if they’re using collective agreements.
That’s also what goes wrong in an HOA. If the majority want you to paint your fence then that’s it to have to paint it.
No always. Take the very common union rules around seniority. Can the employer offer some benefit to an individual union member (e.g. preferred shifts, certain shifts that get bonuses, etc).
Sure! But often only by seniority.
So the guy who has been around the longest, but doesn't do a great (because the union will protect him) gets the best hours and best bonuses. Can you do a better job? Sure! But it doesn't matter, you don't have seniority.
Take that same scenario and apply it across a bunch of other issues you might have with coworkers and you'll get a sense how unions can go wrong.
In a HOA the members are the home owners. In a union the members are the employees. In both cases a majority of members get to dictate to a minority. You may not like the outcome if you're in a minority on some issue.
Like if you like long grass, the HOA can dictate you can’t do that. Or if you like pay by performance but the majority of the union wants pay by seniority they can dictate that to you.
I don’t mind the HOA handling all sorts of exterior work I can’t be bothered with. I may not like to the fees, but I understand that is the price I pay for amenities. So you’re saying a union would operate similarly? Not bad.
The HOA mandates the work you do on your own property - they don't do it for you as a service.
And while it sounds good in theory... in practice many people hate HOAs. They hate not being able to decide what to do themselves and they hate the pettiness and politics of it.
Sure, but if I don’t have anything I want to do in contravention to their guidelines, then I don’t care. The monthly fee is an annoyance but they take care of the exterior work I don’t want to manage. A relationship I am fine with.
Word of warning, this is what I thought HOAs were about when I bought a house in one, with extremely reasonable rules and landscaping services. But unfortunately power corrupts and the board members went out and hired a lawyer in secret, re-wrote the CC&Rs, and then used obscure vote procedures to take total control.
Once the board members gave themselves the ability to write rules without a vote, they started going after everyone for petty violations, like parking a car in your driveway for too many days or having the wrong colored door mat. And they have the legal power to foreclose on your house if you don’t play along.
You can't say something like this without specifying the country under an article about Amazon's global anti-union strategy. Going off what you said, you're probably talking about the US, which really isn't in any way comparable. You have shit labour laws and dynamics all around and nothing which could be useful when talking about other countries.
There was probably a time when unions made more sense. When much of the work is exactly the same and people are just cogs in a big machine, well, I think the idea of collective bargaining makes sense. But while Amazon warehouse workers and delivery teams are doing pretty similar work, there are still differences. Some people just do more work and I don't see anything wrong with rewarding them.
Now all of that being said, I can see a better argument for breaking up Amazon to ensure more competition. I feel like an open labor market is the best way for workers to earn good treatment. When the market was tight, Amazon responded with higher pay and more benefits-- without the need of a union to get in the way and collect dues.