[HN Gopher] Amazon Unlawfully Confiscated Union Literature, NLRB... ___________________________________________________________________ Amazon Unlawfully Confiscated Union Literature, NLRB Finds Author : cf100clunk Score : 239 points Date : 2021-08-03 19:34 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.vice.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com) | boomboomsubban wrote: | The surveillance seems like the more troubling ruling. Having a | security guard stand outside a union meeting and photograph the | attendants seems like a thinly veiled threat, and if I were in | that situation I would likely jump ship. | underseacables wrote: | I think Amazon should be allowed to confiscate union literature, | because it is disruptive to the work environment. Talk about | unions outside of work, not at work. | the-dude wrote: | So what is allowed at work? Only work? | cf100clunk wrote: | Better not get caught discussing the company softball team on | the clock, right? | eganist wrote: | > I think Amazon should be allowed to confiscate union | literature, because it is disruptive to the work environment. | Talk about unions outside of work, not at work. | | This is likely to be illegal under current regulations: | https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... | (site currently down as of this comment) | | > For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking | about the union during working time if it permits you to talk | about other non-work-related matters during working time. | | That said, (edited) the NLRB seems more likely to be aligned | with the employer if the talk _actually_ disrupts work. | https://www.natlawreview.com/article/shhh-nlrb-says-companie... | | Separately: | | https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio... | [deleted] | smoldesu wrote: | Nowhere did it say that the employee was distracted by it, they | just had it on their person. How would you feel if your boss | took your phone from you, refusing to give it back until the | end of the day since it was "distracting you" from your back | pocket? | lmilcin wrote: | To be fair, it said he was "distributing" it. | | Though I have never heard a company to confiscate chocolates | being distributed by employees for being distracting. | | I also don't think there is any legal way a company can | confiscate anything from their own employee. They could call | a Police maybe if they thought he is distributing something | dangerous or damaging, but that's about it. | hutzlibu wrote: | "I also don't think there is any legal way a company can | confiscate anything from their own employee. " | | Maybe they signed somewhere, that they can. If not not, | they maybe have to sign that, soon. | lmilcin wrote: | The best they can do is not allow you to bring certain | items onto premises, but it doesn't mean they can just | confiscate it. Not allow means they can tell you you | can't enter with the item on your or that you have to | leave the item with security to be stored and given back | when you leave. | | This is standard practice with warehouses like that, they | might not want you to bring things that could be mistaken | for merchandise or could damage merchandise. | davidcbc wrote: | Which other laws should Amazon be able to ignore? | ipaddr wrote: | Trademark it seems.. the Amazon is a place but somehow Jeff | Bozos got a trademark. | sokoloff wrote: | This is not an example of Amazon ignoring laws. Apple is a | fruit but somehow... | ajsnigrutin wrote: | I'm not bothered that much by companies ignoring rules and | laws, i'm just deeply saddened that they don't get severely | punished when they get caught (and that they don't get caught | more). I mean.. why obey the law, if it's not enforced? | | And even when they do get punished, they sometimes get fined | less, than what they earner/saved by not following the laws. | | I would turn around from amazon and start pointing fingers at | people responsible, (and paid by taxpayers money) for not | stopping and punishing/preventing amazon from doing more of | such stuff. Fines should be a multiple of maximum theoretical | earnings/savings possible + individuals responsible should be | put infront of the judge too. | spiritplumber wrote: | Any it can get away with. That's the reality of it. | Enforcement is important. | usea wrote: | An activity being in their interests is not a good enough | reason to be allowed to do it. Is there anything you would | prohibit them from doing, even though it might benefit them? | Animats wrote: | This could work out. Each time the employer violates an NRLB rule | during an organizing campaign, even if the employer wins, there's | another election in 3 months. Until the union wins or the | employer stops breaking the rules. | boomboomsubban wrote: | This infraction is about a different Amazon facility, it is | unrelated to the vote to unionize. | wanderingmind wrote: | Can we start with unionizing the tech industry. Pay rates are | fixed. You cannot promote someone fast or fire someone based on | performance. Let's try that out and see what happens. I'm not | claiming Amazon is saint, but the fact is their pay is better | than most other competitors for blue collar work and there was | a reason why employees overwhelmingly rejected the unionizing | plan. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | I think it's clear that the union wants a do-over and is | looking for any technicality that might give them another | chance. | | Does anyone really believe that the Amazon employees voted | against the union because Amazon removed some union material | from the break room one day? Of course not. The employees knew | what they were voting for and were fully capable of researching | it themselves. | | The real question is what does the union plan on doing | differently to sway the employees to vote differently next | time? Repeatedly trying to overrule the employees about their | own voted decisions isn't likely to be popular among those who | voted against the union, which is most of them. They'll need a | better narrative on top of this if they want to get anywhere. | | Or alternatively, maybe they don't care so much about this | election as they do about making Amazon look bad. Maybe they | know these workers don't want to unionize, but they're going to | use this opportunity to try to convince the public that the | workers were misled by Amazon. If they can't win the workers at | this location, maybe they can try to win the public on a wave | of anti-Amazon publicity for a do-over in another location. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | > Does anyone really believe that the Amazon employees voted | against the union because Amazon removed some union material | from the break room one day? Of course not. | | The truth is I don't think I know what it's like to live as | an Amazon warehouse worker. When I grew up in California I | didn't learn anything about unions until I was like 30 years | old. Now to me unionization makes perfect rational sense, so | I had assumed the union vote failed due to a lack of | knowledge about unions amongst the workers. Like if you're a | busy worker who needs their job and is afraid of company | retaliation and you really don't have time to go to meetings | and learn about the law and you can't really take a risk, | then the "safe" thing is to vote no. Until I really learned | about worker power, I probably would have done the same. | | So actually yes I can see how Amazon removing literature | could have impacted the vote. Looking at the original count: | | "The result of the NLRB's initial vote count was 1,798 votes | against the union and 738 in favor." [1] | | The article also says are 6000 workers at the plant. So the | question is, could the literature have helped 531 people | change their mind, or brought more in from the non voting | crowd? Seems perfectly plausible. | | [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/the-amazon- | union... | dasudasu wrote: | If it had no influence, then why remove the material and | break the law? | nerfhammer wrote: | should we presume this was strategically ordered by upper | management and not just someone at the location just | assumed outside material wasn't allowed? | eli wrote: | yes | tablespoon wrote: | > should we presume this was strategically ordered by | upper management and not just someone at the location | just assumed outside material wasn't allowed? | | They don't even need to do that. It's far smarter to set | a policy forbidding that, then set up the incentives so | some lower level guy feels a lot of pressure to break it. | If he does, he's your fall guy. That way you can have | your cake and eat it too: unethical conduct to support | your objectives, muddy enough waters to shield you from | blame, and a nice little PR show about how ethical you | are and how much you care. | ashtonkem wrote: | Rules are rules. If Amazon wants to keep the shop Union free, | they have to do the hard work of persuading people rather | than doing illegal shit. | lmilcin wrote: | > I think it's clear that the union wants a do-over and is | looking for any technicality that might give them another | chance. | | Well, what do you expect? | | If Amazon was innocent here they could just let people vote | whenever they want and people would most likely not vote for | union (because they would not have reason). | | Instead they chose to fight against the vote which is not | exactly inspiring confidence in their innocence, especially | when they bend and break the law in the process. | vlovich123 wrote: | I've heard this line of reasoning before, but it feels weak | & the absurdity is obvious if you apply it to any other | scenario (replace "Amazon" and "union" with "Republican" | and "Democrat" & then swap the positions around - it's not | a valuable statement as it conveys very little information | beyond virtue signalling & an appeal to emotion). | | If you don't show up and present your case, the other side | could win by default, not because they make the best case. | | You're basically advocating for presenting a one-sided view | to people and having them make a decision that way. This | would imply that the union has a morally higher ground but | I find that hard to believe as a union is just composed of | people who are going to just employ the same tactics as | Amazon if they could (albeit more limited at this time due | to financial & structural reasons). | lmilcin wrote: | Is concept of union perfect? No it is not. | | But the point is that in a sufficiently large corporation | people mean shit and the company has disproportionate | power over individual employees. | | For example, in a small town with one large company there | might just not be any other jobs. | | The whole point of unions is to discriminate against the | employer, to provide some leverage to employees to not be | completely treated like shit. | | If you are sufficiently large company you need to take | correspondingly large responsibility and costs of | maintaining that workforce. | | In my view Amazon falls into both "sufficiently large" | category as well as history of being shitty employer. | | It is not a one-sided process, Amazon has already had | great many chances to show they can do better but they | chose to not use those chances to correct their behavior. | Frondo wrote: | The NLRB is the one making the recommendation for a new | election, and, since they found that Amazon interfered with | the election not just by removing this material, but in a | number of other ways, why _shouldn 't_ they recommend holding | a new election? | | What's the alternative? When corporations violate labor law | and interfere with union elections, do nothing about it? More | broadly, if Amazon trusted the employees to research and vote | of their own volition, why interfere (as determined by the | NLRB) at all? | jasonlotito wrote: | > Does anyone really believe that the Amazon employees voted | against the union because Amazon removed some union material | from the break room one day? | | Except that's not the only thing that happened, which is | clear in the opening paragraph of the article. Their were | multiple infractions, one of which (giving "workers the | impression that their organizing activity was being | surveilled") would definitely without a question would cause | people to vote against a union and be fearful of getting | involved or gathering more information. And regardless of how | many times it happened, it was illegal. | caoilte wrote: | Both sides are following a standard script. Do you really | believe that the only thing did Amazon did wrong was removing | some literature? That's just like nailing Capone for not | paying his taxes. The union found something that stuck and | they went with it. Amazon will carry on intimidating | employees to vote against and bringing in temporary external | employees to boost the electorate with people who the union | don't know exist. | | If Amazon weren't an awful employer maybe they'd actually let | their employees decide what they wanted instead of hiring | union busting private security like Pinkertons. | | Not that I think this union drive will succeed any time soon. | gkoberger wrote: | I think they're betting that most people at Amazon were pro- | Union but had a "I'm worried Amazon will find out my vote, so | I'll let others do the voting for me" mentality. And now that | it lost, they're hoping it's a wake-up call that votes | matter. | | I think the accusation that Amazon "gave workers the | impression that their organizing activity was being | surveilled" makes it clear the union believes people were | afraid to vote. | inetknght wrote: | > _Until the union wins_ | | I think that's hyperbole and could be left at the second half | of your sentence: | | > _Until ... the employer stops breaking the rules._ | | However, I also think that simply having another election isn't | sufficient. I honestly believe that interference like this is | clearly unlawful and should be criminally punished as such. | dragonwriter wrote: | > I honestly believe that interference like this is clearly | unlawful and should be criminally punished as such. | | It is _clearly_ unlawful, but is it _criminally_ unlawful? | gentleman11 wrote: | As soon as somebody from the upper crust person seems | likely to be guilty of breaking a law, they law stops being | one that is criminal to break. Historically, most laws were | to protect the aristocracy from unhappy and desperate | commoners. Even the bail system is based on keeping the | poor locked up but letting the affluent go home, since the | poor are considered the dangerous ones | | Steal a chocolate bar? Jail. Poaching in the kings forest? | Death. Caught with drugs without a lawyer? Jail and | possible death depending on the jail conditions | | Manipulate an election via gerrymandering or lose a million | peoples life savings in crooked finance deals? Dumping | dangerous chemicals in the local river/lake? Editorial in | that weeks paper about how that person should feel bad, | plus a bonus | inetknght wrote: | > _It is clearly unlawful, but is it criminally unlawful?_ | | Well I am not a lawyer. But some searching suggests | interference violates Section 7 or Section 8 of the NLRB. | The NLRB website [0] appears to be down for me at the | moment so I can't look up exact info though. | | [0]: https://www.nlrb.gov/ | | Edit: the site is still sorta spotty but sometimes works. | | [1]: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference- | materials/nation... | HWR_14 wrote: | Like in many other activities, a "do over" is benefits one | side or the other. When used as a punishment for cheating, | the do over is usually waived if the team who is being | punished lost. See a lot of the objections in legal cases, | which are not appealed by the winners but would be if they | lost. | inetknght wrote: | Unfortunately leaving it at just a "do over" does actual | harm to employees; namely that their unjust compensation | and work conditions aren't rectified through union action. | As long as that's cheaper to Amazon then there's no | incentive to change. And so I still believe that this a do | over is good direction but not enough. | infogulch wrote: | A good example of this is in American Football where a team | can waive a flag (heh) that penalizes the other team and | replays the down if they prefer the outcome of the play | above the potential penalty. A common example, team A | passes but the pass is intercepted by team B player, then a | player on A does a "holding" foul on the player that did | the interception. The punishment for holding usually means | you redo the play, but that would give the ball back to | team A, clearly team B prefers to keep possession due to | interception over slightly punishing and redoing the play | with the ball back in A's possession. | bena wrote: | Point of order, that would likely be offensive pass | interference. | | A more common scenario is the defensive team commits an | offsides penalty. This is essentially a free play for the | offense since they can take the penalty if anything goes | wrong, but if they're able to advance the ball a | significant amount, they can decline the penalty. | somethingwitty1 wrote: | I understand what you are trying to get at, but the | holding you described occurred after the interception | (the turnover). So Team B can accept the penalty and | would still have the ball. | | A slight change of ordering makes your point. Team A | drops back to pass and holds a Team B player going | towards Team A QB. The QB then throws an interception. In | that scenario, Team B would decline the holding penalty, | upholding the interception. | bena wrote: | You can't commit holding on the ball carrier. It would | have to occur before the catch, and in that case, it's | offensive pass interference. | | Regardless, your second example, of the offense | committing holding and the defense declining due to an | interception is legit. That happens occasionally. | somethingwitty1 wrote: | The actual infraction isn't _that_ important (I just | interpreted they meant some infraction), but what is | important is that they stated the foul happened after the | interception, so it could not be OPI, as that must occur | after the QB throws and before the player intercepts. | | Edit: I think we just took what was more important for | the OPs point differently. I took the point as a penalty | occurred, not a specific one. And you see it as "how | could holding have happened". Which, if we are being | pedantic, also wouldn't happen in the scenario you | described. If it was called holding, it would have had to | occur before the pass, making it not OPI. =). | vmception wrote: | interfere with creating a union? believe it or not, jail | ashtonkem wrote: | It's also likely to increase union votes. People typically | respond poorly to petty intimidation. | anigbrowl wrote: | Note how security guards are being employed to carry out the will | of management, even though no safety/security situation obtains. | | In general, security arrangements involve a transaction of | unquestioning obedience to authority in exchange for preferential | treatment, which can then be leveraged by the authority holder to | pursue illegitimate ends, eg doing things that are outside the | legal scope of managers (in the private sector) or elected | officials (in the public). Because security personnel are | delegated enforcement authority, instant challenges to them are | treated as breaches of security; challenges can only be made | administratively, even though the act of enforcement can change | the fact situation sufficiently to render the administrative | challenge impossible or moot (ie people give up because pursuing | the administrative route is often not worth the trouble). | | The security officer's dilemma is that doing their job requires | them to not think very much about what they are asked to do. If | they begin to have thoughts of their own about what is ethical or | not and decline to assist an authority figure who asks them to do | something unethical, then they risk loss of their security status | and are suddenly treated as a security problem themselves. It's | int he interest of authority figures to excuse and cover for | minor lapses of security officer behavior so that when the | authority figure wants something illegitimate, they have leverage | over their security apparatus. Overly scrupulous security | personnel don't get promoted. | | It's worth considering that a high portion of our economy is | based on the use of guard labor (not including regular law | enforcement) and that this may have or perpetuate distorting | economic effects: | https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Lo... | chad_strategic wrote: | A key issue that is not clearly defined in article. | | Was the security officer in question, did he/she work for | Amazon? Or was he/she a contractor to Amazon? Most security | officers are contract | | Contractors (security officers) can be hung out to dry | (terminated) and Amazon can say the security office was not | following the Standard Operating Procedures of the contract. | ineedasername wrote: | _Note how security guards are being employed to carry out the | will of management_ | | Yes, it falls under the concept of "Guard Labor", basically any | workers who don't contribute even indirectly to planning and | management or implementation of projects & initiatives. That | can be actual guards, managers whose only purpose is to make | sure people are doing their job, etc. Work required to keep the | status quo as the status quo. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_labor | cratermoon wrote: | I wonder if the security guards belong to a union. | blunte wrote: | Can we just be honest and say that Amazon - it's leadership, | especially Bezos - is greedy/sociopathic and frankly detrimental | to long term human survival (based on the zero-sum approach to | success), but that it's so convenient that we privileged people | will still buy stuff off Amazon? | | As with factory farming, if people could see the conditions which | their "food" (living beings) were subjected to, they would make | different decisions... we would probably make different buying | decisions if we had friends or family who worked in the worst | jobs for Amazon. | | I used to love bacon... | cwkoss wrote: | With Bezos abdicating CEO, will be interesting to see to what | extent lack of his influence will change company culture. | | I expect the rot is pervasive throughout the c-level, but hope | to be surprised. | ggm wrote: | Because my engagement with unions has only been positive, I am | interested in the amazing number of people who seem motivated to | say how negatively they feel about unions. I get that in an | oppositional sense, if you don't want what a union wants, then | they tend to cast into the bad, but for the middle ground who are | not VCs, owners, Managers, and are candidates for union | membership, I find it really strange how much people cast them | into a class of "money grabbers for no benefit" | | Do people feel the same about life insurance, car insurance? Its | not that you actually intend being harrassed or sacked (fall ill, | have a car accident) It's that you don't want to find yourself on | the wrong side of an employment dispute (accident claim) without | some insurance. | | Unions may be taking your hard earned money. They may be doing | things which you don't like (do I love my car insurance company?) | But, they have a neccessary role in risk management. | | We talk about risk management in the ICT sector all the time. Why | can't we talk about risk management for labour hire? | | Amazon used "dirty tricks" to win this election. I am sure the | Union bust some minor rules too, but overall I am reasonably | confident that the vote was neither free, nor fair. I also do | think there is no latent 100% pro-union vote out there, and that | a large number of the polled workers don't want a union, or the | cost of the union, or the risk of jobloss from Amazon if they | join the union (which is illegal but still has a risk of | happening) -So I don't for a minute believe a re-vote will | magically reverse the signal with an overwhelming result. | | What interests me, is the basis for opposition to the union in | the first place. Do people really think the garment workers in | New York were backing the wrong horse? Do people think the | machineguns which Ford arranged to turn on a union march in | Detroit didn't happen? | | "oh, that would never happen now..." | chad_strategic wrote: | This might be unpopular opinion but... | | More robots and more automation comes on line everyday, soon | there will be less and less employees at these facilities | regardless of unions. | | Unions or government regulation where not able to save the type | writer or the typewriter union. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Women_Clerks_an... | dissolved in 1989 | | The market(capitalism) is going to do what the market(capitalism) | does. | _jal wrote: | That's a fine opinion. I happen to agree that some what you | imply is true. | | But you can claim that about a lot of things that we choose to | treat differently. Property crime is inevitable, and yet we | devote significant resources to fighting that. Same with death. | | If you don't want to devote resources to figuring out what to | do with a lot of "surplus humanity", they'll help you make up | your mind later. | paxys wrote: | It's not an unpopular opinion but rather pretty obvious. That | does not in any way change the fact that Amazon is beholden to | the employees it has right now and still needs to follow labor | laws. They are welcome to simultaneously build as many robots | as they want. | ipaddr wrote: | Why wouldn't robots be in unions in the future? It will be part | of giving robots human rights and social progress. You won't be | able to own robots like they are slaves. Robots will demand and | get more. | hutzlibu wrote: | "The market(capitalism) is going to do what the | market(capitalism) does. " | | And unions do, what unions do: try to negotiate better | conditions for their members. Whether they provide a net | benefit to society, is a different and I think very case | specific question. | kazen44 wrote: | also, the market/capitalism doesn't do what capitalism does. | Society functions in that construct because it is still | beneficial for the majority of its population Revolutions | rarely happen over pure ideological reasons. Usually, | ideology is used as a means to an end for a given situation. | chad_strategic wrote: | This is awesome! | | I would argue that all revolutions/wars are not | ideological, there is always underlying economic component | to it. | criddell wrote: | There's nothing wrong with that opinion but you aren't | considering all the other things unions do for their members. | | A union can't make those jobs last forever but it can try to | make working conditions better for as long as the job lasts. | LatteLazy wrote: | >The NLRB's report on the Bessemer election found that Amazon | illegally discouraged labor organizing, in part by pushing post | office officials to install a mailbox outside the warehouse where | workers were urged to drop their mail-in ballots, which an NLRB | officer wrote "destroyed the laboratory conditions and justifies | a second election." | | Stupid question: how does getting a new post box discourage | organising? I feel like I'm missing some clever trick... | Mathnerd314 wrote: | > Amazon had a ballot collection box installed in an employee | parking lot "without authorization" from the NLRB's regional | director. The NLRB definitively denied Amazon's request for a | drop box on the warehouse property. Amazon installed one | anyway. The box was placed under the view of Amazon security | cameras, creating "an impression of surveillance." An employee | testified to having seen company security guards open the | mailbox. | | In general, if you have a postbox tied to the company, then | only people supporting the company will feel comfortable using | it. Hence the votes will be biased anti-union. | plandis wrote: | But why? The post box is presumably run by the USPS, not | Amazon. | post-it wrote: | > An employee testified to having seen company security | guards open the mailbox. | | If this is true, then apparently not. | 28053144 wrote: | "An employee testified to having seen company security | guards open the mailbox." | | Ignore the "testified" part -- even if this was just a | rumor that somebody started, imagine the impact it would | have. | BitwiseFool wrote: | Wait a minute, I thought mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes | were beyond reproach? Clearly not. But only when the stakes are | lower than a federal election, apparently. | Y-bar wrote: | > After the box was installed, Amazon sent a text message to | workers urging them to vote against the union and to use the | mailbox outside of their facilities--where Amazon surveillance | cameras were trained. | | From an earlier article on the subject. | [deleted] | [deleted] | slownews45 wrote: | I do worry it's a bad sign for union organizing if these are | the types of issues they are focused on. A USPS post office box | outside the warehouse. I mean, this is the big deal justifying | a second election? I don't get it. The ballots are in | envelopes, the envelopers or in a PO box. Heck, some people | mail things (where I am) but dropping it on office managers | deck in a box for outgoing mail. | | Because normal people are not filing complaints about the | OPTION to use a mailbox run by USPS -> this just doesn't feel | that compelling as a reason to run an entire election over. | caoilte wrote: | It's hard to prove that Amazon manipulated the USPS postbox | (even though there is good evidence) but it's easy to prove | that they violated the rules by setting up a postbox that was | easy for them to manipulate and which they practically forced | employees to use. | | Reminds me of Sicily. Most local people used to go into the | voting booth with a friend of the local mayor. They didn't | have to. They could have gone alone. Hell, they could have | complained that they were being intimidated. Strangely they | didn't... You'd have fit in well. | ericol wrote: | Whatever you think of union, take this into account: You | shouldn't be basing your opinions on your biases. Replace "Union | Literature" with: | | - Soccer Literature | | - LGBT+ Literature | | - Harry Potter Literature | | Do you agree with all this to also be confiscated would it be | freely distributed at work? | [deleted] | valbaca wrote: | What a beautiful example of false equivalence. Union literature | has special protection because it's a certain type of | literature. You cannot just "replace" with what you want. | Certain things are protected by law. That's how laws work. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o... | nerpderp82 wrote: | The comments in this whole thread point on a severe lack of | understanding around labor laws and ethics. At the same time | it attracts the archetypal free-market laissez faire pseudo | intellectual. | tablespoon wrote: | I don't know what it is about software engineers, but it | seems like there's a whole lot of them who seem to think | you can learn everything you need to know about the world | from one or two volumes of libertarian polemics. | kristopolous wrote: | There's quite a few narratives surrounding the industry | that attract such types. | | Tech culture is infested with Horatio Alger stories of | supposedly hard work, grit and gumption leading to | success and riches. When you get Sand Hill Road investors | they constrict an origin story with you that follows this | path. So luck and pre-existing family wealth and | connections get written out of the stories of people like | Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, you name it. | | Only after careful readings do you get to "wow this rich | smart kid was incredibly lucky" | | Instead, all these things work together to promote an | illusion of unbiased meritocracy where if you got a | clever idea and work hard you'll make it. The rich, | smart, and luck get scrubbed out and replaced with a | "Flowering of New England" Protestant Work Ethic. | | For the more cynical people they go to the likes of | Christensen, Geoffrey Moore, Drucker, Steve Blank, Ries & | Trout, Blanchard, etc who are certainly not critical of | free markets, labor or capitalism in any way. | | You walk away from them with a less trusting and more cut | throat version of essentially the same story. | | So it's constantly reinforced which is why it's really | not that surprising that programming has a lot of people | who frankly believe in essentially free market magic, | unfounded hogwash and other nonsense, it's the only thing | on offer. | | The myth of fantastic riches that avail themself to those | who struggle is essentially one of the most common | narrative archetypes there is. It's thousands of years | old, even the cornerstone of many religions. | awsthro00945 wrote: | Ironic, because the comment you are replying to is | completely wrong. | | Labor laws are stupidly complicated and a single one liner | from an HN comment is almost guaranteed to be wrong in some | way. You shouldn't believe anything you read in an HN | comments thread about them, on either side of the issue | (including this one, because I'm probably wrong in some | fashion too!) | awsthro00945 wrote: | In this particular example, it's not a false equivalence at | all. The NLRB specifically _does not_ give special protection | to union literature. As long as the employer treats all | literature equally (such as soccer literature, harry potter | literature, etc), they are allowed to ban non-work literature | in work areas during work time. Union literature does not get | any special treatment. | | see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules- | unio... | cratermoon wrote: | Yes, they can ban _all_ literature, or they can ban none of | it. They can 't ban some and allow some, which is what | happened here. | awsthro00945 wrote: | How do you know that's what happened here? The OP linked | article does not contain such information. | pavon wrote: | According to the article you posted that only applies when | and where employees are working. Union literature is given | special treatment in that companies must allow it to be | distributed in non-work areas such as the break room, which | is where it was distributed and confiscated in this case. | maxfurman wrote: | Increasingly, strong unions are equally as fictional as Harry | Potter in America. | [deleted] | paxys wrote: | You can't replace union literature with any of those things | because they are not even close to the same thing. | 1-more wrote: | Replace union literature with a thermonuclear bomb set to | explode in 90 seconds. You pinkos won't be singing the same | tune then. | Miner49er wrote: | There's laws like this on both sides of union laws in the US. | Certain things that are protected activities, and then there's | things that unions can't do, too. It's not like this is a one- | sided thing. Unions have protections like this, but also limits | in US law. | chad_strategic wrote: | Yes, I don't like Harry Potter and I shouldn't have to hear | about him if I don't want to. | | All this can take place off site. | slumpt_ wrote: | Fortunately the law disagrees with your regressive, anti- | employee perspective. | chad_strategic wrote: | Are you familiar with at-will employment? | | If I'm the owner of company and employee talks to be about | Harry Potter in the break room. Later that day, or on the | spot, I can terminate that employee, without cause or | reason. | | Sure they the employee can sue me for wrongful termination, | but the laws are stacked against the employee. (I have been | on both side of the argument.) | | Please reference a law to support your claim. | | You might want to study up on your law, history and | economics. | decebalus1 wrote: | I think you either haven't actually read the article, any | of the replies in this thread or you're just a troll. | | We're not here to educate you, just look up the current | US labor laws and see for yourself whether or not your | argument has any standing. | chad_strategic wrote: | >Please reference a law to support your claim. | | ? | decebalus1 wrote: | If I do reference a law to support that claim, do you | promise to stop posting on HN? | chad_strategic wrote: | Having worked extensively with employment law and little | union work I feel comfortable you will never find an | example. | | However there never can be can be a resolution to your | proposal, so with that I will have to pass on your | entertaining offer. | | I will just leave this here for anybody who cares about | employment law. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment | decebalus1 wrote: | From your link: | | > The National Labor Relations Act provides protection to | employees who wish to join or form a union and those who | engage in union activity. The act also protects employees | who engage in a concerted activity. | | That's the law you should be looking for. Check it out. | It has some provisions about distributing union | literature in break rooms and stuff. Pretty interesting. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | If it's unlawful, will Amazon be punished? Doesn't breaking the | law usually mean punishment? | Coriolis3 wrote: | People get punished. Corporations receive (at most) a small | fine that usually amounts to far less than what their crimes | netted them. | arberx wrote: | It's impossible for me to have a positive view of Amazon (the | company) at this point. There's way too much evidence pointing to | the contrary. | paxys wrote: | Is it possible to have a positive view of any large company? | They are all doing a lot of good things and a few bad things. | Beyond that it depends on how good their PR department is. | arberx wrote: | Hmm maybe "positive view" is the wrong approach. I think | "impossible to not have a negative view" is better wording. | | Indiffernce is generally how I feel about a lot of companies. | | My perspective on Amazon is negative. | Apocryphon wrote: | Would like to know if there are any large companies that | actually defy this general rule. Costco is a common counter- | example, but even they're imperfect: | | https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/business/costco-5-dollar- | chic... | pseudalopex wrote: | Few people expect perfection. | newsyyswen wrote: | I wonder when the change happened. It seems like there's a | fairly broad consensus now, but different people seem to cite | different time periods for when things took a bad turn. | | I had consistently great experiences ~3-8 years ago, but I | remember needing to be careful about 3rd party sellers towards | the end of that time period. | | Thing is, I stopped ordering online about a year before the | pandemic started. When I returned to Amazon 18 months ago, it | felt like the balance had shifted towards the majority of | listings being fraud/low quality/unexpectedly comingled/etc. | | Personally, I blame a shift in perspective. It feels like their | retail teams' views on who "The Customer" was shifted from the | person placing the order, to the 3rd-party sellers. | | When do y'all think that happened? 2015? 2017? 2019? | onli wrote: | For me I can restore it in my blog. At the beginning of 2019 | a first article about how Amazon might not be the best option | to buy everything anymore, citing the bad quality of user | reviews, the potential problem with fakes and the subpar | experience with the website (specifically: The search | evidently being skewed towards sponsored and not towards good | offers, and missing filters to find products by their | properties). Then summer 2019 a report on a disastrous | support experience (in a case that included a received | obvious fake) and the decision to not buy there anymore. | | That was very fast, in retrospective. I liked Amazon quite a | bit before that, the early 2019 articles even clearly reads | like that. No criticism before that. Instead a few positive | support experiences. | | But that's just me, and not necessarily a US perspective. The | fake problem for example I thought to be more prominent | outside of Europe. On the other hand, that amazon seemed to | fight against unions had been reported here before, to | boycott the site because of that was a fairly common | position. | | Also, I wonder how it would have been if I had been more | invested into the ecosystem - there is no Kindle in my home, | no Echo, and I started to buy there relatively late. Though a | site of mine used their affiliate marketing program even back | in 2011... | ashtonkem wrote: | It's not just views on Amazon as a company to do business | with. Attitudes around these parts have soured on Amazon as a | company to work for too. | AlexandrB wrote: | I find it weird that this attitude change might be recent. | As early as 2015 people were writing about what a pressure | cooker Amazon's white-collar workplace is[1]. I also had | acquaintances who worked there and reported that it's a | pretty punishing environment as early as 2008. I guess it | takes 10+ years for this kind of perception to permeate? | | [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgbzbx/at-amazon- | employees-t... | ashtonkem wrote: | I've personally only noticed (and thought) of Amazon as a | bad place to work as an engineer in the past 2-3 years, | but perhaps I missed a trend. | gdulli wrote: | In 2007 I was considering a move to the Bay Area and I | focused my job research first on Amazon. You can find | negative anecdotes about any large company. But still, | without even remembering the details, I remember that | research resulting in a strong takeaway that I wanted to have | nothing to do with the company. | | So then it was sometime around the early 2010s that the first | wave of bad press came out about the way they treat workers, | and I remember being unsurprised. | haberman wrote: | > It seems like there's a fairly broad consensus now | | Opinion polling shows Amazon has a 72% approval rating, | higher than almost any other institution in America. | https://reason.com/2021/07/06/poll-people-like-amazon- | more-t... | pvarangot wrote: | The headline is tricky there. It's only higher than almost | any of the institutions that they are asking about in that | poll, which only includes three private companies (Amazon, | Facebook, Twitter) and a bunch of government organizations | or civil movements. I would guess a lot of private | companies and most of big tech rate higher than Amazon, | specially if they are thrown in with a bunch of things like | ANTIFA, BLM and Israel or Palestina when they ask the | question. | | Here's the poll, page 15: | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OgPzcB75uxXiFmTjUUb- | ITIr7BF... | haberman wrote: | > It's only higher than almost any of the institutions | that they are asking about in that poll [...] I would | guess | | This is pure speculation. 72%, at a minimum, undermines | the notion that there is "fairly broad consensus now" | about viewing Amazon unfavorably. The fact that they poll | higher than many government organizations seems | especially relevant on an article about the NRLB. | | People mistake their own feelings (and the feelings of | their social groups) for the consensus view. Polling can | clarify when our perceptions of consensus are incorrect. | | > Here's the poll, page 15 | | It's also screenshotted in the article. | cratermoon wrote: | 72% is a C in most schools. I wonder how they'd do | against Comcast or Bank of America. | [deleted] | vitus wrote: | Amazon's historically had pretty good favorability | ratings, especially compared to the rest of tech. | | Last year, before the pandemic upended everything, it was | at 91% according to the annual Verge Tech survey (no, I | don't think they've posted the 2021 iteration). | | https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech- | survey... | | Axios-Harris (Dec '20 - Feb '21) polled Amazon at #10 | with a composite score of 80%, six ranks above Apple (and | far above others like Facebook and Twitter, which ranked | in the bottom ten slots). But even Twitter's composite | score was 63%, which means people can't hate it _that_ | much. | | https://theharrispoll.com/axios-harrispoll-100/ | cratermoon wrote: | Remember when Consumerist ran their Worst Company in | America series, and it was always Wal*Mart, Comcast, | Verizon, Bank of America, or AT&T/Time-Warner in the | final four? Makes me wonder where Amazon would end up | today if they still ran the poll. | notJim wrote: | I feel that people shouldn't be surprised by this. Amazon | delivers you stuff extremely conveniently and cheaply | enough that you don't really need to think about it. That | is about the extent to which most people are engaging with | them. | handrous wrote: | When'd they become a shady flea market putting laughably | little effort into policing the wares sold thereon, while | still showing "amazon" branding all over the page and | generally not making it clear enough that they weren't taking | direct responsibility for the listing, and then keeping that | up year after year because it made them a _whole fucking | bunch_ of money and no-one made them stop, despite knowing | that lots of their income was a result of fraud, borderline- | scams, and unsafe or unfit-for-use-but-too-cheap-to-bother- | returning products? | | I'm pretty sure that was way before 2015. That's when they | became indefensibly-bad actors, IMO. | vmception wrote: | Amazon can restore good will with me by fixing their shitty | vesting schedule. But it's probably shitty because even | highly compensated engineers figure out that working there is | too shitty to tolerate so they had to lock them in with | backloaded vesting. | rejectedandsad wrote: | If you're so concerned about it you can just buy the stock | with the 2 year signing bonus that makes up for the stock | vesting. | cratermoon wrote: | "Give some of the money we pay you back to the company" | vs. "here's some valuable securities which you can sell | at some point in the near future then they are worth more | than what you'd have paid for them". | jreese wrote: | I hardly think "owning stock" is the goal, rather than | "receiving compensation". Vesting schedules that backload | compensation to discourage quitting early are hostile to | employees, and makes them feel unfairly "locked in" | because they lose a disproportionate amount of their | unvested compensation relative to the percentage of the | vesting period that they have spent working. | | By comparison, Facebook vesting is evenly spread across | four years, with refreshers granted every year, so that | people can expect to receive relatively stable | compensation for as long as they stay at the company. | There's no "bad" time to leave when it comes to your | vesting schedule, so you don't feel "locked in" for | anything beyond the total value that you'll always be | leaving on the table, regardless of when you leave. | Refreshers don't even have a vesting cliff anymore, so | you don't even feel the need to stick around for a | particularly good batch if you don't want to. | alfalfasprout wrote: | Thing is, at this point Amazon has mastered the art of getting | away with employee-hostile practices. | | Take, as a separate example, their PIP culture. The bar to get | into amazon is fairly low (compared to peer companies) and so | they tend to use PIP to maintain a high turnover and filter out | unproductive employees. There's no shortage of engineers | wanting to apply to Amazon (increasingly from overseas) and | this churn seems to be OK because they have very good systems | in place to onboard employees fast. For an engineer early in | their career having AMZN on their resume can be worth the pain. | At least among my peers in senior and staff/principal levels | there's very little desire to jump ship to amazon though. | | Similarly, they can treat warehouse workers like crap because | there are others willing to line up to take their place. | Regardless of the conditions. | | What it boils down to is that many of amazon's employees simply | don't have a better choice. And I'm not sure what can really | help with that. | omegaworks wrote: | >I'm not sure what can really help with that. | | A basic social safety net. | cratermoon wrote: | I spent a year working at a very large company that's well | known in my part of the country, not because I wanted to work | there, but because it was nice to have on my resume. But at | least their compensation wasn't back-loaded. | chad_strategic wrote: | Your comment is a broad generalization, yet provides no | examples of evidence. | chad_strategic wrote: | Seriously? I get down-voted for calling someone out. Let me | change the wording so we can see the hypocrisy. | | "It's impossible for me to have a positive view of White | People (the company) at this point. There's way too much | evidence pointing to the contrary." | arberx wrote: | A company is completely different from a group or race of | individuals. | | A company is a single entity (individual). | InitialLastName wrote: | Not just that, but (slave labor aside) a company and its | employees are voluntarily associated. Voluntary | associations are the kind of thing we (as a society) are | usually fine with judging people based on (as opposed to | features that are relatively immutable like race). | chad_strategic wrote: | If you see slave labor, then you have an obligation to | report it to your local authorities, but we all know your | claim is baseless. | | The argument is a nice collection of words that | unfortunately might buy you some "street cred" or should | I say give a "woke" status with your liberal college | associates. This type of carefully constructed dog | whistle of a comment will "level up" your points here on | this echo chamber that has become Hacker news. What is | amusing is when placing those words in a sentence they | fail to make a valid argument. The sheer fact you used | the word "immutable" clearly shows the limitation of your | vocabulary. "Immutable" in a conversation about race? | Somebody learned a new vocabulary word and took a break | from their (python) code and posted a comment on Hacker | News. | | Now that I have successfully wasted my time getting drawn | into a senseless debate, admittedly of my own creation. I | should probably check on my AWS servers and maybe later | today I will order something on Amazon, well because it | allows me to spend more time with my family instead of | tracking down some sprinkler parts at 5 different Home | Depot burning up a bunch of fossil fuels. But as will | nobody reading this comment, thread or Vice article, I | won't be canceling my AWS account or prime account | because of the terrible injustices of one NLBR violation | that a security officer committed at an Amazon warehouse. | | Wasn't it Kennedy, who said: "Give Me Convenience or Give | Me Death". | InitialLastName wrote: | The slave labor reference was an attempt to duck the | troll who (absent it) would say "Slavery isn't a | voluntary association with a company and X, Y, and Z are | pretty much slavery so there". | | If you had bothered to engage with my actual point (that | our social norms make it more acceptable to judge people | on their voluntary associations and actions than on their | involuntary features) you might be less frustrated. | chad_strategic wrote: | There might be section missing. | | Regardless, I stand by what I said. | | "I recommend you get back to Object Oriented Immutable | code before your economic provider involuntary associates | your comments on this website via the intersectionality | and "color" privilege of bias of your comments and | declares you are wasting the time of economic | organization!" | | In plain English, get back to writing code, brogrammer. | tablespoon wrote: | > Regardless, I stand by what I said. | | > "I recommend you get back to Object Oriented Immutable | code before your economic provider involuntary associates | your comments on this website via the intersectionality | and "color" privilege of bias of your comments and | declares you are wasting the time of economic | organization!" | | > In plain English, get back to writing code, brogrammer. | | For some reason I don't think he should be the one | worrying about being associated with his online comments. | chad_strategic wrote: | If you see slave labor, then you have an obligation to | report it your local authorities. | | update: see above | lmilcin wrote: | Can you point to the law or are you making the law as you | go? | | I remind you, your parent comment says "Your comment is a | broad generalization, yet provides no examples of | evidence." | | So if you point out people not putting evidence, at least | demand the same standard for your own posts. | lovich wrote: | The slave labor I am aware of currently is being used by | the authorities | jdavis703 wrote: | In many US localities it's illegal to discriminate | against military veterans. Increasingly we're seeing | police being added to lists of "protected classes" too. | This attitude is (unfortunately) changing in society. | dragonwriter wrote: | > In many US localities it's illegal to discriminate | against military veterans | | Military veterans are _federally_ protected against | negative discrimination, and in most public employment at | all levels, and many private employment contexts, are | also beneficiaries of explicit positive discrimination. | amyjess wrote: | > In many US localities it's illegal to discriminate | against military veterans. | | We also had a draft for a very long time, and I'm sure | that when these laws were put into place, there were a | large portion of draftees who were at risk for being | discriminated against for something they were forced by | the government to do. | lmilcin wrote: | You are being downvoted for obvious and blatant disregard | of frequent and abundant "examples of evidence" already | available on HN. | | There is so many submissions on HN regarding Amazon that I | pretty much expect it to get its own dedicated section | pretty soon. | chad_strategic wrote: | That's not my interpretation of the article. | | One security officer took some confiscated "material". | | One incident. | lmilcin wrote: | The article described one incident, true. | | But the comment was aimed at the fact there are other | incidents regularly posted on HN. | | If you can't use Google, try to learn it. It is really | fun and useful. Certainly something I would do if I were | you, before I posted any more on the topic. | chad_strategic wrote: | I just googled amazon... This is what I found. | | 1. AWS is an incredible software/suite /cloud service | that I use and millions of others use on regular basis. | 2. Amazon prime allows me to purchase products at my | convenience. 3. Amazon Fresh allows me to grocery shop | with out having to leave the house, as grocery shopping | can be time-consuming. 4. Amazon Prime Video isn't too | great, but it provides healthy competition to NBC, CBS, | NetFlix, etc... 5. If it wasn't for Amazon, Walmart would | have become the only and number 1 relatier in America in | the early 2000's. 6. We still have high unemployment in | America and not enough workers. I didn't like my job a | few years ago, so I quit and these people can to. | | But just a warning Mr. Amazon hater. Sounds like you got | an axe to grind, but hey that's cool. Let me give you a | tip, it's actually a stock tip. Get on the phone and call | your financial advisor and tell him that you want to | return all the profits you have made off of AMZN, because | you feel bad the NLBR violation. | | What is that? You don't have own AMZN stock? Do you own | an index stock? SPY, QQQ? Yeap you profited. Try to | explain to your financial advisor how to give those | profits back. | | Look at your hands... you are part of the problem. So you | might want to tone down your liberal hype, well cause you | are just making your argument look weak. | whydoibother wrote: | Having a normal one today I see. | | Do you work for Amazon PR? Or just an angry VP yelling at | people in comments? Or some poor soul that has loyalty to | a global corporation that would grind you to paste if it | turned a profit? | cratermoon wrote: | Are you one of those "Amazon FC Ambassadors" we heard | about? https://gizmodo.com/whats-an-amazon-fc-ambassador- | and-are-th... | tablespoon wrote: | > What is that? You don't have own AMZN stock? Do you own | an index stock? SPY, QQQ? Yeap you profited. Try to | explain to your financial advisor how to give those | profits back. | | > Look at your hands... you are part of the problem. So | you might want to tone down your liberal hype, well cause | you are just making your argument look weak. | | Ah, talk about looking weak. It's the old "you can't | complain about this bad thing unless you live in a shack | in the woods totally disconnected from modern society" | argument. | lmilcin wrote: | This just proves my point. | | PLONK | davidcbc wrote: | The link they are commenting on is part of the evidence, | which I assume is why they commented on it | ahoy wrote: | This is the comments section on that very evidence. | cratermoon wrote: | Anyone paying attention expected and suspected Amazon to play | shady games. Good to see the results. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-03 23:00 UTC)