from Hacker News

Amazon's anti-union site for its Alabama warehouse

by woodgrainz on 2/3/21, 4:38 AM with 194 comments

• by steve_adams_86 on 2/3/21, 6:46 AM

  That very first * is the first major point for unions.

  Many unions protect part time workers, or protect workers from being excluded from a fair share of benefits based on their inputs.

  The reason for this is that there’s no incentive to push hours down until no one gets benefits. Which is not uncommon, unfortunately. Many companies tout incredible benefits with a significant portion of their workforce having no entitlement to it because of arbitrary suppression of their shifts.

  I don’t believe unions are universally perfect. When they’re well run and union members participate and have a voice, they can be quite amazing. My partner’s union makes my cosy software job seem like it’s missing something. Sure she pays huge dues, but she’s also given protections and benefits I couldn’t even dream of.

  I net about 4x as much as her on paper, but if you figured in the cumulative value of her union agreement, it would be much more than her dues. Collective bargaining is no joke. She has life insurance that would cost me an arm and a leg, a great pension plan, incredible leave options, very generous extended health/vision/dental benefits... It’s a long list.

  I could say my money is better but it’s nowhere near as secure and dependable, and although it looks so much better paper, I’d be spending a huge amount to get the same benefits privately.

  I think she gets something like 6 weeks of leave per year, too. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid, period.

• by chmod775 on 2/3/21, 5:57 AM

  Yuck. After that particular piece of slimy corporate propaganda I suddenly feel the urge to join a union. And I don't even work for Amazon.

  I guess when you can't make a proper case, just use 50pt fonts and stock-art-esque images of people giving thumbs up. That'll convince 'em!

• by lefrenchy on 2/3/21, 7:15 AM

  > Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? DO IT without dues!

  Man, that is really grim. Basically admitting that $500 will be make or break for many of these employees, while the company itself is hitting record numbers.

• by lxe on 2/3/21, 6:04 AM

  > We've got you covered *asterisk

  It's almost like a parody of itself

• by ineedasername on 2/3/21, 6:42 AM

  I got a weird vibe of WW II-era propaganda from it, the cute music bopping dog... like a modern version of something out of a newsreel piece, or a parody of it from a Fallout videogame.

  It's so blatant & over the top that I'd almost believe the union organizers set it up to make Amazon look bad.

  And it's telling that they focus pretty exclusively on the $500 in dues: They pay their employees little enough that they know ~$10/week might be a significant decision making factor here.

• by lend000 on 2/3/21, 6:44 AM

  I wonder how many people commenting have actually been part of a union. I have. My take is that if it's voluntary: great. If the union has negotiated that a company cannot hire you without being a part of the union: not great. Perhaps that should even be illegal. Forcing people making minimum wage to pay union dues is as far from helping people at the bottom as you can get. Unions are typically about benefitting people with TENURE. It's one of the reasons you end up with lots of tenured teachers with great pay who are impossible to fire, while the best young teachers with relatively terrible terms defect to private or charter schools, burn out, or become cynics and wait their turn to do nothing once they have tenure.

• by CobrastanJorji on 2/3/21, 6:16 AM

  Wow. Just...wow.

  Maybe the line with the worst rhetorical trick is this bullshit in the "joining a union" FAQ: "Q: Will a union provide better wages and benefits? A: A union cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. With union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today."

  I love that because it works exactly as well when you just negate the question:

  "Q: Will NOT having a union provide better wages and benefits? A: Without a union, Amazon cannot guarantee better wages and benefits. Without union negotiations, you could end up with more, the same.... or less than what you make today."

• by JMTQp8lwXL on 2/3/21, 6:28 AM

  What I don't understand is why anybody would believe opinion pieces put out by their employer regarding if a union is right for you or not. Your interests are clearly not aligned. Is there some segment of workers who can't appreciate that fact? Whenever anybody gives you an opinion on anything, it will be tainted with their interests. Is pondering a topic from another party's perspective an exceptional critical thinking skill of sorts? I ask because it seems this sort of advertising is often effective.

• by Lammy on 2/3/21, 6:05 AM

  I like how the main objection would be instantly nullified if Amazon paid their workers more. Do you think a union would be able to negotiate for more than $500 of extra compensation?

• by hansvm on 2/3/21, 6:31 AM

  Genuine question:

  From Amazon's perspective unions are strictly a net-loss. Even if the unions offered the employees zero advantages, the same paychecks from Amazon would have less impact on workers because of dues/meetings, so you'd expect moderately higher attrition and other negative effects.

  On the flip side though, is it actually clear that an Amazon union _would_ benefit workers once accounting for the overhead? Is that even the goal, or are prospective Amazon unions just trying to improve safety levels to something on par with other warehouses? Are there other factors?

• by captainzidgel on 2/3/21, 6:39 AM

  > IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each other. So be a DOER, stay friendly and get things done versus paying dues

  What is this line even supposed to mean? Probably the most incomprehensible union busting talking point I've ever heard.

• by Bakary on 2/3/21, 6:13 AM

  This is another reminder that we have some of the negative aspects of a cyberpunk future without the cool empowering hacking parts.

  I wonder about the sort of person who would design such a website. Surely you'd have to be dead inside to create such an abomination, even if it's just a job? I am not trying to be hyperbolic here.

• by Simulacra on 2/3/21, 6:20 AM

  Amazon warehouses are one of the few reasons, I think we can all agree, that a union has a place. There is the argument to be made that if someone doesn't like the job, go elsewhere, it's the free market. True, but I see a lot of these fulfillment centers in small towns. They become a major employer, sometimes eclipsing even the local Walmart. It's a place where jobs are hard to come by, so maybe Amazon offers something the desperate, the poor, and the struggling something they can't get elsewhere. I don't have an answer for it, but shifting a little power away from the corporate monolith and to the citizens of the community it inhabits, sounds like a good idea.

• by ornornor on 2/3/21, 9:35 AM

  > you will have to PAY from your PAYCHECK

  that’s insulting, why CAPITALIZE words in such SHORT sentences? Do they really THINK their employees are SO dumb that they can’t even read a FULL sentence?

• by tyingq on 2/3/21, 6:25 AM

  "<!-- This is Squarespace. --><!-- cranberry-groundhog-8agy -->"

  I noticed on other Squarespace sites that second comment is usually just the domain minus the TLD. I wonder if "cranberry groundhog" means anything in particular.

  Edit: Guess it's autogenerated? https://cranberry-groundhog-8agy.squarespace.com/

• by jrockway on 2/3/21, 6:25 AM

  I really like it when lawyers have to sign off on your propaganda and you end up with an asterisk pointing to fine print less than two sentences in.

• by cosmotic on 2/3/21, 7:18 AM

  Side stepping all the union talk, this site is ugly and inaccessible. The contrast ratios are awful; white text sitting on top of full screen, lightly colored videos? This was made in haste by some amateurs. Or maybe it's trying to be trendy? It's tragic either way. Doubly so if you actually read the content.

• by wojciii on 2/3/21, 6:30 AM

  Amazon recently opened up in Sweden.

  According to this (Danish)

  https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/svenske-amazon-arbejdere-faar...

  the workers are in an union.

• by MattGaiser on 2/3/21, 6:31 AM

  This seems like the most mundane anti union campaign. Other times there are veiled threats about "competitiveness" and work allocation and such.

  Amazon: "Don't pay $500 in dues"

  Their main argument is that it is not worth the money.

• by WrtCdEvrydy on 2/3/21, 5:56 AM

  I love the *Applies to full time employees...

  The most basic of caste systems.

• by cudgy on 2/3/21, 1:40 PM

  Doesn’t the existence of the website validate that Amazon considers the union to be favorable for workers and, therefore, unfavorable to them? Otherwise, why would Amazon care enough to create it? I doubt it was truly due to Amazon’s concern for the workers alone.

• by jerry1979 on 2/3/21, 6:40 AM

  I love reading through things like this. Interesting and inconsistent use of the oxford comma.

• by staz on 2/3/21, 8:06 AM

  everybody seems to be talking about wages negotiation but let's remember that some Amazon employees had to pee in bottles. It's easier to collectively bargain for toilets to be better located (though it's sad that you have to)

• by Sebguer on 2/3/21, 6:18 AM

  Why is blatant union suppression like this even allowed?

• by nickkell on 2/3/21, 8:13 AM

  How embarrassing!

  What would you do if you were asked to make this site?

• by aphextron on 2/3/21, 6:43 AM

  Solidarity forever.