Abhorrent Amazon - Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Video leaks

[ivan134]

44 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It goes into politics so I won't go into detail but suffice to say that no single commercial entity is powerful enough to ignore the State and no State is powerful enough to ignore all of their people.

A state can't just make random demands. Anything you want a corporation to do, you have to make into law.

[Tristerin]

I used to be anti-union, did some union busting at my current employer years ago.  Was sent to break down the negotiations at another site that was union (mine was not) - we succeeded, and they ended up signing the same contract that had been signed the previous 5 years.  They got nothing additional. 

 

Couple years later after being with the company longer I now know why there is a Union there, and shame on me for being such a corporate slave.  Their contract comes up next year and I have already been asked to take my team there and do it again - I declined.

 

Workers rights over greed all day long now. 

[DeScruff]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

if more people have more money won't the prices simply increase (and maybe create the effect of inflation)?

... Thats not how inflation works.
And while the prices might increase because margins would be tighter, the price increase would be fairly minimal compared to the employees wage.
If I recall a study showed that a Big Mac at Mcdonalds would go up 17c to increase all employees wages to $15. ( https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4.3-percent.html )

Remember at one point of American history wages were high enough to make a comfortable living in these 'blue collar' warehouse jobs. But companies keep trying pinch every penny, and have cut right to the bone every bit of cost, so they can have the 'lowest price', and its fairly obvious that workers have payed for it.

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

I believe some unionization was abused, but that doesn't mean all unionization is a bad idea. Amazon is a prime example of why Unionization should exist.

in principle i dislike unions, most union bosses are assholes that abuse their status and create more problems that the ones they want to solve. Still having a slave work force is a good way to look for a disaster, you can only abuse people so much.

When they started it wasn't because England was communist, it was because they feared what the abuses may lead to a revolt.

[SupremeGOAT]

it seems amazon would rather go fully automated ...hmm i don't like where this is going... Amazon go will be first...

[maartendc]

4 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

Not my problem as I don´t work there. Amazon is still one of the best companies for me as a consumer.

Well, ever heard of the phrase: "vote with your wallet"?

 

If you don't agree with how they treat workers, you shouldn't shop there.

 

It seems most people however, yourself included, don't give a damn how the companies they shop at treat their employees though. As evidenced by Amazon or Walmart's success. Sad.

 

Personally, I try to shop anywhere BUT Amazon. Usually other online retailers have the same items for the same price anyway, with free shipping that I don't need to pay $13 a month for (Amazon free shipping is horribly slow). You can get electronics at Newegg or B&H, groceries at a grocery store, Video Streaming at Netflix or Hulu, etc. I personally can do without shopping at Amazon much, unless they are the only ones with an item I really need for some reason.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

A state can't just make random demands. Anything you want a corporation to do, you have to make into law.

That was my logic: infamy and high profile cases can help push for legislative reform and you'll be hard pressed to find a higher profile case than one of the top retailers in the world.

 

Also this assumes that Amazon is doing everything lawfully which I seriously doubt: like all companies their size they probably want to hide behind a "we didn't know and have corrected the problem" while just training more middle managers to break the fucking law again because they too are disposable.

[dtaflorida]

I wonder how exactly do they threaten the employees? Maybe fabricate some fake information/pamphlets on automation equipment and keep it in the break room. Have cool pics of machines doing the employees jobs. Would do wonders for keeping employees from asking for wage increases. Have the price of the equipment be just about even with their current annual earnings or so. 

 

Some jobs you can threaten by talking about taking 'offshore'... others you just automate.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, dtaflorida said:

I wonder how exactly do they threaten the employees? Maybe fabricate some fake information/pamphlets on automation equipment and keep it in the break room. Have cool pics of machines doing the employees jobs. Would do wonders for keeping employees from asking for wage increases. Have the price of the equipment be just about even with their current annual earnings or so. 

 

Some jobs you can threaten by talking about taking 'offshore'... others you just automate.

They quietly trump up perfomance issues until they have enough "grounds" to fire you or hold the charges over your head to get you to toe their line. I've had it happen and also saw many people lose their jobs, lose out on promotions or bonuses, or had working conditions made so miserable, they gave up and quit.

 

Unions are supposed to protect works from this but some unions are useless, some are crooked, some do what they are supposed to do, and others get greedy and demand too much.

[suicidalfranco]

Unions are just legalize mafia anyway, at least as far as Italy is concerned 

[Evanair]

For those who don't believe the company they work for does the same stuff, you've got your head in the sand. At least at large companies.  How many of you have ever read your employment contract?

 

Does it have an arbitration clause? Good luck going to court to sue then. Or even reporting to state labor boards, as you waved that right.

 

Does it have a non-compete clause? Cause most do. Means anything and everything your company does (including online) counts as competition. If you work retail, most buesinness see that as everything. So you can only have one job, by contract. They won't inforce this until it becomes an issue, like adjusting schedules or it a shopper complains about you from your other job.

 

Does it have an anti-union statement? You bet it does.

 

Even California, who has massive labor laws, is an at will employment state. And you wave all your rights when you sign that paper. They informed you of everything and by taking the job you agreed to then all.

 

Unions are becoming illegal, not on a criminal level but on a civil contact level.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

Not my problem as I don´t work there. Amazon is still one of the best companies for me as a consumer.

It’s almost as if it’s a choice whether to apply to work at Amazon. I’d do it for $15/hr, that’s not bad at all.

 

people who work there have two choices: Harden up or leave.

[Trik'Stari]

As much as I consider myself conservative leaning, I cannot help but admit that unions are a necessary evil.

 

Corporations are administrated people who pay themselves the most, despite them doing the least amount of actual labor. Their jobs are organizational for the most part and largely not that difficult for anyone who's been on the floor for a few years.

 

The bigger problem is shareholders to be honest. As much as I hate "socialism", it's well past time that society admit that the employees are entitled to some of the profit margin of the company, on top of the wages they are paid for daily work. Without those employees you have no company, you have no business, and thus no money coming in through the door (flaw here is automation).

 

Society needs to start treating shareholders and "executives" like they treat everyone else. Someone will do the same job for less. I feel this would be best accomplished through regulations requiring mandatory profit sharing, not further taxation. Give the money directly to the people who earn it. Government will just waste it idioticly or, like executives, give it to themselves quietly when no one is paying attention.

 

I support a free market, I support giving more money directly to employees, but I do not in any way support a hostile attitude towards employees, nor do I support more money given to governments who are so clearly incompetent or corrupt that it's honestly a mystery to me how some of us in the west aren't actively rebelling against our governments.

[LinusTech]

It’s interesting to me to read this. I have done some research into Canada’s laws regarding labour unions, and it appears as though I am not allowed to provide any opposition to the discussion or forming a labour union and must “in good faith” negotiate with the labour union if it were to be formed.

 

With that said, I’ve always felt the best way to prevent a labour union from popping up is to maintain employee happiness anyway. I learned a lot from the Costco model while my wife worked as a manager there. 

 

As for Trik’Stari’s post, there are definitely some problems you’ve identified, but short of a literal Robin Hood like... stealing rich peoples cars and distributing them in poor neighbourhoods, what is the solution here?

 

The only way to have a “distribution of the wealth” program is to have people run it - people who will ultimately corrupt the system and end up wasting that wealth - on themselves or something else... Sounds like a government.

 

As a business owner I would object to a program like this for fairly obvious reason. It’s just taxes. I already pay taxes. Lots of taxes. 

 

So maybe we already tried this... any new ideas?

 

edit: The general conservative hatred of taxes - socialism, ewwwwww -  is quite baffling to me... All-told, from LMG I pay about 50% on gross profits in taxes by the time I spend a dollar.. and I can understand why the elites might not like that.. I just can’t figure out how they managed to convince the working class it’s a bad thing.. Where do they imagine roads and schools come from? Yes, there’s waste, but deregulation clearly isn’t the solution so...

 

I dunno. Some day I might enter politics. A lot of this shit is pretty self-explanatory to me...

 

 

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

7 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

It’s interesting to me to read this. I have done some research into Canada’s laws regarding labour unions, and it appears as though I am not allowed to provide any opposition to the discussion or forming a labour union and must “in good faith” negotiate with the labour union if it were to be formed.

 

With that said, I’ve always felt the best way to prevent a labour union from popping up is to maintain employee happiness anyway. I learned a lot from the Costco model while my wife worked as a manager there. 

 

As for Trik’Stari’s post, there are definitely some problems you’ve identified, but short of a literal Robin Hood like... stealing rich peoples cars and distributing them in poor neighbourhoods, what is the solution here?

 

The only way to have a “distribution of the wealth” program is to have people run it - people who will ultimately corrupt the system and end up wasting that wealth - on themselves or something else...

 

As a business owner I would object to a program like this for fairly obvious reason. It’s taxes. I already pay taxes. Lots of taxes. 

 

So maybe we already tried this... any new ideas?

 

 

 

 

you heard it here first. Linus, hard right wing conservative extremest
lol

[LinusTech]

2 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

you heard it here first. Linus, hard right wing conservative extremest
lol

I used to think I was left wing, but they’re bit whacko these days. 

 

If I had to apply a label, I guess I’m a hard centrist

[Trik'Stari]

12 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

It’s interesting to me to read this. I have done some research into Canada’s laws regarding labour unions, and it appears as though I am not allowed to provide any opposition to the discussion or forming a labour union and must “in good faith” negotiate with the labour union if it were to be formed.

 

With that said, I’ve always felt the best way to prevent a labour union from popping up is to maintain employee happiness anyway. I learned a lot from the Costco model while my wife worked as a manager there. 

 

As for Trik’Stari’s post, there are definitely some problems you’ve identified, but short of a literal Robin Hood like... stealing rich peoples cars and distributing them in poor neighbourhoods, what is the solution here?

 

The only way to have a “distribution of the wealth” program is to have people run it - people who will ultimately corrupt the system and end up wasting that wealth - on themselves or something else...

 

As a business owner I would object to a program like this for fairly obvious reason. It’s taxes. I already pay taxes. Lots of taxes. 

 

So maybe we already tried this... any new ideas?

 

 

 

 

It makes me happy to see someone in your position who realizes the best way to be a successful business is to treat your employees well.

 

I'm not advocating a program to do this, I'm advocating government regulations that require businesses do this themselves. They'd have to turn around and deliver part of their profit margin to their employees directly as a "bonus". No government hands or third party taking the money then delivering it to people. How much would be open for debate. Similar to how in the US, my employer takes my taxes out of my paycheck on my behalf, based on a tax form I filled out when I was hired (and can alter at will). I don't know if companies do this out of good will, or if it's legally required that they do so. I am aware that in some nations (the UK I think) that companies do not do this, and the individual employees has to take money out of each paycheck themselves, to be set aside for taxes.

 

I would say the largest amount would be 50% of the profit margin, specifically by percentage, specifically of the profit margin. Shareholders are of course entitled to the profits of a company they invest in, but so too are the employees. This share of profits to be given back to the employees would be divided evenly among the employees. This number of 50% would only apply to the largest corporations of course. I think a bracketed system that takes the size of the business into account would function the best.

 

Maybe, if this kind of program was successful, taxes could actually be reduced for corporations as a whole, as they're already "giving back" to the people they employ, who in turn pay taxes themselves. Sometimes, as you referenced a while back in my news article about the "Tax Rebellion in The UK", individual persons can pay more in taxes, as a business, than multi-billion dollar corporations.

 

Like I said, my main ambition is to argue that people be paid more for their labor. In my general experience those at the top of a company do the least actual work and know the least about what their employees actually do. I'm not saying that's representative of all corporations, but it's been true of most of the jobs I've ever had. My current bosses bosses boss, can leave to vacation in the Caribbean for a month straight and the company actually runs smoother for that time.

 

I like to think that requiring companies to share their profit margin with their employees would motivate the employees, as the harder and better they work, the more the company makes, and the more they make.

[Yoinkerman]

Just now, LinusTech said:

I used to think I was left wing, but they’re bit whacko these days. 

 

If I had to apply a label, I guess I’m a hard centrist

Psh for Canada you're pretty center, for America you're bleeding heart commie pinko liberal sjw

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

the best way to be a successful business is to treat your employees well.

Good thing Dmitri from HardwareCanucks doesn't work for him, otherwise he'd never get water

/s

 

On topic:

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I like to think that requiring companies to share their profit margin with their employees would motivate the employees, as the harder and better they work, the more the company makes, and the more they make.

Some companies give bonuses to their employees if they're really impressed with something that doesn't merit a full raise.

 

As far as harder and better workers getting paid more, isn't that just like a normal raise? How would this work compared to what we have now?

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Good thing Dmitri from HardwareCanucks doesn't work for him, otherwise he'd never get water

/s

 

On topic:

Some companies give bonuses to their employees if they're really impressed with something that doesn't merit a full raise.

 

As far as harder and better workers getting paid more, isn't that just like a normal raise? How would this work compared to what we have now?

Yeah. That's how it supposedly works.

 

In my experience the more responsibility you take on, the more work they expect. With very little in the way of "thanks".

 

I realize my experience is not in any way an accurate representation of the whole of society, but a hell of a lot of people seem to agree. And my fear is they will go the other way than me, and want the government to take the money and dole it out.

 

Which will be catastrophic at worst, barely acceptable at best.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah. That's how it supposedly works.

 

In my experience the more responsibility you take on, the more work they expect. With very little in the way of "thanks".

Workers that are higher up and workers that are more valuable to a company will usually get paid more.

 

Usually more responsibility means more work, but as long as you're still proficient one would theoretically get paid more.

 

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I realize my experience is not in any way an accurate representation of the whole of society, but a hell of a lot of people seem to agree. And my fear is they will go the other way than me, and want the government to take the money and dole it out.

Not to politicize anything, but that's kind of how socialism works. Tax the richer people more, and give that money to the poor people.

 

I'm personally against socialism, but I don't agree with you fully.

 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Workers that are higher up and workers that are more valuable to a company will usually get paid more.

 

Usually more responsibility means more work, but as long as you're still proficient one would theoretically get paid more.

 

Not to politicize anything, but that's kind of how socialism works. Tax the richer people more, and give that money to the poor people.

 

I'm personally against socialism, but I don't agree with you fully.

 

I am as well, which is why I am advocating for a middle ground solution where the corporations are required to pay more directly to the employees.

 

Which I feel is better than having the government take it (and give maybe 10% back at best) or doing nothing at all.

 

And in my experience, companies tend to expect you to just be happy to have been hired, while maintaining a rather hostile attitude towards the employees. Assuming we will steal anything not nailed down, assuming that we're always doing as little as possible, etc.

[LinusTech]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I am as well, which is why I am advocating for a middle ground solution where the corporations are required to pay more directly to the employees.

 

Which I feel is better than having the government take it (and give maybe 10% back at best) or doing nothing at all.

 

And in my experience, companies tend to expect you to just be happy to have been hired, while maintaining a rather hostile attitude towards the employees. Assuming we will steal anything not nailed down, assuming that we're always doing as little as possible, etc.

The problem is that if a system like this were implemented it would basically destroy the freedoms of the employer. 

 

If someone’s job performance doesn’t keep up with their salary, why should I give them a bonus? 

 

As a self-employed individual I have very little sympathy for people who hold the entitled attitude that employers should be honoured that they are willing to work there. 

 

I have a personal policy that goes a little something like this: “I will never convince someone to work at Linus Media Group. Think you’re too good? Don’t like it? Get the fuck out.”

 

So the street definitely runs both ways here. 

[Guest]

 

Quote

I have a personal policy that goes a little something like this: “I will never convince someone to work at Linus Media Group. Think you’re too good? Don’t like it? Get the fuck out.”

 

So the street definitely runs both ways here. 

The day linus said “fuck.” 

 

Edut:

i respect your philosophy. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

35 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Some day I might enter politics