Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Workers in big evil corporation that the media says is bad to employees votes to unionize. Wait, Sorry, That's rejects unionization by 21:6 and say they like their boss   (bloomberg.com) divider line 131
    More: Interesting, International Association of Machinists, evil corporation, new economy, Amazon, workers  
•       •       •

4365 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Jan 2014 at 12:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-19 09:07:46 AM  
Not to downplay this in any way.  But in my opinion, if there are less than 50 employees that would be affected by the union, it shouldn't even be eligible to be brought up for a vote.
 
2014-01-19 09:45:03 AM  
WHAT
 
2014-01-19 10:05:05 AM  
Excellent work, Bloomberg. One company's employees didn't want to unionize, that means all unions are bad.

Genius.
 
2014-01-19 10:30:40 AM  
At least they got a opportunity to choose.
 
2014-01-19 11:16:28 AM  
Unions have a gigantic PR image to overcome. The fact that so many of the posters to the article pointed out mafia connections, bad worker behavior, leadership issues and cause of Americas downfall.

The fact that Amazon can hold anti-union meetings during working hours, passive aggressively threatening jobs and salary, may have had something to do with it.

Or perhaps Amazon employees have had no problems with there working conditions.
 
2014-01-19 11:18:57 AM  
And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.
 
2014-01-19 11:26:31 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: The fact that Amazon can hold anti-union meetings during working hours, passive aggressively threatening jobs and salary, may have had something to do with it.


Now that I don't work for them, Rural/Metro was horrible about doing that, even to the point where they would openly fire anyone who would talk about bringing a union into a local operation.
 
2014-01-19 11:30:57 AM  
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as  temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-Steinbeck
 
2014-01-19 11:42:04 AM  
Amazon: "If you even breathe about trying to unionize, we will be forced to cut down on labor, and not only you machinists, but hundreds more will lose their jobs.  Just take the word out of your f*cking vocabulary, right the f*ck now."

Subby:  "See?  They love their boss and hate unions!"
 
2014-01-19 11:56:21 AM  
Pretty simple.  If you have good policies and take care of your employees, they won't think about unionizing.
 
2014-01-19 12:26:48 PM  
"...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?
 
2014-01-19 01:02:48 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Or perhaps Amazon employees have had no problems with there working conditions.


Amazon actually does pair fair wages. Unusual in the industry.
 
2014-01-19 01:08:45 PM  
You sure this isn't a result of some form of Stockholm Syndrome?
 
2014-01-19 01:09:13 PM  
Meh, just throw them an ESOP and call it a day.

Who would they organize against then, themselves?
 
2014-01-19 01:10:08 PM  

slayer199: Pretty simple.  If you have good policies and take care of your employees, they won't think about unionizing.


THIS. Treat your employees well and they won't want to unionize.
 
2014-01-19 01:13:48 PM  
I have yet to see any concerned Fark lefty vow to boycott Amazon the way they do Walmart. Funny how that works.

/hypocrites.
 
2014-01-19 01:15:56 PM  

Nemo's Brother: I have yet to see any concerned Fark lefty vow to boycott Amazon the way they do Walmart. Funny how that works.

/hypocrites.


Damned Fak lefties probably don't want to boycott Microsoft, Oracle nor any other companies that treat their employees well.
 
2014-01-19 01:18:40 PM  
Ahh, Megan McArdle.  A hack that couldn't cut it in business after going to the best school around, so writes about Reagan economic dogma instead after jumping on the conservative talking head money machine.

If she has an opinion, you can best be sure it's wrong and ginned up to cause the most pageclicks.
 
2014-01-19 01:19:24 PM  
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich!
Fry: True, but someday I might be rich. And then people like me better watch their step.
 
2014-01-19 01:19:35 PM  

rjakobi: You sure this isn't a result of some form of Stockholm Syndrome?


Somebody's deliveries just got rerouted to Are-Farking-Kansas... ;^)
 
2014-01-19 01:35:04 PM  

Phil McKraken: Nemo's Brother: I have yet to see any concerned Fark lefty vow to boycott Amazon the way they do Walmart. Funny how that works.

/hypocrites.

Damned Fak lefties probably don't want to boycott Microsoft, Oracle nor any other companies that treat their employees well.


The warehouse workers get treated worse than Walmart associates, just fyi.
 
2014-01-19 01:36:02 PM  

slayer199: Pretty simple.  If you have good policies and take care of your employees, they won't think about unionizing.


I used to think that. Until I worked for a company that treated the workforce quite well because of a unionized competitor down the road. Apparently that wasn't enough for some people so they started telling stories of unionized heaven and got most of the uneducated workers to vote in. Shiat went downhill quickly after that. Ended up taking home less and lost alot of other pluses along with it.
 
2014-01-19 01:41:20 PM  

thamike: Amazon: "If you even breathe about trying to unionize, we will be forced to cut down on labor, and not only you machinists, but hundreds more will lose their jobs.  Just take the word out of your f*cking vocabulary, right the f*ck now."

Subby:  "See?  They love their boss and hate unions!"


Considering word would leak out and Amazon would get the living shiat sued out of them if that happened, I doubt it. If people like their job situation, why would they unionize? All it would do is decrease your take home pay and add complexity.
 
2014-01-19 01:43:35 PM  

simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?


I think the problem comes when the union keeps promising raises and guaranteed jobs even when it's not warranted. No worker is gonna turn down a fat raise or idiot-proof job security. Pretty soon we have overpriced crappy cars, teachers that can't be fired, etc. Unions start out doing good things, but then they get greedy.
 
2014-01-19 01:47:38 PM  

MBrady: SilentStrider: And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.

then don't work for a company that sucks


Because everyone has a choice about where they can work. People can totally afford to turn down every job offer until they get the right one. Right?
 
2014-01-19 01:55:29 PM  

thamike: Amazon: "If you even breathe about trying to unionize, we will be forced to cut down on labor, and not only you machinists, but hundreds more will lose their jobs.  Just take the word out of your f*cking vocabulary, right the f*ck now."

Subby:  "See?  They love their boss and hate unions!"


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-19 01:55:37 PM  
So Walmart has nothing to worry about!

Right?
 
2014-01-19 01:56:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: SilentStrider: And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.

then don't work for a company that sucks

Because everyone has a choice about where they can work. People can totally afford to turn down every job offer until they get the right one. Right?


They volunteered for it. They knew what they were getting into.

/heads off to wash hands
 
2014-01-19 01:58:46 PM  

MBrady: antidisestablishmentarianism: slayer199: Pretty simple.  If you have good policies and take care of your employees, they won't think about unionizing.

THIS. Treat your employees well and they won't want to unionize.

I work for a company that has a division in CA and NJ (as well as a few other places).  Union employees in CA (NON-union employees in NJ) would always threaten to strike.  Union would "fight" for higher wages, etc.  Union and company would settle.  Then the company would just give us employees in NJ the same wage increase.

*shrug


So you're a pussy who reaps the benefits from the courage of others. Got it.
 
2014-01-19 02:01:40 PM  

hitmanric: slayer199: Pretty simple.  If you have good policies and take care of your employees, they won't think about unionizing.

I used to think that. Until I worked for a company that treated the workforce quite well because of a unionized competitor down the road. Apparently that wasn't enough for some people so they started telling stories of unionized heaven and got most of the uneducated workers to vote in. Shiat went downhill quickly after that. Ended up taking home less and lost alot of other pluses along with it.


Those folks are called Salts in union parlance.  They get in and stir up the pot until the union can get enough support to be voted in.  Some are die hard believers in the union, others just expect to get a sweet no work job in the union after the union gets in.

The people I know working in the warehouse for Amazon love it, just a little short of cult like happiness.
 
2014-01-19 02:02:16 PM  

AngryDragon: thamike: Amazon: "If you even breathe about trying to unionize, we will be forced to cut down on labor, and not only you machinists, but hundreds more will lose their jobs.  Just take the word out of your f*cking vocabulary, right the f*ck now."

Subby:  "See?  They love their boss and hate unions!"


Citation in a FARK union derp thread...that's farking hilarious dude.

/Continue Moar fictitious scenarios
 
2014-01-19 02:03:46 PM  

simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?


Collective bargaining. United, you have a voice. Alone, you mean nothing.
 
2014-01-19 02:07:47 PM  
It't the tea partiers' fault.
 
2014-01-19 02:09:54 PM  
Bloomberg.

Figures.

/biased against unions?
//say it ain't so, Shane!
 
2014-01-19 02:13:34 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Unions have a gigantic PR image to overcome. The fact that so many of the posters to the article pointed out mafia connections, bad worker behavior, leadership issues and cause of Americas downfall.


Exactly. Conceptually it should be pretty simple: both corporations and labor will tend to consolidate and try to leverage their size to get away with whatever they can in their interest. This needs to be allowed to a point, but regulated so that one side can't screw the other, or screw smaller factions on their own side.  Both sides have a lot of historical baggage that should not be forgotten, but also shouldn't instantly nullify anything they attempt to do today.

Both sides spew plenty of derp, but I don't see why the right is cool with this concept only on one side but not the other. Allowing for SOME degree of unionization and collective bargaining to match corporate management seems like the balanced approach, not NO unions.
 
2014-01-19 02:15:38 PM  

dobro: simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?

Collective bargaining. United, you have a voice. Alone, you mean nothing.


When you walk in alone, you beg.
When you walk in together, you negotiate.
 
2014-01-19 02:17:59 PM  

dobro: simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?

Collective bargaining. United, you have a voice. Alone, you mean nothing.


I understand that. Just not seeing what kind of leverage this union would have, outside of striking with no job guarantee.
 
2014-01-19 02:20:00 PM  

rewind2846: dobro: simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?

Collective bargaining. United, you have a voice. Alone, you mean nothing.

When you walk in alone, you beg.
When you walk in together, you negotiate.


Pretty ironic that all that brotherhood and solidarity worked to elect the guy that began the process of shipping all your jobs overseas.

i.imgur.com

Well done.
 
2014-01-19 02:22:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: SilentStrider: And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.

then don't work for a company that sucks

Because everyone has a choice about where they can work. People can totally afford to turn down every job offer until they get the right one. Right?


You can change your job just like you can change your cable provider.
 
2014-01-19 02:26:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: SilentStrider: And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.

then don't work for a company that sucks

Because everyone has a choice about where they can work. People can totally afford to turn down every job offer until they get the right one. Right?


What's wrong with working a crappy job and searching for a better one?
 
2014-01-19 02:26:31 PM  

Carl Carlson: simplicimus: "...pointing out that the union cannot guarantee you a raise -- or indeed a job."
Then what would be point of having a union?

I think the problem comes when the union keeps promising raises and guaranteed jobs even when it's not warranted. No worker is gonna turn down a fat raise or idiot-proof job security. Pretty soon we have overpriced crappy cars, teachers that can't be fired, etc. Unions start out doing good things, but then they get greedy.


I've gone for a more destructive type of Union. I called it a Reverse Layoff. It came about after management had us work a year of mandatory overtime and pocketed all of the bonuses. When asked about at least throwing us a bone we were told, and this is a direct quote from the CIO: "What are you going to do, find another job? In this economy??"

So, yes, basically we all pooled resources to help each other find better jobs elsewhere and many of us then quit in rapid succession.

Economical, self-limited, and given that our antagonists were sacked for the shockingly high turnover it was a very satisfying Union indeed.

I would encourage everyone to try it out when they find themselves up against abusive management. And I think it worked out as well as it did because it was self-terminating. The Union dissolved before it could become corrupt.

/currently working for some awesome managers
 
2014-01-19 02:30:41 PM  
AngryDragon:

Pretty ironic that all that brotherhood and solidarity worked to elect the guy that began the process of shipping all your jobs overseas.

And his republican opponents (GHWBush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996) would have given us unicorn farts and rainbows? Sh*t, you really think jobs would have stayed here under those people? The republicans were the ones (starting with Reagan) who put the nitrous oxide in the outsourcing engine in the first place, a trend which was already starting way back in the 1970's. Their corporate masters would have it no other way.
 
2014-01-19 02:34:17 PM  

ricbach229: What's wrong with working a crappy job and searching for a better one?


Absolutely nothing. But consider this logic: if that "better job" were actually available to someone in your present state of experience and education, why didn't you get it in the first place?
 
2014-01-19 02:37:05 PM  

rewind2846: AngryDragon:

Pretty ironic that all that brotherhood and solidarity worked to elect the guy that began the process of shipping all your jobs overseas.

And his republican opponents (GHWBush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996) would have given us unicorn farts and rainbows? Sh*t, you really think jobs would have stayed here under those people? The republicans were the ones (starting with Reagan) who put the nitrous oxide in the outsourcing engine in the first place, a trend which was already starting way back in the 1970's. Their corporate masters would have it no other way.


I don't disagree with that.  The Democrats have the blue-collar working class so deluded though that they think that the Dems are actually working towards their interest.  They are not.  Both sides really are just as bad.
 
2014-01-19 02:38:24 PM  
My little sister worked for Amazon in HR in Tennessee for 2 years. She said that the warehouse workers were treated like crap there. They would short people hours, the managers were abusive, the working conditions were horrible, time off was almost non-existent, forget about medical leave if you got hurt at work, and anybody that complained or questioned anything was fired on the spot.
 
2014-01-19 02:39:42 PM  

rewind2846: ricbach229: What's wrong with working a crappy job and searching for a better one?

Absolutely nothing. But consider this logic: if that "better job" were actually available to someone in your present state of experience and education, why didn't you get it in the first place?


are you acquainted with the concept of time?
 
2014-01-19 02:39:49 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: SilentStrider: And if more employees worked for companies that didn't suck, unions wouldn't be necessary.

then don't work for a company that sucks

Because everyone has a choice about where they can work. People can totally afford to turn down every job offer until they get the right one. Right?

You can change your job just like you can change your cable provider.


Not sure if serious, but plenty of people do believe this so I'll proceed as if.

Both can be hard depending on specific market conditions but in general, finding other options for making money is harder than finding other options for parting with money. Who would you rather be dropped from suddenly--your job or your cable provider?
 
2014-01-19 02:43:04 PM  

Nemo's Brother: I have yet to see any concerned Fark lefty vow to boycott Amazon the way they do Walmart. Funny how that works.

/hypocrites.


well, i am cancelling my Prime account this month.

/because its expiring
//and the instant video choices arent worth $80/yr
///and i dont need free shipping but once or twice a year
////also your analogy was pants on head retarded
 
2014-01-19 02:49:37 PM  
I'm sure it was a fair, open, and balanced vote with the company doing everything possible to help educate and protect their workers' futures, while also harshly preventing any and all possible retaliation against pro-union workers who may have otherwise felt threatened by the fear of termination.
 
2014-01-19 02:50:00 PM  

Nemo's Brother: I have yet to see any concerned Fark lefty vow to boycott Amazon the way they do Walmart. Funny how that works.

/hypocrites.


Amazon doesn't threaten the jobs of workers contemplating a vote, or prevent them from doing so, or close locations that appear to be likely to unionize firing everyone and opening a new location just down the street.

When they do, we can consider boycotting them.  The workers democratically chose to not unionize.  Apples and oranges.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report