Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 10 2021, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the people-have-spoken dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/the-amazon-union-drive-in-alabama-appears-headed-for-defeat/

Update: A majority of workers have voted not to form a union at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Bessemer, Alabama. The result of the NLRB's initial vote count was 1,798 votes against the union and 738 in favor. Hundreds of additional ballots were not counted because their authenticity was disputed. But the "no" side already has a majority of the 3,215 votes cast, making the issue moot.

Original story, April 8: A closely watched effort to unionize an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama appears to be headed for defeat. With about half the votes counted, 1,100 workers have voted against forming a union, while only 463 voted in favor.

The National Labor Relations Board is counting the 3,215 votes that were cast by workers at the Bessemer facility. The union needs to win at least half the votes in order to become the official representative of the roughly 6,000 workers at the Bessemer facility. Counting has ended for the evening and is scheduled to resume at 8:30 am Central Time on Friday.

Also at The Washington Post, c|net, and Al Jazeera.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 10 2021, @08:51PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 10 2021, @08:51PM (#1135797) Journal

    So I guess you aren't *forced*, but your only alternative is starvation and homelessness.

    Or those $20 per hour jobs people keep talking about. One doesn't have to take 6000 coworkers with them when they job hop.

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday April 10 2021, @08:56PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday April 10 2021, @08:56PM (#1135801)

    And if there were 6000 $20/hr warehouse openings in the local want ads, do you think anybody would be working a $15/hr warehouse job? Sure, any individual might be able to make that leap, but if everyone does it at once, it doesn't work.

    That's why economics is complicated: What's smart for one person to do isn't necessarily smart for 10,000 people to do all at once.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:16PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:16PM (#1136039)

      Most of the concept of minimum wage is silly anyways. If everyone gets paid more businesses will just raise their prices to pass those costs back onto consumers which creates higher prices which means the extra money everyone gets can't buy you more stuff. Rent will go higher because now everyone can afford to pay more.

      Money is just an arbitrary number. It's just a medium of exchange. Your account balance is nothing more than an arbitrary number in a computer. When you send money around you are just flipping random numbers in a computer.

      What underlies it is what matters. Aggregate output. If a town has 1000 people but only 100 homes then you average 10 people per home.

      If the world has 1000 square feet of land and you have 1000 people then you average 1 person per square foot. If the overall population keeps growing (as it is) you are then going to reduce the average per square foot of land.

      Regardless of minimum wage, account balance, whatever, you can set those arbitrary numbers on everyone's computers to whatever values you want and change them all you want it doesn't change the underlying reality of what wealth is. Wealth is not some arbitrary number on a computer (your account balance, some arbitrary minimum wage with bits and bytes flying around and changing what those bits and bites are). Wealth is aggregate output. The production of goods and services and the availability of the things that people want. Money has no intrinsic value. It's just an arbitrary number.

      Economies only work if people work. It doesn't matter if the minimum wage is a thousand dollars an hour. If no one is working then the goods and services that you want to buy with that money don't exist and so that money is worthless.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @06:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @06:48PM (#1136592)

        I used to think that too, but that reasoning misses a critical factor: Not all costs are labour, nor is labour the only cause of inflation. Pretty much all of the inflation we've seen over the last 40 years has been from over-investment in the financial markets. The economy has become dangerously top heavy and correction is being actively prevented by corrupt regulators. When that bubble pops it will make post-WWII Germany look like a cake-walk. The only other way out is to preemptively raise wages until the financial bubble is deflated away. Naturally this can't be done all at once or it will trigger the very collapse we are trying to avert, and we can expect resistance from the financial sector, but this is the only non-destructive way to rebalance the economy.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 12 2021, @09:34PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday April 12 2021, @09:34PM (#1136686)

        In addition to ignoring all the costs of production that aren't labor that a sibling comment correctly pointed out, you also ignored everything that behavioral economics and every marketing department everywhere has learned over the past century, namely that pricing is in part psychological. For instance, most people will buy for $1.99 what they won't buy for $2.00, and it's not because they're stupid or that penny matters all that much too them, it's because how people feel about the pricing changes because of the first digit in the price.

        Or, in other words, just because a smartphone is $699 does not mean it cost anything close to $699 to make. You don't need to take my word for it, just read the quarterly investor reports for Apple, Samsung, etc.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:09AM (#1136786)

          Trouble is, that's a two-edged sword.

          Sure, pricing is psychological, but this also extends to the pricing of things like shares, and when those are influenced by corporate metrics such as per-unit profit margins (Apple being a handy example you brought up) then yes, labour expenses immediate drive a large chunk of the retail price. I mean sure, we all know about Veblen goods and so on, but those are outliers in the general scheme of things.

          What's much more significant in this case is where a higher minimum wage puts the labour element in the general calculus of other considerations. We actually don't even have to speculate, because the last fifty years of international trade has given us a few trends to consider. Higher wage levels have persistently led to increases in hiring workers who are under financial pressure, offshoring, and/or automation. It's called substitution, and when what you're doing is shifting the balance between one commodity (say, electricity) and another (labour), you will get purchasers (corporate planners) pushing for less of the more expensive one in favour of more of the cheaper.

          One of the weirder results of this is a creeping rise in the measured productivity of workers - but the funny thing is that this is measuring how much is produced per worker without correcting for capital investment in the worker's environment. Go figure, one dude surrounded by twenty million dollars' worth of machinery can move mountains compared to the same dude with a shovel.

          At the same time, the people who get those fancy jobs buoyed by the higher minimum wage are still seeing their purchases being nibbled at by the resulting inflation, even if inflation doesn't keep perfect pace with their pay rises. (As it is, inflation is not what people think it is, because of the politically convenient move to chained CPI - if you check the old CPI measure, you see it's a couple of percent higher than the government claims, and has been since they made the change in the '80s.)

          Right now employment rates are pretty good, but it's worth pointing out that government in the USA at every level has been soaking up more and more employees, and a lot of the old skilled labour jobs have gone offshore. The fourth generation, service industry jobs aren't really all that great for many people, but they're the new factory floor in terms of employing new entrants. Even so, they're offshored as much as people can get away with. Just think of all the complaints about Comcast or Dell customer service with incomprehensible accents and shitty scripts.

          In the final analysis, the ultimate minimum wage is nothing - or what you can get under the table. Raising it looks good for the headlines, but doesn't fix the problems we really have while generating new ones that we don't want.

          I'd sooner see no minimum wage, and a wall-to-wall revenue tax on businesses.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:31PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:31PM (#1136043)

      "What's smart for one person to do isn't necessarily smart for 10,000 people to do all at once."

      Exactly. Something that's smart for one person would give that person a relative advantage compared to everyone else. If everyone did it then doing so would give no one a relative advantage.

      This goes back to what I said about the minimum wage. It may be smart for one person to get paid more because it gives them a relative advantage in terms of their ability to pay for their expenses compared to their competition. But if you raise everyone's wages (the minimum wage) then no one gets a relative advantage and everyone is back to square one. Your wage went up but so did your competitors (other workers that are also competing for the goods and services you want to consume including rent). Everyone is back to square one.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 11 2021, @04:43PM (#1136047)

        It can reasonably be said that raising one person's wage relative to someone else's gives that one person a relative advantage.

        It's much more difficult to say that raising everyone's wages (the minimum wage) will give everyone an absolute advantage.