[rmcpherson]

Unionization, as argued for in the op-ed, is something that’s legal right now. We just need government to enforce the laws already in place. Laws paid for with the blood of the labor movement in the early 20th century. Unfortunately regulatory capture has eviscerated the agencies and government bodies tasked with upholding those laws.

[Theory5]

The history of unions, in the US and the UK have always painted a picture around this. Unions, and their rich history came about because the government couldn't, or wouldn't, create laws to protect the common worker, and even when laws were on the books, couldn't or wouldn't properly enforce said laws.

Unions started at a time when they could be crushed, workers fired, and even blackballed legally. Yet they, the organized workers, did what the government couldn't.

The power of unionization hinges on the workers themselves, they need to stand up, fully organize, and bring Amazon to the table. Amazon has too much money, too many "friends" and too much power for the government to take the lead. The attempts to protest earlier, or unionize, at amazon showed a half effort, not driven by the entire workforce, will fail.

Unlike the days of the past, workers are protected by many laws. Companies cannot hire mercenaries (in the US and other "first world" countries, at least) to brutalize workers. But they control more, across a larger area, making unionization difficult, despite the laws protecting unions. If Amazon wishes, they can easily cut off a single warehouse, if all those workers organized only in a single location, in the grand scheme.

But similar fears also exist among workers. If only a fraction of workers strike, they'll lose their jobs, deincentivizing the others. If you work in a warehouse, in the US, you're expendable. And especially in these times, people will be more likely to say "any job is a good job". And refuse to strike unless an effort appears that they see protects them, i.e. most of the workforce strikes, preventing Amazon from firing them all, or cracking down on unionization.

In my opinion, in lieu of 3/4th of all Amazon workers in a region unionization and striking together, the tech workers must unionize first, and lead any charge for change. Otherwise, again, a small minority of workers in other roles who strike will be ousted, painted as malcontents and policy violators hiding behind a fake claim of mistreatment, and fail to enact changes and possibly not be hired by other companies.

That's my two cents, as long and rambling as it may be.

[NoOneNew]

Yea... we aren't legally compelled to buy anything on amazon either. A portion of every dollar spent on Amazon is extra funding for lobbyists and lawyers to fight against regulation. This is my ultimate point. "The people" dont have to wait for slow moving government to do something. A very effective tactic is just buy stuff NOT on Amazon. Yes they are THE juggernaut and it takes a lot of people to follow this for it to be effective... but dont cry about animal rights while you club a seal to death for the fur. Take some personal responsibility for your beliefs.

[NoOneNew]

Doesn't help when the general public bank rolls companies to fight laws and regulatory actions. That's my point. The money Amazon uses doesn't magically appear. These companies dont use spells to generate income, it comes from the people. I swear, it seems like folks dont know how business works these days. The people are voting with dollars saying Amazon is doing the right thing when they buy from Amazon. That's the reality.

People generally dont want to see themselves as being accessories to this mess and just say, "the gov isn't doing enough to stop Amazon from abusing workers... I totally need to buy that new widget, good thing I have Prime shipping."

[Barrin92]

> The people are voting with dollars saying Amazon is doing the right thing when they buy from Amazon. That's the reality.

And how is that justification? If people buy cheap stuff made from prison or child labour does that justify the practise? It just tells us that people by and large are indifferent to the conditions under which their goods are produced, it's not a justification for it.

That people don't care about Amazon labour conditions doesn't tell us that Amazon is doing the 'right thing', it tells us that people don't care about worker rights.

That's what laws and governments exist for. People also never cared that their palm oil consumption endangers biodiversity and destroys the rainforest, because they don't suffer from it.

[adamsea]

I'd go even further and say simply that it tells us that human behavior is complicated.

Someone is perfectly capable about caring about workers rights and ordering from Amazon at the same time. What if you forgot to get a birthday present and need next day delivery? Amazon's kind of the only game in town, and that's an understandable compromise lots of people might make.

I think it's more about the lack of alternatives to Amazon (they are both great at customer service and at snuffing out competition) and the collective action problem than anything else. And I agree that's part of why laws and governments exist : ).

[NoOneNew]

Dont forget to get a present? I mean, the world has existed great for a long time prior to Amazon's existence. Now everyone acts like Prime is an essential service to life itself. It's pretty pathetic. Like, really pathetic. Your own failure of planning isn't an excuse to break your own ideals, but then turn around to act pious to that ideal. In essence, you then dont actually stand or believe in it, you just do it, when convenient for virtue signaling and cheap warm/fuzzies.

[adamsea]

You're absolutely right. It's not an excuse, and the example/hypothetical I shared would be a violation of my ideals.

But that's my point. We're flawed. Which isn't an excuse. It's like, when the experts talk about how to change habits, they say the best way to do it is to change your environment. Because of the powerful influence our environment has upon us.

And most models of change for behaviors like smoking or weight loss (and it's becoming increasing clear that computers/screens/apps/the internet share the addictive qualities of those behaviors) incorporate relapse as one step of a change process.

It's an old book and a simple one, but as far as I know their research on how people successfully change behavior still holds up: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46680.Changing_for_Good

Most studies show, I think, that positive motivation is a better tool than shaming/blaming/judging, in most situations.

[NoOneNew]

Justify the practice? I'm the one arguing that Amazon is too large and we need better labor laws to protect workers, but the public isn't helping the matter by crying, then buying stuff on Amazon.

Yes laws exist for a reason, but I dont need a law to tell me stealing and murder is bad. While that's an extreme example, it's to prove that people need to own up to their own decision making if they want to complain. You shouldn't need your mommy around to tell you to do the right thing or who to associate with. Be an adult and be proactive.

[kjeetgill]

> Yes laws exist for a reason, but I dont need a law to tell me stealing and murder is bad.

What? Those two concerns are practically the reason laws were invented. Government is absolutely about coordinated action derived from the will of people on behalf of the people. Your can't solve everything with boycotts. "Complaining" as you put it is literally the voice of people: advocacy for both government action and rallying people's concerns.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with not "being and adult".