|
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. |