[jjj123]

It’s not just about the bottom line, it’s also about power. Without unionization, Amazon has complete control over their workers wages, benefits, and work contracts. Unionization shifts some of that control to the workers themselves. Amazon doesn’t want to lose that power.

[pow_pp_-1_v]

If they had provided good benefits and working condition, the workers will not be incentivized to form unions, right? Why are they not doing that?

[thedevelopnik]

Because they’re betting, with a good deal of historical justification, that they can have their cake and eat it too.

US has unfortunately been union-unfriendly since Reagan.

[SauciestGNU]

The US has been union unfriendly since the 19th century when union leaders were regularly assassinated, and in the 20th century when striking workers were aerially bombarded and killed.

[logimame]

Things had to change after the Great Depression though, the Roosevelt government had to actually make amends with and negotiate with labor unions, since the alternative was widespread economically-induced unrest which might possibly lead to communist or fascist uprisings. I think the parent comment was talking about that particular era, and commenting on how Reagan dismantled that whole deal.

[kazen44]

mind you this was historically the case nearly everywhere in Wurope too. This only really changed drastically after world war 1, which saw the fall of many empires (german, ottoman, astro-hungarian and russian) which resulted in a lot of political instability. Trade unions and other labour organisations where able to demand representative power in a turmoil time when many new countries where created. (having a nationwide strike or even a revolution was a really bad thing for the (newly established) establishment).

This got further cemented when the USSR was formed, and it actively supported many left winged militant organisations in europe. This was used as leverage by trade unionists and social-democrats to demand further rights (or else the militant forces will get into power and things will end much worse for the establishment).

This dynamic only really changed right before world war 2, when stalin (and other USSR leaders) focused on a policy of "socialism in one country" instead of a the dogma of a worldwide workers revolution.

[jjj123]

Well they are doing some of it for just that reason, like they raised the minimum wage to $15 (which is actually pretty good) and wave that around in their anti-union propaganda.

I bet they’ve done all kinds of risk calculations around increasing benefits and decided they could stop there. Personally, I hope their calculations are wrong and the workers unionize anyways.

[lupire]

"minimum wage" should be for jobs that are minimum work - jobs were you stand around doing nothing (cashier at a slow store), or are apprenticing a skill.

Amazon warehouse jobs are physically demanding and damaging (which should carry a premium) and extremely optimized to negative downtime (which should carry a premium). (Employees are required to do work while off the clock, walking between work area and break area, and waiting in line for security checks).

[lotsofpulp]

“Wages” (or prices) should be determined by supply and demand curves. If the government wants minimum wages to rise, then it should lower supply of labor and/or increase demand for labor.

The government can lower the supply of labor willing to work for low wages by offering a basic income, pay for people’s education, etc.

The government can increase the demand for labor by decreasing the number of hours needed to reach overtime (per day and per week), mandating vacation time and parental leave, etc.

All of this, however, very explicitly increases government expenditures requiring tax increases and clearly shows the wealth transfer, so it’s politically less popular than trying to foist it onto select businesses.

[jjk166]

This isn't the government's minimum wage, this is amazon's minimum wage, ie the lowest wage that amazon pays to its employees, which is more than double US federal minimum wage.

There is a push to raise federal minimum wage to match Amazon's minimum wage, but for now they are paying a hefty premium everywhere in the US except Washington D.C., the only US state-like entity to yet match it.

Sometimes we forget that all these amazon warehouse employees could take jobs as cashiers at slow stores and similar such easier opportunities, but choose not to.

[nerdponx]

Because good benefits and working conditions are fleeting without the power of collective bargaining behind it. Without a union, employees are depending entirely on the goodwill of their employers.

[schnevets]

This. Amazon became a ripe unionization target because they get noticeable productivity per worker. Its rates are closer to manufacturing compared to typical retail and the other prevalent, low-income jobs.

With Amazon's massive investment in robotics and other opportunities for automation, they think they can become exponentially more efficient. At that point, a non-unionized workforce will lose that goodwill and be slashed into a fraction of its current size.

[nerdponx]

On the other hand, regarding automation...

In an ideal world unions shouldn't have to be anti-automation, because people should have access to other sources of income (yes I mean income, not specifically employment) if they lose their jobs. This way we aren't holding back technological progress to protect people from poverty.

I have no idea what that ideal world looks like, maybe it's not possible. But I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that automation is somehow inherently anti-worker with no opportunity for reconciliation.

[missedthecue]

Huh. I've been under the mistaken impression that there is more than one employer in the US

[rtkwe]

Because that costs money, why just give workers more when you can use some of the money saved on suppressing organization instead.