Amazon Says It Doesn’t ‘Employ’ Drivers, But Records Show It Hired Firms to Prevent Them From Unionizing::Amazon spent $14.2 million total on anti-union consulting in 2022, filings with the Department of Labor show.

  • Hyggyldy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    622 years ago

    What’s crazy is I hear unionization is usually more expensive to fight against, but these CEO’s are essentially morally opposed to it. Every time I hear stories of these people their lives would have been so much easier and their businesses more profitable but they just cannot stand people unionizing.

    • @gibmiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      242 years ago

      Well basically it means they have to actually negotiate with their workers via unions. That’s almost like work. They prefer not to have to do anything to “earn” their billions.

    • phillaholic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 years ago

      They also have the option of not treating them like shit. Happy workers don’t usually want to unionize.

    • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      That’s weirdest part, at this point the hoops Amazon has jumped through vs how profitable of a company they are - it must be cheaper for them to just let people unionise and pay them more + give better conditions?

      • @SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Do you want to pay people more because they’re better at their job or do you want to pay people more because they’ve been warming a chair longer than anyone else?

        • Hyggyldy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          132 years ago

          I really don’t care to play “who deserves a minimum quality of life”.

          • @SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Reality doesn’t care whether you care to play or not.

            There’s a limited amount of resources, you can’t hire everyone on Earth, you can’t give everyone an unlimited salary. Everything past that you’re making decisions as to who gets what.

            And by the way, if you make enough poor decisions eventually everyone loses their jobs.

            • @SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              112 years ago

              There are PLENTY of resources to go around, but a teeny teeny tiny percentage of people are hogging over half of them all for themselves.

            • @Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              10
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Agreed, there’s limited resources, that’s exactly why we can’t afford to waste any more on another CEO mega yacht or private plane. We’re capable of a post-scarcity society with just the setup we have today, were we to distribute resources on need rather than greed.

        • @dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          Or because people need more to make a living? The whole argument of “it’s a shitty job and shouldn’t be used to support you” doesn’t really work anymore.

              • @SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Its a very true dichotomy.

                Hey let’s hire Ashok for this position! He’s really good!

                Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He’s just good enough not to fire but he has seniority so he gets first dibs on the job.

                Hey, let’s give Ashok a raise! He’s really good!

                Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He’s just good enough not to fire. It he’s been here the longest so he gets paid the most.

                The false dichotomy is assuming your choices are a massive adversarial bureaucracy or not making a living wage.