Amazon workers to vote union in Alabama.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,047
12,715
136
Cue the bots? How soon will Amazon start to fully automate their warehouses when everyone of their employees is a union member? I'm not siding with Amazon. Jeff Besoz is a ruthless businessman who can be unethical at times. They just paid $67m in fines because they got caught withholding drivers tips. How low can you get that you need to withhold driver's tips? Anyway, I hope it works out for everyone at Amazon. I just fear that this will drive up automation. Not just at Amazon, but at every big tec company with the fear that they too might have to pay union workers. That could be Walmart, Google, Facebook, etc.


If that is the way it goes, so be it, natural progression of things. You might halt progress for a decade or two but all it will really amount to is you lagging behind the rest of the world and geo political adversaries.
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,585
4,803
146
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and ch33zw1z

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
I never said automation is cheaper. not even close.
Obviously you don't work where there is much automation. Automation has a huge upfront cost, and a huge upkeep cost, and it breaks down more often than those unreliable humans. It is not cheaper, it cost more to produce a product with automation than it does with labor, you are just able to make up that cost with volume.

This is true.

When we implement automation for a process, it's increased volume is a typical driver.

The process also needs to be repetitious, predicable and we design for a high uptime.

It's not efficient or cost effective if the machine is idle for large amounts of time.

If it's not run for a high amount of time, there needs to be another rationale, such as the process requires precision human operators can't match, and it's a high value product.

If a process is dynamic or infrequent, it's likely better to remain manual.

Automation isn't necessarily new. Factories evolved from craft work on a workshop by creation of some level of "automation" where machines replace or multiply the work done by humans.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
This is true.

When we implement automation for a process, it's increased volume is a typical driver.

The process also needs to be repetitious, predicable and we design for a high uptime.

It's not efficient or cost effective if the machine is idle for large amounts of time.

If it's not run for a high amount of time, there needs to be another rationale, such as the process requires precision human operators can't match, and it's a high value product.

If a process is dynamic or infrequent, it's likely better to remain manual.

Automation isn't necessarily new. Factories evolved from craft work on a workshop by creation of some level of "automation" where machines replace or multiply the work done by humans.
Yep! Most automation doesn't really replace human labor, it makes the human labor more productive and efficient. Take the example given earlier about the Jack hammer and the driveway. It didn't replace the human worker, it made that human more efficient and more productive allowing him to jack hammer 2 or 3 drive ways a day instead of 1. Also look at the USPS, they use automation to sort mail. Those sorters didn't replace humans, they made the process more efficient allowing them to handle more volume, moving the human sorters to other positions that opened up because of the added volume. AKA increased volume in one area creates need for human labor in other areas due to the volume increase.

Even the Kiosks at McDonald's. It appears they replaced humans, when in fact, they didn't. Those humans still work there, but they are able to utilize them in a more efficient and productive manner because they are not being tied up taking orders, which is the most insufficient use of those human worker's time.

At the end of the day, automation are just tools to make the human more efficient and productive. Just like the automobile replaced the cart and buggy in traveling. Or you fly across the nation rather than driving. Flying isn't cheaper, but it's faster, which allows you to be more productive with your time for vacation plans because you are not spending it in a car drive across the nation.

Also, Automation is used over human labor for safety reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek
Feb 4, 2009
34,494
15,729
136
Cue the bots? How soon will Amazon start to fully automate their warehouses when everyone of their employees is a union member? I'm not siding with Amazon. Jeff Besoz is a ruthless businessman who can be unethical at times. They just paid $67m in fines because they got caught withholding drivers tips. How low can you get that you need to withhold driver's tips? Anyway, I hope it works out for everyone at Amazon. I just fear that this will drive up automation. Not just at Amazon, but at every big tec company with the fear that they too might have to pay union workers. That could be Walmart, Google, Facebook, etc.


That’s the whole point of being bargained for (Unionized) to my knowledge my previous telecom has yet to date laid off a Bargained for Employee. Sure there have been location or job changes and sure they have offered better severances to trim the work force but again to my understanding no bargained for employees have been laid off (involuntary).
Management well that is another story.
 
Last edited:

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,015
4,785
136
Those employees would've been much better off if they were part of a collective bargaining unit.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,218
136
pg3htHX.png


Not sure about this source though...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,218
136
lol, really? What stops them from mailing it in at home?

And how the hell can they "monitor for no votes" when it's a FUCKING SEALED ENVELOPE DEeeeeeeeeeerrp.

What complete morons.
What did Neera do that was corrupt?
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,494
15,729
136
lol, really? What stops them from mailing it in at home?

And how the hell can they "monitor for no votes" when it's a FUCKING SEALED ENVELOPE DEeeeeeeeeeerrp.

What complete morons.

Yeah I sort of agree, installing a mailbox certainly isn’t a bad thing.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Yeah I sort of agree, installing a mailbox certainly isn’t a bad thing.

They just don't want to believe that people don't think in their cultish-like behaviors.

They are black minorities OMG how could they not unionize!


*Works salary job with no overtime for anything over 40 hour weeks* lol
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
There will be lawsuits. This isn't over as as there are accusations of Amazon requiring employees to attend lectures where the company demanded they oppose the union, as well as "spreading misinformation" online and other alleged union-busting tactics, as well as intimidation etc.


The mail box being installed isn't the issue, the issue is IF amazon was monitoring and pressuring voters at that mail box. Meaning they where confronting voters BEFORE placing the ballot in the mailbox in an attempt to intimidate no voters to change there vote prior to dropping it into the box.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,491
9,817
136
They just don't want to believe that people don't think in their cultish-like behaviors.

They are black minorities OMG how could they not unionize!


*Works salary job with no overtime for anything over 40 hour weeks* lol
Employers never abuse their employees! Why do we even need unions in the first place?
/S
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,442
136
There will be lawsuits. This isn't over as as there are accusations of Amazon requiring employees to attend lectures where the company demanded they oppose the union, as well as "spreading misinformation" online and other alleged union-busting tactics, as well as intimidation etc.


The mail box being installed isn't the issue, the issue is IF amazon was monitoring and pressuring voters at that mail box. Meaning they where confronting voters BEFORE placing the ballot in the mailbox in an attempt to intimidate no voters to change there vote prior to dropping it into the box.

I've heard multiple reports that there were mandatory meetings basically just about talking shit about Unions. Also fake twitter accounts.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
I've heard multiple reports that there were mandatory meetings basically just about talking shit about Unions. Also fake twitter accounts.
Having mandatory meetings to talk shit about unions is exactly what they can't do when the employees are trying to unionize, as it's an anti-unionization tactic which is illegal.

edit: The mandatory part is what makes it illegal when the employees are actively trying to unionize.
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,475
6,896
136
If there's anything good for the hourly workers that might come from the attempt to unionize, it's that the "threat" of unionizing is going to be an ever-present ongoing issue such that the "threat" alone may compel management to spread the wealth around a little more than if there was no "threat" to begin with.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Where was Sally Fields when they needed her?

Seriously, in the end I guess its up to the voters. The workers, whether or not they want this union thing. And I know how companies can scare employees into believing to unionize would cost them financially and cost them job security and cost the company its future security. Companies say HEY EMPLOYEE, WE GAVE YOU A GREAT JOB, IN A GREAT COMPANY WITH TREMENDOUS GROTH, AND ROCK SOLID JOB SECURITY WITHIN THESE UNCERTAIN TIMES. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO RISK ALL OF THAT? And the employee realizes that maybe it could be worse so they will do what the company wants them to do and reject the union. And that's too bad, for the employees, and they know that deep down inside but what the hey.... :(
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
PS. In the old days of unions, it was different. Back then workers took a stand and demanded to be treated fairly. But in todays world, not enough workers still think that way, and workers probably feel that the company knows what's best for the them the employee and for the company. I guess something would have to change, really change, to sway enough workers to think like the worker of the 1940's and 50's. Now a day, employees are too overwhelmed by the power of the employer. And while "some" workers are willing to go for unionization, not near enough are willing to join in on that fight. It's like, shut up... at least YOU have a job. And that is too bad, that way of thinking is too bad when you consider that the future for the current day employee looks pretty bleak. They will one day hit retirement age with no retirement income, and no medical safety net, and they're golden years will be the necessity to keep working until they literally drop dead on the job. I can guarantee that by the time the employee of today in their 20's and 30's hits retirement, social security will either be no more or will be sooooo watered down that SS won't amount to much. The age for SS will be raised and raised until 80 will be the retirement age. And medicare, if medicare still exists, that age to qualify will be raise to 80 as well. So realistically, the union and unionization NOW is the employees only hope for a decent retirement THEN. Frankly, if I were in my 20's to 40's, I'd be scared shitless about my retirement future because all signs point to there being NONE. People will need a job to survive by working far into their 80's. And when they can no longer work, that will be the end for them.