View Full Version : boycotting warehouses
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=2
Within this article is a list of the top warehouses. Horrible working conditions.
I'm pretty simple. I only use 2 on the list. Amazon and netflix.
Now I feel the need to stop totally.
We use the DVD netflix service cause we don't have home internet except through our smart phones.
I use amazon to send books to family, and a toy to my grandson on special occasions.
The details of the horrors of working at these places is just too much for me to support them.
Here's a question:
If I continue to use amazon to buy e-books, is that a positive or a negative?
Positive - no human running through a warehouse to find a physical book.
Negative - I'm still giving dollars to amazon.
Another question:
Sometimes I buy nuts and fruits and chocolates from what appears to be local companies .... For gifts for out of state family. How can I know the working conditions there, or whether they outsource their work to a horrible place?
And one last question:
How would you rate the following as a positive or negative - changing to netflix streaming so no person has to send a physical dvd?
iris lily
11-18-12, 9:34am
And one last question:
How would you rate the following as a positive or negative - changing to netflix streaming so no person has to send a physical dvd?
So then no person has a job? I would rate that not good.
This article is full of "attitude."
I've known college kids who work in warehouses like this. It's an active job. They are not developing heart disease. Many jobs humans do are physical, and I'm certain that automation has streamlined much of the work and efficiency of these jobs. In essence I'd say: chill, it's really not that bad.
I respect concern over these things. My thoughts are that the article slightly sensationalizes what is probably typical working conditions in any assembly line production. Overseas it is probably worse. Those types of working conditions are most likely a part of the life cycle of just about any mass produced consumer good we buy. I was raised in a steel town and the warehouse work would probably be a stroll in the park compared to steel mill jobs in hot an noisy conditions. Though most of those jobs have been eliminated due to automation and outsourcing overseas. Like Iris Lilly says, it's a working wage for someone who might need it.
It does say a something for supporting local small businesses and cottage industries when possible.
rosarugosa
11-18-12, 11:11am
Rogar: That article really had my head spinning. I like your take-away. Thanks for helping me keep a more sane perspective on it.
My thought was that with streaming I would support a tech person, who hopefully is in a better job than a warehouse person.
ToomuchStuff
11-18-12, 12:13pm
Remember that part of a news job, is to bring enough senslization to a story, to keep bringing you back. Also jobs are not about feelings, they are about getting the work done. There are jobs that realize you have a life, and ones that don't, generally you learn that after being there a while and both of you getting to know one another. At the beginning of either, I expect they are going to be less lax.
And I've sent chocolates, dried fruits, etc. From local companies as gifts. I could go with that instead of amazon in the future.
While I understand the concern about sensationalized stories, these are true concerns. I live in the same metropolitan area as the amazon warehouse that this article supposedly describes. They chose AZ for a reason. Easier to exploit workers here than in other places.
sweetana3
11-18-12, 1:37pm
We have Amazon here and they turn people away. But we have many other distribution centers for lot of name brand retailers and they all process pretty much the same.
I agree with Roger just did not have the time to put it into words. You should hear my brother talk about the employees at UPS where they are processing mail. Unbelievable.
And one last question: How would you rate the following as a positive or negative - changing to netflix streaming so no person has to send a physical dvd?
We have streaming only because it's how we refer to watch movies. However, I am with Iris Lily on this one. Eliminating jobs is not a good outcome. When I was involved with Latin American politics, all of the organizers in Mexican maquiladoras urged activists to not initiate or start boycotts. Organizing workers to negotiate conditions is an important role for unions.
Just so you know--you don't have access to all their movies through streaming.
iris lily
11-18-12, 3:32pm
Just so you know--you don't have access to all their movies through streaming.
I know, I recently learned that streaming really is a more limited selection. I think that's odd. I assumed that streaming would have all of the newest ones but nope.
I already wait a long time for certain titles at the library, and that's ok, running a long wait list there works. But I would like some things faster and that's why I have Netflix.
Just last week I went over to my friend's house and we were going to stream the tv show Homeland, but Netflix isn't offering it yet as a streaming title. Same for Mad Men Season 5. Both of those have been out on DVD for some weeks.
The workers in the article appear to be taking these jobs of their own free will, not at the point of a gun...
I used to work as a roofer, and as an electrician doing construction work. In conditions that were more brutal than a warehouse. These warehouse workers are soft and weak. Maybe they should unionize, or find another job...
I occasionally follow the Technomadia blog, about a couple who travel the US in their bus RV. Several years ago they worked at an Amazon warehouse for a month during the holiday season. There were both pluses and minuses. Their experiences are at the below link, with links to additional posts at the bottom of this article:
http://www.technomadia.com/2010/02/workamping-at-amazon-com-was-it-worth-it/
I agree with both Rogar and Bae.
I'm from a blue collar background: steel workers and auto workers, mainly. My grandfather told stories of the brutal conditions in the steel mill (he was a "fireman," one of the jobs women weren't allowed to do during WWII, so he didn't go to war, since he was in an "essential industry") - from the 1930s through the 1960s. The heat was brutal in the summer (Midwest). My dad worked there for a few years, but the conditions/hours were so bad, he got in white collar at Ford Motor in the mid-1960s.
Yes, the warehouse jobs are very active ones. But you know what? I know people that would much prefer to have that sort of job than the one I have, sitting at a desk for 40+ hours a week. We've gotten soft as a country. "Work" seems to be a dirty word. The collective work ethic I remember from 20+ years ago seems to have gone down the toilet.
I don't mind working. It also helps that I really enjoy my job and am challenged by it. But I'd still get bored sitting at home. I'm not going to be the type to retire early, as long as I physically (and mentally) can keep working.
If you think these conditions are bad enough to boycott this type of business, then by all means go ahead, but I agree with others that there are far worse/exploitative jobs out there. Go read Tomatoland, or anything about the meat processing industry.
lhamo
Miss Cellane
11-18-12, 6:21pm
I know, I recently learned that streaming really is a more limited selection. I think that's odd. I assumed that streaming would have all of the newest ones but nope.
I already wait a long time for certain titles at the library, and that's ok, running a long wait list there works. But I would like some things faster and that's why I have Netflix.
Just last week I went over to my friend's house and we were going to stream the tv show Homeland, but Netflix isn't offering it yet as a streaming title. Same for Mad Men Season 5. Both of those have been out on DVD for some weeks.
I have both the streaming and the DVD options at Netflix. There are some things that simply have never been put on streaming--I think it's a matter of copyright and getting permission from whoever owns the rights to the shows/movies. I can't find figures on what percentage of Netflix offerings are streamed, but my estimate is well under half the titles they offer are streamed. My best guess is somewhere between 20 and 25% of the titles they offer can be watched instantly.
And those titles change all the time. Shows drop off and new ones are added. Currently, they have all the Star Trek TV shows available for streaming, but only for about another year--there was a 2 year deal to have them on streaming.
catherine
11-18-12, 6:27pm
The workers in the article appear to be taking these jobs of their own free will, not at the point of a gun...
I used to work as a roofer, and as an electrician doing construction work. In conditions that were more brutal than a warehouse. These warehouse workers are soft and weak. Maybe they should unionize, or find another job...
+1
I grew up on farm and worked my butt off for 12 hour days in the hot Sun. And now I run my butt of for 50 hours a week as a nurse. I sometimes come home drenched in sweat as if i just ran a few miles. So I'm not afraid of hard work.
Thr thing that gets me is the emotional abuse. Nobody at the farm nor at the hospital yelled at me to go faster and made completely impossible demands. That's the part that Pisses me off.
rosarugosa
11-18-12, 6:39pm
Thanks for posting that link Tradd. I still feel very fortunate not to be working in a warehouse, but that seemed like a more balanced chronicle. Although it's probably less pleasant when you're doing that work full-time, year round and need the job for survival.
I guess what bothered me the most was the fact that it probably doesn't have to be that unpleasant. Some jobs have unpleasant aspects that are unavoidable, e.g. roofing. This scenario seemed like something that could be so much better with just a little bit of consideration for the basic needs and well-being of the employees (lockers, adequate bathroom facilities).
Blackdog Lin
11-18-12, 7:18pm
Anecdotal, I realize, but I live quite near the warehouse in the article Tradd referenced. We have close friends who have worked there for years, and know of many other people around town who work or have worked there. (In fact, DH worked there for 4 years back in the early 90's, under an earlier incarnation, i.e. before it was Amazon. He was hired as a temp, as in the original article, then transitioned to a regular employee after about 6 months.)
We've never heard any "horror stories" about working conditions or expectations at this particular warehouse. Hard work, sure, and complaints about the brutal hours they have to work during the holiday season - but they expect this every year, they are used to it, and know it is the nature of the business. Many of them appreciate the overtime.
sweetana3
11-18-12, 7:19pm
I remember an episode of Undercover Boss where he found out the warehouse employees were not given water as he thought and as he needed since it was a part of cost control. A lot depends on the local manager or undermanagers. There can be bad employees at every part of the chain of command making bad decisions.
Wildflower
11-19-12, 3:46am
My Grandparents and parents both worked assembly line type jobs within auto companies, auto supply companies, and retail warehouses. They would laugh at this blogger. Seriously.
shadowmoss
11-19-12, 9:40am
If Amazon was that bad I wouldn't think that retired folks would be lining up each year to work the holiday rush for them. I haven't read the article yet, but I read a blog of a guy who is on his second year there for the seasonal rush. He does say it is hard physical labor, but it seems to be worth it to him. Jim Melvin is his name, and I can't get to blogs here at work to show the link.
Sometime ago I got concerned about humanitarian issues in China and their poor treatment of Tibetans. I decided I would not buy products made in China and would look at labels. As more and more things were made there I finally decided that to resist was futile and gave up.
Whether warehouse issues are worthy or not, I think it is sort of a similar thing. Back in the 1990's or whenever, businesses realized that just in time inventories could save them big money and streamlined warehouse operations became routine part of practices. I'm not sure a person can buy any common consumer good and not have a high probability of one of these warehouses as a part of the supply chain.
I usually just buy what I want/need with a few filters. First is to try to buy locally, either produced in the area or at least from a merchant that will keep the money flowing locally. If that is not possible or too expensive I then look for American made. When that fails I just go to the Wal-Marts of the world and get what I need. For me there are more meaningful ways to save the world than trying to decipher the entire distribution chain of every product I come in contact with.
Gardenarian
11-19-12, 4:23pm
re: Netflix
We get all our DVDs from the local library. Free. We can order them online -and yes, there is often a long wait for hot titles, I don't mind.
I read the article. The companies are listed by size, not by horribleness (for lack of a better word.) The larger companies are not necessarily going to be worse than the smaller.
I have had soul-sucking jobs where abuse was part of the system (cocktail waitress, greenhouse worker.) They were stepping stones to better things, and actually good learning experiences (looking backwards with those rose-coloured glasses firmly in place.)
. . .Thr thing that gets me is the emotional abuse. Nobody at the farm nor at the hospital yelled at me to go faster and made completely impossible demands. That's the part that Pisses me off.
Agree, Tammy.
And I'm surprised at some of the responses here: there are worse jobs, so, what's the big deal? Geez, is the bar set so low that as long as your working conditions are not absolutely hellish then you shouldn't say anything?
Look again at what the author said. "working more than 8 hours is mandatory." Temps in the warehouse vary "from 60 degrees to 95+ degrees." Pay is $7/hour, so for her 10.5 hour day she'll get $60 after taxes. Workers can be "temporary" for YEARS. No such thing as vacation, sick pay or affordable health insurance.
bottom line is that this is not necessary - paying a few nickels more for these services could give these warehouse pickers a halfway decent wage, or hire more workers at least. And it's probably not necessary to even raise the price - did anyone see that Amazon's Jeff Bezos' net worth is now $23 BILLION. BILLION. For god's sake, when is it enough?
Yes, there were warehouse jobs for our parents and grandparents, but not like this.
SteveinMN
11-19-12, 10:58pm
bottom line is that this is not necessary - paying a few nickels more for these services could give these warehouse pickers a halfway decent wage, or hire more workers at least. And it's probably not necessary to even raise the price - did anyone see that Amazon's Jeff Bezos' net worth is now $23 BILLION. BILLION. For god's sake, when is it enough?
John D. Rockefeller, when asked how much was enough, answered, "One dollar more." Apparently at that level, hardly anyone has "enough". :(
This discussion reminds me of the comments John Schnatter, the "Papa John" of Papa John's Pizza, has made recently re: not being able to afford the pennies it would cost him to offer health insurance to his employees. This while he was paid $2.7 million dollars last year and lives in a 6000-sq ft house with a 22-car underground garage. Like people will buy a pizza at $5.99 plus tip, but won't consider it at $6.50 plus tip?? Nonsense. It is a choice we make to value capitalism and plutocracy more than treating workers fairly. Papa John's won't be seeing any of my business for the sake of that extra dime or quarter.
Wildflower
11-20-12, 5:43am
Yes, there were warehouse jobs for our parents and grandparents, but not like this.
I don't know how old you are, but my grandparents and parents worked in horrible conditions in the automobile plants and warehouses of the past. There was NO climate control, nor scheduled breaks or lunches or bathroom breaks. They were made to work as long as the boss wanted with no overtime pay, and for poor wages at that. The only thing that made their working conditions better was when the unions came in....
SteveinMN
11-20-12, 10:13am
I don't know how old you are, but my grandparents and parents worked in horrible conditions in the automobile plants and warehouses of the past. There was NO climate control, nor scheduled breaks or lunches or bathroom breaks. They were made to work as long as the boss wanted with no overtime pay, and for poor wages at that. The only thing that made their working conditions better was when the unions came in....
My next-door neighbor worked at a local auto assembly plant here, retiring maybe 6-7 years ago. He tells that there was no climate control in some parts of the plant and that bathroom breaks at off-break times were at the discretion of his supervisor and "line buddies" being able to cover for him. And that was as a UAW member...
Yes, there were warehouse jobs for our parents and grandparents, but not like this.
Yup. Most of the time they were much worse.
DD2 worked every college Christmas break in a text book warehouse. Somewhere close to minimum wage, long hours, physical work. She said it got cold when they had to load trucks (open overhead doors). She had other options if she wanted, but went back every year for a couple weeks around the holidays so I know it wasn't "hellish", it was just good, hard work.
Unlike the warehouse jobs, work in the automotive factories at least came with good pay and benefits. Then there are meat packing plants. I'm boycotting them in a semi-vegetarian roundabout way.
I sometimes wonder in the age when America has become more of a service based economy, folks have lost sight of how things are made.
So what about the concept of "enough". Jeff Bezos is worth $23B, big deal. That's probably enough to do anything most of us would want to do, but did anyone ever ask him what he wants to do? He may need $100B to check off his bucket list. Would that be wrong? I can hear it now... "100 BILLION??? That is absurd!" Maybe, maybe not. It obviously is when pressed through the filters of some folks here, but who has the right to be judge and jury for someone else? And the little part no one talks about in this kind of conversation, what are you supposed to do when you have enough? Should Bezos shut down Amazon because he made so much money from it? That would certainly put an end to discussions about their working conditions! I can now pretty much coast in my chosen lifestyle for the rest of my days. Should I just do nothing now that I have enough? This propensity to project one person's value set on someone else is mind numbing. No person will ever have enough unless they believe they have enough. What anyone else believes is irrelevant. Rant complete.
ApatheticNoMore
11-20-12, 1:07pm
but did anyone ever ask him what he wants to do?
Did anyone ask the workers in the warehouses what *THEY* want to do? What if it's something more than work long hours in aweful conditions for lousy pay with almost no benefits. True unionizing might be their answer, not everything is best solved by boycotts. The disadvantge of boycotts is it's very hard to know the whole supply chain, to get enough people on board etc., I mean it's a really tough row to hoe to insist all problems be solved by ethical consumerism. But as a consumer is the ONLY area of life in which those who aren't rich often feel they have any power. The disadvantages of strikes, well many, but one is they call the federal government in on you to crush your strike, it is what they are trying to do with the Walmart strike (not a problem consumers have).
Should Bezos shut down Amazon because he made so much money from it? That would certainly put an end to discussions about their working conditions!
Because if Amazon shut down noone else would sell books, like ever!!! Nah really, if not for certain scale and convenience things (mostly the shipping part) it would be a perfect market for perfect competetion. Someone else will sell books if he doesn't, I dont' know what their warehouse conditions will be.
I can now pretty much coast in my chosen lifestyle for the rest of my days. Should I just do nothing now that I have enough?
I wouldn't do anything for money then, maybe I'd do something that I felt actually contributes to the world which almost certainly is not something that pays well if at all. But I never did prioritize money and never have, it's very poor as even a motivator (there's this idea that it's a good motivator, nah not really, it will make one show up at a job, but not have passion for it - so all passion flows toward leisure activities), maybe security I prioritize, but after that point, nope.
I wouldn't do anything for money then, maybe I'd do something that I felt actually contributes to the world which almost certainly is not something that pays well if at all.
Ah yes, the inevitable, egocentric comment to infer that making a profit and doing good deeds are mutually exclusive. Comes into play more predictably than Goodwin's Law ever did. Here's a little kicker that seems to make some people shudder (if they acknowledge it at all): I feel what I do FOR PROFIT does actually contribute to the world, too. We build alternative energy systems, primarily wind and solar, and provide system value engineering for schools, government entities and non-profits. The world gets (arguably) cleaner, greener energy and buildings. Those organizations, who are either educating kids, serving their community or helping others, get a break on their utilities giving them more money to put to their cause. The municipal organizations also save on the power bill, which directly saves tax dollars. A couple dozen people have nice, comfortable, full time jobs because of this. A whole lot of people win. And guess what? If I manage it correctly I'm going to make money doing it. But, of course, I should never have started this venture at all because I already have enough. What a greedy bastard.
John D. Rockefeller, when asked how much was enough, answered, "One dollar more." Apparently at that level, hardly anyone has "enough". :(
This discussion reminds me of the comments John Schnatter, the "Papa John" of Papa John's Pizza, has made recently re: not being able to afford the pennies it would cost him to offer health insurance to his employees. This while he was paid $2.7 million dollars last year and lives in a 6000-sq ft house with a 22-car underground garage. Like people will buy a pizza at $5.99 plus tip, but won't consider it at $6.50 plus tip?? Nonsense. It is a choice we make to value capitalism and plutocracy more than treating workers fairly. Papa John's won't be seeing any of my business for the sake of that extra dime or quarter.
In a sane world, Schnatter would be shunned. A few cents per pizza to keep his workers healthy is some huge burden? Really? What a complete and utter jerk. I hope he and his ilk will just keep talking though; eventually even the thickest among us will catch on to what they're all about.
In a sane world, Schnatter would be shunned. A few cents per pizza to keep his workers healthy is some huge burden? Really? What a complete and utter jerk. I hope he and his ilk will just keep talking though; eventually even the thickest among us will catch on to what they're all about.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. The government has increased the cost of doing business for millions of low margin, service sector businesses. When we do this, the result will invariably be an increase in cost to the final consumer and a re-evaluation of the working conditions/environment of the operations major expense, which is generally labor. It's basic economics.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. The government has increased the cost of doing business for millions of low margin, service sector businesses. When we do this, the result will invariably be an increase in cost to the final consumer and a re-evaluation of the working conditions/environment of the operations major expense, which is generally labor. It's basic economics.
Low margin businesses with billionaire bonuses for their CEOs. Squeeze workers hard--it's easy to do when your pals are shipping jobs overseas at a frantic pace to keep unemployment high and wages low. Cut corners, use cheaper materials, produce and sell inferior products to the public, but by all means keep shareholders and upper management happy. I don't believe for a minute that Wal-Mart and Amazon are suffering under government regulations. Basic greed.
ApatheticNoMore
11-20-12, 2:42pm
Ah yes, the inevitable, egocentric comment to infer that making a profit and doing good deeds are mutually exclusive.
And your comment is based on what, your personal experience? And how is that not egocentric then? I bet the experience that making money has nothing whatsoever to do with making the world better is a lot more common then the reverse.
So what about the concept of "enough". Jeff Bezos is worth $23B, big deal. That's probably enough to do anything most of us would want to do, but did anyone ever ask him what he wants to do?
I did many times, we went to school together, we both washed out of the physics program and ended up "merely" engineers. We both wanted to do cool things, and hopefully make a bit of spare change along the way.
You might want to look at what he does in his spare time, with his own cash. He's not the monster some folks here seem to think he is. He is, however, strikingly lacking in hair these days :-)
SteveinMN
11-20-12, 3:02pm
The irony (or sticking point, if one prefers) is that while CEOs like Schnatter and Bezos get millions of dollars in annual compensation and as many people assisting them as they want -- because "one has to be competitive with the market and we won't get and keep good people if we don't do this", the rank-and-file is not offered the same consideration. Where I worked, the CEO was given almost $60,000 a year solely for transportation -- limos to the airport (or to work), leasing a car, whatever he wanted. 60 grand. A year. Yet the people who were responsible for actually doing the work at the company went years with essentially no training budget. 's okay; it's only IT; nothing ever changes there. >8)
It also amuses me that people like John Schnatter can say with straight faces that they need to make the kind of money they do because of their leadership position. Oddly, CEOs of companies the size of Sony and Samsung and Volkswagen and Unilever don't feel the need to command annual salaries 244 times greater (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/05/average-ceo-makes-244-times-average-workers-salary/52820/) than that of the average employee (no slouch either at almost $39,000 a year). That average CEO salary is 24 times what the President of the United States makes. Whether one considers the current occupant of the office to be a great statesman or a dunce or somewhere in between, when it comes down to pay for work, I don't think the average CEO is providing 24 times more leadership than any President does.
There is a point at one can say "enough". I might be more willing to go along with the idea of high exec compensation if the companies they lead were not screaming poverty. Cover the rise in health insurance premiums for your workers. Quit gaming the system by pushing more workers into part-time to avoid paying benefits. Share in your own good fortune. Stop treating employees as liabilities. They make your business work.
There is a point at one can say "enough".
So start your own company, and run it the way you want.
There is a point at one can say "enough". I might be more willing to go along with the idea of high exec compensation if the companies they lead were not screaming poverty. Cover the rise in health insurance premiums for your workers. Quit gaming the system by pushing more workers into part-time to avoid paying benefits. Share in your own good fortune. Stop treating employees as liabilities. They make your business work.
Maybe what we should do is, determine what the living wage should be for everyone and then prohibit high achievers, entrepreneur's, inventors, etc., from realizing monetary benefit above that amount. Of course, then there may not be any Papa John's, Wal Mart's, Unilever's or Volkswagen's or any other enterprise employing people, or a real economy at all. But we could all rest easy at night knowing that everyone was equally miserable. That's gotta be worth something.
Alan, how much would I receive under your system for being an unemployed yoga teacher/performance artist?
Where do I sign?
When the consumer starts saying NOT ONLY "Yes, I'll pay X Company a few pennies more for that because of the way they treat their employees" (which I do) , but also "I'm not going to give Amazon any more of my money until they treat their employees decently," then things will change.
Dollars will flow to more ethical companies, and employees will follow that success.
Articles like this help to get the word out that there are differences in how workers are treated. Sensational, sure, but also a useful guide to where to direct your dollars.
Don't want to support Amazon? Stop giving them your money. Period. And tell them why. The world will not come crashing down. Your life will not end.
I try to support local businesses, U.S. based businesses, businesses that are ethical and have the brains & compassion to both be competitive AND treat their people well. They exist.
Tussiemussies
11-20-12, 3:19pm
If not Amazon, I wonder how Barnes and Nobel treat their employees?
Alan, how much would I receive under your system for being an unemployed yoga teacher/performance artist?
Where do I sign?
I'm not sure how much you would receive since the wage would almost certainly be set by the collective. As a matter of fact, the only certainty I can see in the entire equation is the "unemployed" part, and that might be the biggest indignity of them all.
I don't know how you go from "companies that treat their employees badly should be exposed (and possibly boycotted)" to "we should establish communist-style collectives," but I guess it depends on your lens.
Businesses get all kinds of write-offs, abatements, variances, tax breaks, infrastructure (as in "we built that"), and an educated workforce. The titans at the top of their food chain get (arguably undeserved) multiple millions in stock options and other barely-taxed gifts for their trouble. I don't think anyone is out of line wondering why they don't treat their employees better.
I don't know how you go from "companies that treat their employees badly should be exposed (and possibly boycotted)" to "we should establish communist-style collectives," but I guess it depends on your lens.
I was just going along with the popular idea of "enough" and how anyone could determine what that meant and what effect it might have. I certainly don't advocate the only cure I can forsee.
I bet the experience that making money has nothing whatsoever to do with making the world better is a lot more common then the reverse.
Oh, wait....I get it now. You have to start a company with the explicit purpose of "doing good things" for it to count. It doesn't count as a good thing if I hire someone and that job allows them to feed their family because I "use" their labor to make money. Or maybe that I pay enough in property taxes to allow the high school to buy new musical instruments. No, no, that's taxes on an investment that was purchased using profit! Or I support an additional 29.6 jobs in my community based on our payroll. They would just get jobs somewhere else if I wasn't there, just like if Amazon shut their doors. Or I provide health insurance to approx. 75 people who may not have it otherwise. So silly, everyone knows the government will do that better than I can. Or pay enough in road taxes to put that new crosswalk in your neighborhood and on and on and on... Oh no, none of that means squat because I am in business to make money!!! How convenient it must be to inhabit a space where everything is so black and white.
I remember my--generally liberal--parents contemplating "How much is enough?" relative to multimillionaire celebrities who couldn't seem to stop chasing a dollar. I remember defending the idea of amassing unlimited riches with brilliant rejoinders like "You could buy your own island!" Which always seemed to me like a pretty cool thing to be able to do. (But really--what do people do with billions? All I can think of is what a headache it would be to administer a huge network of charities...)
We're a free society, and of course people should make as much money as they like, but years ago the government reacted to the rise of the robber barons by instituting a progressive tax system, with rates as high as 91% on the tippy-top of the highest earners' income. A lot of us think the robber barons are back, but now our tax system is clearly designed to reward them, rather than to curb their influence or to tax them to help offset the endless (unbudgeted) wars we're currently in thrall to.
I do wonder why we take such glee in pointing fingers at sad people who stockpile cottage cheese containers and newspapers while lionizing those who hoard money and houses and cars. Clearly, "enough" is a highly personal concept.
I try to support local businesses, U.S. based businesses, businesses that are ethical and have the brains & compassion to both be competitive AND treat their people well. They exist.
That seems like a pretty sane approach to me. Though the common consumer is probably not well educated on things like this and is budget minded.
I seem to be off base relative to some others here, but we do have a fair labor act that guarantees a minimum wage, overtime pay for work hours over 40 hours per week and I believe requires minimum break times for every so many hours worked. Things like accidents amputating fingers, as mentioned in the article, need to be reported and if work conditions are considered unsafe the facility will be investigated and possibly punished by OSHA. And there is the right to organize into a union.
Also, warehouse and pizza workers most likely do not have skills or educations that would qualify them for higher level work. In many cases this is a matter of personal choice.
Not that this makes poor treatment of employees acceptable, but there are some minimum standards to protect employees and it is often a combined responsibility of the employer, the employed, and the consumer.
I don't know that there will ever be a time when all work is in ideal conditions.
Oh, wait....I get it now. You have to start a company with the explicit purpose of "doing good things" for it to count. It doesn't count as a good thing if I hire someone and that job allows them to feed their family because I "use" their labor to make money. Or maybe that I pay enough in property taxes to allow the high school to buy new musical instruments. No, no, that's taxes on an investment that was purchased using profit! Or I support an additional 29.6 jobs in my community based on our payroll. They would just get jobs somewhere else if I wasn't there, just like if Amazon shut their doors. Or I provide health insurance to approx. 75 people who may not have it otherwise. So silly, everyone knows the government will do that better than I can. Or pay enough in road taxes to put that new crosswalk in your neighborhood and on and on and on... Oh no, none of that means squat because I am in business to make money!!! How convenient it must be to inhabit a space where everything is so black and white.
The crash of 2008 was caused by people making money. There are lots of companies that make money because they are able to externalize costs and dump them on someone else.
Making money isn't always a bad thing - but it's not always a good thing, either. It always comes down to how.
If you could legally walk away with a million while destroying billions in other's wealth, would you do so?
SteveinMN
11-20-12, 6:50pm
If you could legally walk away with a million while destroying billions in other's wealth, would you do so?
Oh, I suspect I could answer that one for you right now...
Others have already pointed out the problem with this level of greed. Usually the arguments in favor come from the 1%, not the 99%, but I guess there always are people who think they're next to win the lottery.
I have no problem with any individual making a freakin' quartillion dollars every single year -- so long as they are carrying their own weight in society. John Schnatter and the Walton family and their millions and billions are made possible in part because Americans are footing the bill for Papa John's and Walmart employees who don't have health insurance. Large meat processors in the US make their money in part on the backs of a largely-undocumented workforce. No sweat; we'll just take care of their emergencies and education and medical as they come along with the money we saved buying cheap meat! BP polluted the Gulf of Mexico with Deepwater Horizon and even ended up paying a couple billion in fines. But that's OK. The American people -- you, me, bae, Gregg, Alan -- all stand at the ready with our tax dollars to aid in the cleanup. Then there are the banksters who ripped off every single one of us Americans and some folks outside the US for good measure -- none of whom served a day in jail for that crime. We're all still paying for that, too.
It appears there is no balm for a lack of integrity or decency like having the ability to throw around lots of money and kick people in their special places while you're smiling and telling them how lucky they are that you're doing it to them. Where do I volunteer to send the old and the sick out to sea on ice floes?
Disgusting.
"Where do I volunteer to send the old and the sick out to sea on ice floes?"
Considering ice floes are a disappearing commodity, perhaps air mattresses will do. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_shipwrecked.gif
ToomuchStuff
11-20-12, 7:58pm
If you could legally walk away with a million while destroying billions in other's wealth, would you do so?
So now your after lawyers, and people who get made out as prince charming in movies such as Pretty Woman?:laff:
Our Judicial system is the LEGAL system, NOT the MORAL system. Jurors may use things such as Jury Nullification to send a moral judgement (which may or may not stand on appeal), but is not about right.
John Schnatter and the Walton family and their millions and billions are made possible in part because Americans are footing the bill for Papa John's and Walmart employees who don't have health insurance. Large meat processors in the US make their money in part on the backs of a largely-undocumented workforce. No sweat; we'll just take care of their emergencies and education and medical as they come along with the money we saved buying cheap meat! BP polluted the Gulf of Mexico with Deepwater Horizon and even ended up paying a couple billion in fines. But that's OK. The American people -- you, me, bae, Gregg, Alan -- all stand at the ready with our tax dollars to aid in the cleanup. Then there are the banksters who ripped off every single one of us Americans and some folks outside the US for good measure -- none of whom served a day in jail for that crime. We're all still paying for that, too.
I've become convinced that the average American has not even a glimmer of an idea to what extent their lives are subsidized. We all burn cheap fuel and eat cheap food and on and on because of our government. It's hard for me to demonize a company that takes advantage of a subsidy when it is offered. Business exists as a vehicle to make money. It is not immoral to take advantage of perfectly legal programs that help increase the likelihood of profitability. In fact it could be considered a breach of fiduciary duties if the corporate brass opted out. If Americans were willing to either have everyone pay a 35% flat tax rate or would ratchet their lifestyle down a couple notches, say to something like the average Guatemalan enjoys, ending the corporate welfare would be possible. I'm not seeing anyone line up for either.
I wonder if one of the cool things Jeff Bezos does with his millions is pay for the carpal tunnel surgery of the warehouse workers?
It's not an all or nothing proposition - it's not that Bezos can't be worth billions of dollars vs. nothing at all, and it's not that his workers have to have super high wages and benefits vs. minimum wage/no benefits. There's a vast area in the middle where Bezos can be super-rich, and also his workers won't have to rely on taxpayers for anything beyond basic existence.
I've become convinced that the average American has not even a glimmer of an idea to what extent their lives are subsidized.
I don't think it is possible to develop a reasonable understanding of all of the hidden forces that distort pricing, so it is very difficult for the average person to make moral *and* rational economic decisions.
My Grandparents and parents both worked assembly line type jobs within auto companies, auto supply companies, and retail warehouses. They would laugh at this blogger. Seriously.
My father worked as a delivery driver for a chemical company, so he was in and out of the plant all day, driving in all kinds of weather. This was also in the era before serious environmental regs, so he breathed in those fumes for decades.
It was only in the last year of his life that he made more than $10,000/year.
However, the place was unionized, so he also had this: job security by seniority, health insurance, paid sick time, paid vacation, a stock purchase plan, retiree medical for him and also for my mom even after his death, and a pension.
It was a solid working class existence. He owned a small home and a used car. He paid taxes. Even with 6 kids, taxpayers did not have to subsidize our family.
That's the difference, and looking at employees today who work just as hard today and yet have none of these benefits the reaction is to laugh at them??
My father worked as a delivery driver for a chemical company, so he was in and out of the plant all day, driving in all kinds of weather. This was also in the era before serious environmental regs, so he breathed in those fumes for decades.
It was only in the last year of his life that he made more than $10,000/year.
However, the place was unionized, so he also had this: job security by seniority, health insurance, paid sick time, paid vacation, a stock purchase plan, retiree medical for him and also for my mom even after his death, and a pension.
It was a solid working class existence. He owned a small home and a used car. He paid taxes. Even with 6 kids, taxpayers did not have to subsidize our family.
That's the difference, and looking at employees today who work just as hard today and yet have none of these benefits the reaction is to laugh at them??
Did your dad and other relatives who worked very physical jobs in the past gripe and moan about their jobs all the time? The ones, like this blogger, who do those jobs today, IMO, are getting laughed at because of all the "woe is me" and victim/martyr mentality ("look how bad I have it!").
In the past, the tough industrial jobs were less safe than their equivalent today, due to modern safety measures and technology. The Amazon warehouse workers who were stretching before their shift? That's modern. You didn't get that in a warehouse 60 years ago!
Did your dad and other relatives who worked very physical jobs in the past gripe and moan about their jobs all the time? The ones, like this blogger, who do those jobs today, IMO, are getting laughed at because of all the "woe is me" and victim/martyr mentality ("look how bad I have it!").
In the past, the tough industrial jobs were less safe than their equivalent today, due to modern safety measures and technology. The Amazon warehouse workers who were stretching before their shift? That's modern. You didn't get that in a warehouse 60 years ago!
Actually it's pretty common for lots of people to gripe and moan about their jobs, period. Someone stoically and silently pushing through a hard, low paying job year after year actually sounds a bit weird to me.
Also, it is modern, but I expect having the warehouse workers stretch before their shift is more for Amazon's benefit than the workers.
Did your dad and other relatives who worked very physical jobs in the past gripe and moan about their jobs all the time? The ones, like this blogger, who do those jobs today, IMO, are getting laughed at because of all the "woe is me" and victim/martyr mentality ("look how bad I have it!").
In the past, the tough industrial jobs were less safe than their equivalent today, due to modern safety measures and technology. The Amazon warehouse workers who were stretching before their shift? That's modern. You didn't get that in a warehouse 60 years ago!
They probably did gripe back in the old days, but did so on the way from the house they could afford to the doc that was covered by the health insurance they had. Today's workers in the warehouses discussed in the article don't have such luxury.
gimmethesimplelife
11-21-12, 11:53am
I read the article posted by the OP and it seems to me to be a bit of a return to the world of work described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, about the horrible working conditions immigrants had to face in factories around the turn of the century here in the US. This article really embarrasses me to be an American, I had hoped we were beyond this kind of abuse. I don't have an answer for this, I don't know how to fix this, other than limiting spending in general and not ordering from places such as Amazon. It may be true that no one per se put a gun up to anyone's head and forced them to take such a job.....but the economic of a given person's situation may have been just the same as someone putting a gun up to someone's head. This just really disgusts me and gives me even more reason not to be part of consumer culture. Rob
I don't think it is possible to develop a reasonable understanding of all of the hidden forces that distort pricing, so it is very difficult for the average person to make moral *and* rational economic decisions.
I've certainly become convinced that the more you learn the more delicate the balancing act becomes when you're trying to decide what's "right".
I haven't read all the posts yet but my take is this: Nowadays there are labor laws and safety laws established to protect workers. If someone in a warehouse isn't being given proper breaks or overtime pay, or they feel that there is an environmental or safety hazard, they can contact those places like OSHA or the Labor Dept to have those working conditions recified. There is no need to unionized fo better or fair working conditions anymore since there are other venues to make (force) those changes to a work place.
As for what one considers hard work - well there are alot of work environments that are hot and dirty and hazardous - I've worked in some extremely dangerous and hazardous (and very very dirty, hot, cold, etc...) conditions myself (and have even posted a few grubby photos of me here to prove it :-)!)- yet it is all voluntary. My job was voluntary just as any warehouse workers job is. A warehouse environment is actually a low risk job that has little in the way of physical hardship compared to many, many other jobs. Shipyards, steel mills, sewers and sewer plants, oil riggs, mechant sailors, commercial fishing, etc... I can think of many more. All of those are voluntary and, if the jobs conditions don't violate worker safety for that job, well then what's to complain about? If it does violate worker safety or labor laws, then the authorities should be notified.
ApatheticNoMore
11-21-12, 2:41pm
If they had no complaints whatsoever about jobs in the past would they have unionized? Would they have demanded the 8 hour day, unionized for higher pay etc.? If they were all just into stoically accepting their sad lot in life (which has long been a philosophy in many parts of the world, but was never preached as the philosophy of America) would we have any of that?
But individual complaining doesn't always accomplish much, yea sure fine, that's true enough. And in contrast stoic acceptance accomplishes exactly nothing at all! What would accomplish improved working conditions is building a movement, which he is trying to do with a boycott, but which might be better acheived through unionization (i'd be far more likely to not cross a picket - ie participate in *that* kind of boycott, I usually don't cross pickets - than just a plain boycott "because it's the moral thing to do" - but that's me).
Just keeping on stoically accepting things (working conditions in this case) getting worse and worse leads to only one thing: things getting worse and worse! The road to heck is paved with such.
If they had no complaints whatsoever about jobs in the past would they have unionized? Would they have demanded the 8 hour day, unionized for higher pay etc.? If they were all just into stoically accepting their sad lot in life (which has long been a philosophy in many parts of the world, but was never preached as the philosophy of America) would we have any of that?
But individual complaining doesn't always accomplish much, yea sure fine, that's true enough. And in contrast stoic acceptance accomplishes exactly nothing at all! What would accomplish improved working conditions is building a movement, which he is trying to do with a boycott, but which might be better acheived through unionization (i'd be far more likely to not cross a picket - ie participate in *that* kind of boycott, I usually don't cross pickets - than just a plain boycott "because it's the moral thing to do" - but that's me).
Just keeping on stoically accepting things (working conditions in this case) getting worse and worse leads to only one thing: things getting worse and worse! The road to heck is paved with such.
That was exactly my point - unions WERE needed in the past to push thu fair labor and safety laws. Those are in place now and can, and should, be utilized when dealing with complains about working conditions. That is different then wanting better-than-you-have-now working conditions, such as higher pay, more vacation time, better benefits, less mandatory O/T, holidays off, etc... aren't technically "unfair or unsafe" - and using boycots, strikes, walkouts are all good ways to get an employer or company to change those types of conditions. But that won't change the nature of the job - it'll still be hot and dirty and dangerous just because that's the nature of those kinds of jobs.
I found the article profoundly disturbing. I shop almost exclusively online. I'm reevaluating that choice after reading the article. I shared it with my DH and he's on board with changing the way we shop.
Funny that you just posted this now - I recently suggested this to a friend and he put it out on his email distribution list.
Sometime ago I got concerned about humanitarian issues in China and their poor treatment of Tibetans. I decided I would not buy products made in China and would look at labels. As more and more things were made there I finally decided that to resist was futile and gave up.
.
I tried the same thing for the same reasons and also had to give up. It was truelly shocking to the amount of products made in China et al. Places were working conditions can be terrible and no labor or safety laws exist to right those conditions.
I found the article profoundly disturbing. I shop almost exclusively online. I'm reevaluating that choice after reading the article. I shared it with my DH and he's on board with changing the way we shop.
Funny that you just posted this now - I recently suggested this to a friend and he put it out on his email distribution list.
So...there is a difference between the warehouses that ship to individuals via internet shopping and the ones that ship to retailers and brick and mortar stores?
There is no need to unionized fo better or fair working conditions anymore since there are other venues to make (force) those changes to a work place.
I will have to disagree with this. I'll out myself, I have been a union member in the past, even though I am an evil 1%-er...
As an individual employee, to take issue Through Official Channels with your work conditions is a tricky business. The pace of governmental response is slow, you may not even have the skills and contacts to effectively press your claims, and you may well suffer from your company's response in the meantime. There is great power in working with a union representing your interests, you yourself aren't so personally exposed and burdened with the effort of pressing your issue, and issues can often be resolved internal to the company, quickly, and without recourse to dragging in regulatory agencies.
Furthermore, just because we have existing work safety/conditions regulations doesn't mean they are sufficient or cover emerging situations, and the pace of regulatory progress is cumbersome. Unions, negotiating in good faith with management, can speed things up, to the benefit of all.
As evil management scum now, I support honest unions, and encourage them in their efforts.
Bae, You are an enlightened 1% if you support unions. I personally feel that without unions this county would be even more barbaric than it is in the treatment of many low wage workers. There is strength in numbers and it is good to have management realize that in the long run it is beneficial to have well paid, safe employees. Much less drain on government programs.
sweetana3
11-21-12, 5:20pm
Good unions, responsible unions, honest and upfront unions are fine in my book and were (still are) so necessary to create humane working conditions. However, unions and management are cut from the same cloth in many instances.
1. When money is involved, corruption exists. Not always but sure enough times to be scary.
2. Unions are just as likely to be power hungry as managment. Compromise is needed on both sides.
3. The unions are only as good as the people chosen to run them and to negotiate. There is a lot of secrecy and rigidity on both sides.
Actually, as I write this it sounds like I am talking about Congress/Senate.
Good unions, responsible unions, honest and upfront unions are fine in my book and were (still are) so necessary to create humane working conditions. However, unions and management are cut from the same cloth in many instances.
1. When money is involved, corruption exists. Not always but sure enough times to be scary.
2. Unions are just as likely to be power hungry as managment. Compromise is needed on both sides.
3. The unions are only as good as the people chosen to run them and to negotiate. There is a lot of secrecy and rigidity on both sides.
Actually, as I write this it sounds like I am talking about Congress/Senate.
All power structures devolve into oligarchies. Even unions.
Unfortunately now what we have is a corpocracy. The suggestion that unions in the U.S. are anywhere near as powerful as corporations is fantasy.
I view unions as being similar to the manufactured housing industry. Both had enormous opportunity, but shot themselves in the foot. Manufactured housing is a far superior method of constructing a house, but suffers from severe image problems because the industry chose to primarily produce low end products rather than a full menu. Unions put forth a parade of Hoffa-esque figures that reinforce all the rumors of corruption and ties to organized crime. Several unions have gone beyond simply looking out for members best interests and made demands that, given the level of training required to fill some positions, appeared unreasonable to many on the outside. They also loose credibility when strikes are ended by either corporate staying power or government intervention. Honest unions that truly aid their membership would be valuable entities. Unfortunately, and at least for now, those look to be nothing more than historical references.
The Storyteller
11-26-12, 1:59pm
Unions are controlled by their locals, made up of local employees who call the shots. The national and international bodies really have little control over the bargaining process or how the local is run, or its relationship with management. And just like management, there are good local leaders, and there are bad.
The problem often is approach to bargaining and control by the parent bodies. There was a battle for the hears of unions early on, between those who aligned with Gene Debs, and those who aligned with Samuel Gompers. Gene Debs was about working within the community for the common good. Gompers was about being in it for yourself. Gompers won. That is where you get idiotic union rules that say this employee can't do this or that, because the other type employee is supposed to do it, or saying what employees won't do. That is the sort of thing that gives unions a bad name.
Some of those parent bodies have learned their lesson, and are looking at ways of working within the community for the betterment of all. They are going back and looking at Debs' approach, and teaching it to their locals. It will take a lot of work, because the Gompers mentality is deeply entrenched. And it may be they learned their lessons too late. Had they been doing this for a long time, the stunts some of these states are pulling wouldn't even fly.
Because it is in all workers best interest that such unions survive and thrive, and most people are employees, rather than employers.
From my experience in manufacturing, the mere threat of workers organizing into unions is often enough to keep employers and business owners on the straight and narrow.
In practice unions add another layer of bureaucracy into business operations and add unnecessary restrictions on the types of work that can be done. For example, a line worker may have to call an electrician for something as simple as tightening a screw on an electrical wire with a flat head screwdriver. I'm sure they have a place in modern practice, but they also can make business operations less efficient.
At least part of union failures of recent years is their demand for sometimes unreasonably high wages and benefits that make businesses unable to compete in a global market, against others in the same industry working for a fair market wage, or against even less expensive domestic workers.
The Storyteller
11-27-12, 8:07pm
In practice unions add another layer of bureaucracy into business operations and add unnecessary restrictions on the types of work that can be done. For example, a line worker may have to call an electrician for something as simple as tightening a screw on an electrical wire with a flat head screwdriver.
Actually, I could see a useful reason for that.
Here at my library, we only want librarians answering information queries. We tried training non-librarians how to answer questions that did not require librarian training to answer, but we found they had a difficult time determining what questions were appropriate for them to answer, and which required professional level expertise. And we don't even have a union any more, but even when we did, the union contract didn't specify such things. This was a management decision. I'm sure the medical fields have similar restrictions.
Seems to me this would be important with safety related issues in manufacturing. Sure it is just a screw, but then you are expecting this line worker to determine when it is safe to do the electrical work, and when it is not. I imagine at some point that would become increasingly difficult to determine. Better to tell them to do no electrical work at all, rather than risk a safety hazard for your future customers. It may not have been a contract related issue at all. It may have been a management decision.
But say a local does have some ridiculous rule. That is the members fault. Unions are democracies. The employees need to speak up to their leadership, or better yet, become leaders themselves. Get involved and change it. I knew a guy who was unhappy with his large local's decisions, so he ran for president and won.
We had such low attendance at our local meetings, usually less than 1% of our membership, yet I can't tell you how much whining I heard as a union president about what a terrible job we were doing (even though we made their pensions solvent and got them raises).
At least part of union failures of recent years is their demand for sometimes unreasonably high wages and benefits that make businesses unable to compete in a global market, against others in the same industry working for a fair market wage, or against even less expensive domestic workers.
Well, first off, if you are competing against global work market, you aren't talking about a fair market wage, or even a living wage. But setting that aside...
There are two parties at the bargaining table. Any wages or benefits are at least as much management's responsibility as labor's. And as one of the guys at that table, I can promise you there was a horse trade going on to get those wages and benefits. Management doesn't just hand stuff out like candy. Concessions are always made, on both sides. That is why it is called bargaining.
Agree that the medical field, legal field, etc. all have restrictions on who can do what. Some of that is to protect higher-paying jobs, some of it is safety-related, some of it is because that's the way it's always been done.
But the AMA, ABA, etc. are all unions, too, nonetheless.
ApatheticNoMore
11-27-12, 9:07pm
In practice unions add another layer of bureaucracy into business operations and add unnecessary restrictions on the types of work that can be done. For example, a line worker may have to call an electrician for something as simple as tightening a screw on an electrical wire with a flat head screwdriver. I'm sure they have a place in modern practice, but they also can make business operations less efficient.
whereas professional jobs just write this type of stuff into laws for themselves. No I don't work in a profession protected by any type of laws unfortunately, the wind is not at my back ;). But I mean things like landscape architects push for laws for what must be done by landscape architects and not mere contractors even though the contractors are doing it now and have for ages etc.. That benefits a few people gaming for special favors, but in contrast unions built broad-based working class prosperity.
At least part of union failures of recent years is their demand for sometimes unreasonably high wages and benefits that make businesses unable to compete in a global market, against others in the same industry working for a fair market wage, or against even less expensive domestic workers.
or alternatively trade agreements and all that they meant were allowed to destroy private sector unions near permanently in this country (but who could have known? I dont' believe the consequences were unknowable)
I will have to disagree with this. I'll out myself, I have been a union member in the past, even though I am an evil 1%-er...
As an individual employee, to take issue Through Official Channels with your work conditions is a tricky business. The pace of governmental response is slow, you may not even have the skills and contacts to effectively press your claims, and you may well suffer from your company's response in the meantime. There is great power in working with a union representing your interests, you yourself aren't so personally exposed and burdened with the effort of pressing your issue, and issues can often be resolved internal to the company, quickly, and without recourse to dragging in regulatory agencies.
Furthermore, just because we have existing work safety/conditions regulations doesn't mean they are sufficient or cover emerging situations, and the pace of regulatory progress is cumbersome. Unions, negotiating in good faith with management, can speed things up, to the benefit of all.
As evil management scum now, I support honest unions, and encourage them in their efforts.
Ha ha - evil ex-union employee myself - and a former government regulator (Environmental Compliance Officer) so I have evil just oozing out of my :moon:!
But I agree with you that some governmental response can be slow - especially when dealing with labor law violations such as not being paid for over time, paid below minimum wage, etc.. but generally if there is a safety violation or hazardous working condition a phone call to OSHA or whatever state agency will be dealt with pretty quickly. But even that is a process depending on the severity of the violation - everything from a "fix it in 24 hours" to a full shutdown of a facility and even arrest on criminal charges of management. So my point was that unlike many other countries with no legal means to address horride working conditions or pay, there ARE places in this country to address all labor and safety violations that exist (and those violations almost never exist in union shops anyways) so there isn't a need to unionize just for that purpose. But someone in a non-union job needs to be the whistleblower.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.