Let's see if I can succinctly unpack the conflict of interest here: a group of workers wishes to hold a unionization vote by mail. Workers who won't show up to work, want to create a union to protect them from having to work in conditions they don't like, and they want to sit at home while doing this.
I had a boss once tell me, that he expects new hire candidates to be dressed to the nines even when the job itself doesn't call for it, because how they are dressed and present themselves on their potential first day is the best condition you will ever see them: the top bar. A similar reasoning: if a union can't be assed to appear on the day of voting to BECOME a union, you can expect to never see them again once they ARE a union.
Nevermind fraud. Unwillingness to show up to work is a valid criticism of a "labor" union.
I think there's a simpler reason. If they show up in person, their faces and names can be discerned, allowing Amazon to keep a record of how each person voted. Of course, I don't know exactly how this mail-in procedure is going to be handled, so maybe they still can with an extra bribe.
It's hard to sympathize with either side, personally. Unions are a great idea that's kind of turned into a joke. At the same time, corporations are so absolutely assblasted over unions that they successfully pushed "diversity is our strength" because of some studies that showed it would make unions more rare.
Pretty much every study on diversity training shows it breeds emnity and hatred in the workplace, and sows division by highlighting what wasn't important before: 99% of all workers only think "is my coworker going to make my life harder or easier?" and that's it, but diversity training makes sure that "what protected classes is my coworker in? That could factor into if they're going to make my life harder or easier." passes through their mind. It turns an equal apathetic workplace into one that actively is hyperaware of race/gender/creed/whatever.
And you can't work well with someone who is going to make your life harder for no reason. Fact of life. So why would you join hands to make a union? Unions are about unity. And there can be no unity when there's tests showing Jeff from Manufacturing associates puppies with white people 0.01 seconds faster than associating them with black people. (Seriously, that subconscious bias test thing is the worst.)
It is entirely true that "diversity" has the oh so helpful side-effect of stopping not only unions, but any form of unified worker activities or collective bargaining efforts. In the same sense that Viagra is a blood health medicine with a "side-effect" of producing erections, no one ever would use it just for that side-effect, would they?
I don't disagree at all with your statement on workers, but when I'm currently working at a mega corporation that quite literally has carboard cutouts of Fauci, with a 6 ft. diameter ring taped to the floor around each, telling people to social distance, I have a bit of a different perspective on holding companies accountable for the retarded covid rules they put in place.
Let's see if I can succinctly unpack the conflict of interest here: a group of workers wishes to hold a unionization vote by mail. Workers who won't show up to work, want to create a union to protect them from having to work in conditions they don't like, and they want to sit at home while doing this.
I had a boss once tell me, that he expects new hire candidates to be dressed to the nines even when the job itself doesn't call for it, because how they are dressed and present themselves on their potential first day is the best condition you will ever see them: the top bar. A similar reasoning: if a union can't be assed to appear on the day of voting to BECOME a union, you can expect to never see them again once they ARE a union.
Nevermind fraud. Unwillingness to show up to work is a valid criticism of a "labor" union.
I think there's a simpler reason. If they show up in person, their faces and names can be discerned, allowing Amazon to keep a record of how each person voted. Of course, I don't know exactly how this mail-in procedure is going to be handled, so maybe they still can with an extra bribe.
It's hard to sympathize with either side, personally. Unions are a great idea that's kind of turned into a joke. At the same time, corporations are so absolutely assblasted over unions that they successfully pushed "diversity is our strength" because of some studies that showed it would make unions more rare.
Pretty much every study on diversity training shows it breeds emnity and hatred in the workplace, and sows division by highlighting what wasn't important before: 99% of all workers only think "is my coworker going to make my life harder or easier?" and that's it, but diversity training makes sure that "what protected classes is my coworker in? That could factor into if they're going to make my life harder or easier." passes through their mind. It turns an equal apathetic workplace into one that actively is hyperaware of race/gender/creed/whatever.
And you can't work well with someone who is going to make your life harder for no reason. Fact of life. So why would you join hands to make a union? Unions are about unity. And there can be no unity when there's tests showing Jeff from Manufacturing associates puppies with white people 0.01 seconds faster than associating them with black people. (Seriously, that subconscious bias test thing is the worst.)
It is entirely true that "diversity" has the oh so helpful side-effect of stopping not only unions, but any form of unified worker activities or collective bargaining efforts. In the same sense that Viagra is a blood health medicine with a "side-effect" of producing erections, no one ever would use it just for that side-effect, would they?
This is a very strong post.
I don't disagree at all with your statement on workers, but when I'm currently working at a mega corporation that quite literally has carboard cutouts of Fauci, with a 6 ft. diameter ring taped to the floor around each, telling people to social distance, I have a bit of a different perspective on holding companies accountable for the retarded covid rules they put in place.