Amazon used attractive, flirty anti-union consultants to try to bust union formation

[HaleyBaron]

I've been in on jobs where I wasn't in a union and i've been on jobs where I was. The pay and treatment of me was MUCH BETTER when I was in a union. Anybody that argues that unions are bad either haven't been in a union or they are management. To say that unions don''t help workers is foolish.

Anyone dumb enough to be in a union is dumb enough to be fooled by one. That's just my general outlook on all union work.

 

[RickTheToad]

Ahh, the ad hominem. The median Canadian is better off than the median American. The median New Jerseyan is better off than the median Texan (or any other right to work for less state). Just a fact.

Then I guess you should consider moving to NJ or Canada. Enjoy the weather in Canada and the traffic / gridlock in NJ.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Then I guess you should consider moving to NJ or Canada. Enjoy the weather in Canada and the traffic / gridlock in NJ.

Lol. Deflection but that’s cool. I currently live in NJ and the median worker here is better off than the median worker in an anti-union state.

It’s funny because some construction guys are always complaining about the union and management. I worked on a site back in NY. One guy I worked with moved down to FL to get away from the union. Lasted 2 months said the pay and conditions were dog****. Then he came back to NY. Go figure.

 

[RickTheToad]

Remember that it used to be possible to work a regular job and support a wife, kids, buy a house and car, plus pay for college. That was the white picket fence american dream.

Nowadays you need to become a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer to do that. But back in the day you didn't even need college supposedly.




Who cares about productivity? Regular workers don't get paid to care about someone's bottom line.


Decrease in productivity to a company can mean the workers get breaks and have time to socialize.







You do not want to work for a company run by an Indian lol. The two times I can remember being interviewed by a Chinese store manager they made sure to imply they like to work their employees to the bone. I'm pretty sure an Indian boss would be similar.




My friend told me that's his experience working construction for the MTA. They tell you not to work so hard because they get paid more if the job takes longer.

From an employee perspective that sounds pretty good. But it sucks from the perspective of someone who wants the subway trains to run well.

If two parties work against each other, then they are not working for a common cause. The main reason why the cost of living was lower in 1970-1971, was that we were still on a partial gold standard. Thus, after the gov't was allow to spend more than we brought in, then the costs of living cost more since then.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Ok so youre against making more money and having a better quality of work life??? Just come out and it admit it that you are management. Really nobody else would be anti-union except business owners or management. Regardless unions are on a an upswing with Starbucks and Amazon getting unions so whether you join or not doesn't matter. Joining unions is catching fire and you can't stop it.

You sound like a union salesman. You're not the first and I will continue to try to make people be the last.

Making more money and having a better quality of life is not done through joining a union. Even mexicans who immigrant from over the border avoid unions. The only reason they do it in construction is because of the union cartel there. And that's assuming they arent being paid under the table.

 

[RickTheToad]

Lol. Deflection but that’s cool. I currently live in NJ and the median worker here is better off than the median worker in an anti-union state.

It’s funny because some construction guys are always complaining about the union and management. I worked on a site back in NY. One guy I worked with moved down to FL to get away from the union. Lasted 2 months said the pay and conditions were dog****. Then he came back to NY. Go figure.

Plus, working that that heat as a manual laborer, couldn't had been easy.

 

[devilkingx2]

Not supposedly. It was reality.

It’s cool to bash unions now because our corporate overlords push their propaganda onto us.

Everyone loves unions.. as long as it is the police union.

I wouldn't call it necessarily corporate propaganda, there's probably people here that want to hire a maid or something and hate having to pay their union rate.

Or people who joined a union, got no benefits to themselves and had to pay dues anyway.

People who don't know that Amazon workers literally pee in bottles because they don't get breaks and Amazon was forced to admit that's not just a rumor.

There's also people who probably only know about the unions that are horribly corrupt like police unions protecting murderers, teachers unions wanting lockdowns to last forever so they can get paid to sit at home, oil and labor unions electing Biden so that he can ban fracking and shut down pipelines putting all their members out of work, etc.

If two parties work against each other, then they are not working for a common cause. The main reason why the cost of living was lower in 1970-1971, was that we were still on a partial gold standard. Thus, after the gov't was allow to spend more than we brought in, then the costs of living cost more since then.

There's a lot of things that went wrong around that time. The gold standard, tuition prices skyrocketing, arguably mass immigration and women in the workforce depressing wages due to supply and demand, reagan did some unionbusting, etc.

 

[RickTheToad]

I wouldn't call it necessarily corporate propaganda, there's probably people here that want to hire a maid or something and hate having to pay their union rate.

Or people who joined a union, got no benefits to themselves and had to pay dues anyway.

People who don't know that Amazon workers literally pee in bottles because they don't get breaks and Amazon was forced to admit that's not just a rumor.

There's also people who probably only know about the unions that are horribly corrupt like police unions protecting murderers, teachers unions wanting lockdowns to last forever so they can get paid to sit at home, oil and labor unions electing Biden so that he can ban fracking and shut down pipelines putting all their members out of work, etc.



There's a lot of things that went wrong around that time. The gold standard, tuition prices skyrocketing, arguably mass immigration and women in the workforce depressing wages due to supply and demand, reagan did some unionbusting, etc.

Regan wasn't Pres until 1980. Only union he busted was the air traffic controllers union. They essentially stopped air transit across the county. On a national level, only the president can disband a union. A governor can disband state sanctioned unions.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The main reason why the cost of living was lower in 1970-1971, was that we were still on a partial gold standard. Thus, after the gov't was allow to spend more than we brought in, then the costs of living cost more since then.

The government has always spent more than it brought in. That’s how governments work. I don’t know where you come up with this stuff.

I wouldn't call it necessarily corporate propaganda, there's probably people here that want to hire a maid or something and hate having to pay their union rate.

Or people who joined a union, got no benefits to themselves and had to pay dues anyway.

Everyone in the union got benefits whether they admit it or not.

 

[RickTheToad]

The government has always spent more than it brought in. That’s how governments work. I don’t know where you come up with this stuff.

Actually, no, this is incorrect. Not sure why you opine sometimes, but are mistaken.

"Nixon finalized a process that was begun by FDR in the Thirties. The history and reasons for abandoning the gold standard are complex, but it all comes down to government control of the economy. As long as a gold standard— or any standard based on tangible specie— is in place, the money supply must be connected to the specie, and paper money must be redeemable in specie. But that connection limits the money supply, and in turn connects it to economic productivity and the laws of supply and demand.

So generally, a gold standard is good for an economy. But it’s bad for Leviathan government. Generally, governments want to do three things economically: 1) Protect their favorites from economic competition; 2) extract as much wealth as possible from the economy; and 3) manipulate the economy for political purposes, not least of which is making sure the economy is surging at election times. Typically, governments accomplish these purposes by expanding the money supply— usually by expanding credit, but sometimes just by printing more currency, and manipulating interest and discount rates. But with a gold standard— that is, with the money supply connected to a tangible specie— it’s hard to manipulate the money supply.

So governments abandon the gold (specie) standard and issue fiat money. Problems (for government purposes) solved. Now governments can expand the money supply and manipulate rates as much as they want."

 

[EyeBRollin]

Actually, no, this is incorrect. Not sure why you opine sometimes, but are mistaken.

"Nixon finalized a process that was begun by FDR in the Thirties. The history and reasons for abandoning the gold standard are complex, but it all comes down to government control of the economy. As long as a gold standard— or any standard based on tangible specie— is in place, the money supply must be connected to the specie, and paper money must be redeemable in specie. But that connection limits the money supply, and in turn connects it to economic productivity and the laws of supply and demand.

So generally, a gold standard is good for an economy. But it’s bad for Leviathan government. Generally, governments want to do three things economically: 1) Protect their favorites from economic competition; 2) extract as much wealth as possible from the economy; and 3) manipulate the economy for political purposes, not least of which is making sure the economy is surging at election times. Typically, governments accomplish these purposes by expanding the money supply— usually by expanding credit, but sometimes just by printing more currency, and manipulating interest and discount rates. But with a gold standard— that is, with the money supply connected to a tangible specie— it’s hard to manipulate the money supply.

So governments abandon the gold (specie) standard and issue fiat money. Problems (for government purposes) solved. Now governments can expand the money supply and manipulate rates as much as they want."

I think it is time to lay of the nutter blogs. Governments do not “extract wealth” from the economy. On the contrary; they inject dollars into the economy. Your opinions are just that; opinions. They have no foundational basis in reality. The United States has been running deficits for almost 250 years. They all run deficits. That’s how the economy grows.

 

[devilkingx2]

Actually, no, this is incorrect. Not sure why you opine sometimes, but are mistaken.

"Nixon finalized a process that was begun by FDR in the Thirties. The history and reasons for abandoning the gold standard are complex, but it all comes down to government control of the economy. As long as a gold standard— or any standard based on tangible specie— is in place, the money supply must be connected to the specie, and paper money must be redeemable in specie. But that connection limits the money supply, and in turn connects it to economic productivity and the laws of supply and demand.

So generally, a gold standard is good for an economy. But it’s bad for Leviathan government. Generally, governments want to do three things economically: 1) Protect their favorites from economic competition; 2) extract as much wealth as possible from the economy; and 3) manipulate the economy for political purposes, not least of which is making sure the economy is surging at election times. Typically, governments accomplish these purposes by expanding the money supply— usually by expanding credit, but sometimes just by printing more currency, and manipulating interest and discount rates. But with a gold standard— that is, with the money supply connected to a tangible specie— it’s hard to manipulate the money supply.

So governments abandon the gold (specie) standard and issue fiat money. Problems (for government purposes) solved. Now governments can expand the money supply and manipulate rates as much as they want."

I've heard that deflation is actually worse than inflation for the economy. Probably because of how interest works. So the gold standard would eventually cause problems, like what if the money supply were to become more valuable and therefore all of your debts became harder to pay.

Crypto is a good example of this problem, if you owed someone 1 BTC a year ago, you would be really screwed because Bitcoin is now worth like twice as much.

I think it is time to lay of the nutter blogs. Governments do not “extract wealth” from the economy. On the contrary; they inject dollars into the economy. Your opinions are just that; opinions. They have no foundational basis in reality. The United States has been running deficits for almost 250 years. They all run deficits. That’s how the economy grows.

Dollars and wealth are not the same thing. Wealth is actual resources and value.

A government that creates more resources than it uses would either be exploring unknown frontiers (mining asteroids and colonizing the moon + mars) or conquering and looting other countries

 

[EyeBRollin]

Dollars and wealth are not the same thing. Wealth is actual resources and value.

A government that creates more resources than it uses would either be exploring unknown frontiers (mining asteroids and colonizing the moon + mars) or conquering and looting other countries

Never said they were the same thing. Injecting dollars creates wealth indirectly, by fostering the production of more goods and services. Governments do not “create” resources. Arguing the counterpoint is a strawman.

 

[2Rocky]

Anything to destroy unions is a plus in my book.

If you need a union to protect your job then you aren't an asset to your company.

 

[RickTheToad]

I think it is time to lay of the nutter blogs. Governments do not “extract wealth” from the economy. On the contrary; they inject dollars into the economy. Your opinions are just that; opinions. They have no foundational basis in reality. The United States has been running deficits for almost 250 years. They all run deficits. That’s how the economy grows.

If that is what you think, then you may think whatever you wish. However, in reality, taxes, fees, etc imposed by governments extract resources from the end user. Gov't charges the company or corporation for something, they nearly always pass it on to the end user (you or I). So much for your theory though.

 

[EyeBRollin]

If that is what you think, then you may think whatever you wish. However, in reality, taxes, fees, etc imposed by governments extract resources from the end user. Gov't charges the company or corporation for something, they nearly always pass it on to the end user (you or I). So much for your theory though.

250 years of government deficits is evidence of the contrary.

 

[devilkingx2]

You're right that government deficits don't really matter but printing excess money causes high inflation and encourages them to raise taxes in order to curb high inflation.

But both high taxes and high inflation screw over most normal people.

The main problem with government spending is that the government has no issue spending money on stupid things that don't benefit anyone yet still incur inflation and taxes.

 

[EyeBRollin]

You're right that government deficits don't really matter but printing excess money causes high inflation and encourages them to raise taxes in order to curb high inflation.

But both high taxes and high inflation screw over most normal people.

The main problem with government spending is that the government has no issue spending money on stupid things that don't benefit anyone yet still incur inflation and taxes.

The government just as easily fvcks with interest rates to curb money supply. The primary cause of inflation is oil prices, not money printing.

 

[HaleyBaron]

250 years of government deficits is evidence of the contrary.

The government didnt have a deficit until fiat was instituted. In addition, the government being like that is a feature of fiat, not a negative. EyeB you cant talk economics without knowing the basics.

 

[RickTheToad]

250 years of government deficits is evidence of the contrary.

Whatever you say professor.