• ram@bookwormstory.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is illegal, but the US is completely toothless with enforcement on anyone with any amount of wealth.

      • AZmaybe9@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thankfully, Biden recently gave the IRS some teeth to go after millionaires who rely on tax dodging. So there’s hope as long as a criminal isn’t put in charge to de-teeth the government again.

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          And hopefully the pendulum doesn’t swing too far next year for all that effort to be rolled back

      • MisterD
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        The penalties are also so minimal that it’s cheaper to re-offend

  • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “If two people who don’t normally speak to each other start speaking, they may be organising”

    Making new friends 😤😤😤👎🚫🚫🚫

  • staticblanket
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re not anti-union but we hire the actual fucking Pinkertons to stalk and intimidate you!

  • catboss@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to take this chance to say

    Fuck Amazon. Fuck this video. Fuck Amazon. Fuck whoever thinks this is okay. Fuck their management. Fuck this union busting bullshit. Fucking make these assholes pay taxes. Fucking break their shit company up. Also fuck Amazon.

    Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You might not interpret the motive as based on fear, if you think your employer loves you wants to make you happy and feel protected.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Umm, that wouldn’t change the truth? I guess I’m confused about what your argument is…

          • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you trying to say that these videos work because most people do not know the truth?

            If that’s your point then I agree. But it sounds kinda like you’re implying that everyone already knows unions are good and for that reason we should stop saying that they are. Which is patently false.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Someone who relates to employers as though they were benevolent would reach a different conclusion from you about the motive for the presentation.

              I think there is no great complexity beneath the observation.

              • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Someone who relates to employers as though they were benevolent would be incorrect in the case against unions though? Unions have shown to be nearly universally beneficial to the workers that participate in them. That is not my opinion. That is verifiable fact.

                If a company was strictly benevolent as you’ve claimed then why contest the union? Why negotiate terms at all? Just hear what the employees en mass want and sign your name on the dotted line. The fact that this does not happen, and we constantly see company’s hire law firms to bust the unions or otherwise drag their feet to apply changes to company structure upon reaching a compromise is objectively evidence that the company is not benevolent.

                If unions didn’t work then there would not be unions.

  • oroboros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow be on the lookout for people talking to people they didn’t talk to before, or people being upset, this is thought police, this is actually, literally, fucking 1984!

  • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We’re not anti-union, but we’re not neutral either.”

    Well Amazon, you’re not pro-union, so what exactly are you? ‘Cause that pretty much covers the full spectrum.

  • Tenthrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand the media professionals who made this. How can you live with yourself?

  • Thrife@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Holy shit is this badly done. Starting with no answers whatsoever, why unions are regarded as bad except for “but our customers and partners!” and then a huge load of infodump about potential signs…

    • Striker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Explaining why they think unions are bad requires them explaining what a union even is.

    • danwardvs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not partners, but shareholders. It doesn’t beat around the bush. It outright says “unions are not in the best interest for shareholders”

    • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was thinking about this the other day and while I’m sure they would never admit it, I think the reason Amazon is so anti-union is to prepare for automation.

      Whenever they can reliably replace all the low-income employees with robots, they will do so. If employees had a union they might be able to stop or slow the replacement of people with robots.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    We aren’t against unions or organising, but anyone seen doing so is to be immediately reported to their manager’s manager’s manager so they can be fired immediately kindly defend their right to a direct relationship with the “associate”