Welcome to Canada’s official subreddit! This is the place to engage on all things Canada. Nous parlons en anglais et en français. Please be respectful of each other when posting, and note that users new to the subreddit might experience posting limitations until they become more active and longer members of the community. Do not hesitate to message the mods if you experience any issues!
Toronto delivery drivers say Amazon is blocking their attempts to unionize
Paywall
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
My orientation day they pretty much told us that any talk of unionization would be met with immediate termination and not being able to be hired by any Amazon owned company for 5 years.
That was followed by repeated “What? I never said that.” from the tour leader when questioned.
Comment deleted by user
I hadn’t seen that! Might be Amazon US.
But, honestly sounds about right... they wanted us to report everything out of the ordinary to them.
No one ever reported anything. Too many steps with absolutely nothing gained from it.
Contradictory statement, if they aren't neutral, they're either pro-union, or anti-union.
Lol, yeah, because they care about their associates rights, which is why they're fighting unionization.....
Wow, that’s vulgar. God forbid you talk about a living wage.
Hello and welcome to class warfare. The rich would literally enslave the poor if they thought they could enforce it. They’ve done it before.
At this point they're getting the poor to enslave themselves. No need for a heavy hand anymore.
HEY EVERYONE! u/yellowdaffodill USED A UNION WORD!
Comment deleted by user
It is the same authoritarian mindset. Do not let the people think for themselves. Make the only option to comply. They know that their power structure will crumble QUICKLY if the people begin to stand up.
Comment deleted by user
Bingo! Brain drain happens because those doing the exploiting don’t have foresight. They want a weak and uneducated workforce to produce their goods for the smallest wages possible in the short term, whilst sacrificing the much more valuable research and development down the line. That’s why overall oppressive countries tend to fall behind economically and technologically.
Yeah because workers striking against capitalists are on the same level as active saboteurs sent by capitalists.
This is like something out of one of those dystopian future movies
The worst thing about the cold war hangover from all that propaganda is that people think you can't be this crazy if you're on the good guy capitalist side. Turns out living in the free world actually carries its own baggage, and its not like it isn't there in a decent history book to read about.
Value village and Wal-Mart take similar measures.
Holy fucking shit. How did I not hear about this?
Comment deleted by user
I do all the time.
I'd imagine it doesn't legally hold up. I'm guessing if you say posted it online you could get into legal trouble as well.
Comment deleted by user
Errrr day? That makes me feel better. I have a couple of recordings of a couple of conversations with a couple of bosses that I was hesitant to leverage because I felt recording them secretly made them last resort material.
From now on. Errrr day, supersnausages🙌
I have a call recorder app on my phone which has helped with not only business specifics which were spoken during a conversation, but also offering peace of mind when discussions happen when there are possible legal ramifications. I know I'm covered and if I forget something the log is there.
I don’t understand why it’s illegal to privately record any conversation. Why shouldn’t anything someone says be held against them? They just want to get away with doing something wrong.
It's not. Atleast here in Ontario. Perfectly legal. Though workplaces would have you believe otherwise.
Oh good, I'll get started on that union, then.
You can't organize a union
If you don't work here
Taps forehead, calls security
I don’t understand what you meme
Amazon is like one big advertisement for unionisation.
Union says what?
Scabba dabba doo
Sounds like a shit company. I'd have walked out... That attitude basically means they're up to no good and won't give two thoughts about your safety and rights as a worker.
Same, but a lot of people don't have that option
Most people applying to union busting companies like Amazon and Walmart kind of need the work. They aren't in the financial position to turn down a job.
they prey on the desperate / under skilled workers and its how they are able to pull these actions with little consequence. While a high skilled worker will tell them to go kick rocks and find new employment these unskilled workers have very little options for employment and most likely no safety net to cover them between finding work
Hmm, website that requires me to sign-up to read the article? Nope.
Comment removed by Reddit
Well hello mr hacker.
An easier way is to use outline.com
https://outline.com/bq6XX3
Neat. Thanks for that.
Right-click haxzor
If you are using Firefox, the reader mode also bypasses a lot of this stuff: For FireFox users, try this:
https://www.removeddit.com/r/canada/comments/a7mxdp/_/ec4dwe9/
Holy shit, that website used DMCA on this comment? Fuck this website!
When all else fails push F12
just enter a fake email and it lets you through. i typed s@s.com and they accepted it
I like to use piss(at)off.com to drive home the message. There probably isn't a human reading them before they're sold to spammers, but it makes me feel better.
Peter Iss who works at OFF! Bug repellant company is going to be pissed at you, bruh.
Does he work with Frank Uck?
I think that's Stephen Uckmyballs' boss.
Billg@microsoft.com gets a lot of mail for sites I've visited.
I always use no@gmail.com
I hope whoever has it doesn't mind
thats a paddlin
Yeah I feel like if you're gonna post a paywall or similar you should have up post the content as a comment.
outline.com will sidestep (most) paywalls. Also great for reading articles without ads.
https://outline.com/bq6XX3
Reddit apps needs to integrate this type of technology that's amazing!
Incognito mode
Just enter "fuck.you@invalid.tld", which is a valid email address.
And yes, it worked fine.
Enter their own contact address.
Chaotic good.
Comment deleted by user
people click on articles? huh.
Never read The Logic before. It better not be some listicle startup asking me to sign up.
I feel like I got all the information from the title anyways.
Well yeah, every employer blocks attempts to unionize, and they're generally pretty good at it. Less than 10% of attempted unionization drives in Canada are successful, because the employer doesn't have to follow the laws. The repercussions for colouring outside of the lines by the employer are essentially nil, and the union can't really do anything illegal to help its case. But the employer can fire organizers (oh, but never for union activity!), they can threaten to fire everyone, they can threaten to move, they can hold illegal one-on-one meetings to intimidate employees, they can actively hire new recruits specifically for anti-union reasons, they can try and flare up racial resentment on the shopfloor, they can threaten people's futures. In fact, every union drive I was ever apart of in the private sector they did all of these and more.
The employer is highly incentivized to do illegal things, and faces no real disincentives for breaking the law. They get caught doing all of that stuff above? Maaaaaybe it'll cost them two weeks of pay at minimum wage. Maybe. And that's after years of hearings. It's not like the union gets magically certified if they are found to be breaking the law. Also, I guarantee amazon is shielded here by a subcontractor that is in no way legally tied to them.
I just googled trying to find this and it's crazy that Canada's unionization is so much larger than the US and we still have these issues.
Do you have a source for the 10% of successful unionization?
Riddell (2001, Canadian Journal of Economics) is behind a paywall, but you can find it if you have a faculty or student login.
"Employer Resistance to Union Certification: A Study of Eight Canadian Jurisdictions" is ok here, and available.
I'd have to dig it out of a paper copy and I just can't be fucked at the moment, but, for me "success" is two contracts. So in a union drive you'll have the drive, then a cert vote, then a first contract (that may be concomitant with a strike or lockout), after that is signed there will be a period on contract, then a second round of bargaining and a second contract. Of all the drives that start out from "we should form a union Suzy!" to Unifor launching a massive campaign with salts and paid organizers, on that spectrum, less than 10% will get a second contract.
Unions are hard to organize and easy to break, and the employers are vastly more powerful than the unions.
Hey, not for nothing but THANK YOU for providing a source. Too many “statistics” get posted and taken for gospel without proof, especially peer-reviewed proof.
It's actually quite low, 16%, when you take out the public sector
The US is bad because of its relatively worse anti union culture. That doesn't mean that the much of the rest of the developed world isn't also fiercely anti union in one way or another. The history of anti unionism is strong in many countries, particularly Canada. At one point Canada outright banned the IWW because it was anti war (like any decent union would be). Canada is subject to most of the same forces that apply to any study of the United States with respect to how the propaganda model of communication influences public opinion and attitudes ideologically.
The cold war really did a number on us especially and the hang over since then has been the neo liberal leap forward that is itself rather anti working class. What makes unionizing so hard is a general attitude people have and while Canada isn't the US there's still a strong individualist attitude about personal success versus collective solidarity. That Canada's immigration policy heavily favours already highly successful people who've won the rat race in their far more anti union hyper capitalist societies only means that many of the highly politically conscious immigrant groups are themselves often very economically conservative and are in a position to do in their native tongue much the same that the english/french speaking business class does to the older generation of Canadians.
Cosco doesnt block attempts at employees unionizing. Which is why i try to buy everything i can at cosco. These are our fellow canadians. Companies that support unions should be at the forefront of companies we support. That better off our workforce is, the better for the economy.
Really hope people will scold jeff bezoes over this. The stock market would never allow him to support unions, but it would still be nice to see a backlash.
Most of their locations aren't unionized. That's because Costco's approach to avoiding unionization is to just give employees all (or at least most) of the benefits that unions have to fight for, thus removing a great deal of the incentive to unionize.
Yes. Thats how it should work. They dont threaten to shut the store down when there are whispers of unions.
This is a situation where having no union might be better than a union. They basically cut out the middle man and give the workers what they would get anyways with a union, saving them money. Everyone’s happy!
This also sets the bar for unions higher and helps to make future unions better for the workers.
Edit: a letter
Even though Costco may not have a union, there has to be a union out there somewhere that brings competition to Costco. Say all employers began paying their employees well and all employees no longer felt the need to unionize. It would only be a matter of time before companies began undercutting their employees. It is a balancing act, between union employees and non-union employees. The unions keep everyone honest and provide good competition.
I was a member of a trade union and I often heard the non-union guys saying they wouldn't ever join a union because they had it good. What these guys didn't realize was that the only reason they had it good was because unions fought for the rights of all workers, and before the trade unions, all the trades workers were treated like shit. "A rising tide lifts all boats" is a phrase that works here.
Yea for sure. I work with a lot of anti union guys, same thing, they just dont understand the basic concept.
I've always been staunchly anti union but worked in places where a union wouldn't improve what we already have. Now I'm in a place where the workforce gets shit on and finally see where they have value.
Unions aren't perfect. At my job, there are some crappy workers who are only still around because management is scared of the union. But at the same time, my union stopped my company from firing me when I was sick and also continues to fight for better wages for us.
If companies treat their employees right, there is no need for unions. Unfortunately, companies seem to not care anymore about inspiring loyalty in their employees.
That's why personal experience is always a difficult thing to use. My own fiercely pro union attitudes come from a more broad understanding of the history of the work place and how essential unions have been to even making what you take for granted in a non unionized workplace possible. Its also important to see how unions are basically a threat to the bosses about what happens if you take too much back from people which they're apt to do when there are no unions ie. the last 40 years and the stagnation of wages.
Been there, I'm now a Shop Steward and things are finally settling down at work, I think everyone's better for it. 40% raise hourly and actual health and safety being addressed. Customers are happier now that work to rule is over and we're picking up business etc.
Costco is considerably better to its employees than other similar type of stores.
It is pretty rough on its suppliers though....
How are they rough on them
To be fair rough on suppliers may not be a bad thing depending.... (do we really care if suppliers are profitable... maybe, maybe not, kinda depends)
Costco have really strict requirements and force them to take back opened/defective/whatever products as part of their contracting and forces prices, sometimes temporary losses even in order for a supplier to continue selling through them...
e.g. from the financial perspective of the suppliers:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-07/costco-outshines-other-discounters-but-broader-concerns-linger
Didnt read the article, but seeing nestles name in the headline basically discredits its complaint.
Costco is just putting their business and customers first. Suppliers can adapt or be replaced. Really dont think suppliers, especially nestle, have any say in the matter., especially when they are already making absurd profits.
Cosco = Costco?
Think Cosco makes baby car seats and play pens and stuff.
And ladders. Sauce: have a Cosco ladder that I sadly didn't buy at Costco.
No, actually. COSCO is the one you see on shipping containers, and stands for China Ocean Shipping Company, a Chinese state-owned freight company. Costco is the wholesaler people love to shop at.
Am dyslexic but dont care either way.
We all pronounce it, "Cosco" anyways
Except in Quebec where we call it le Costco
So you get everything delivered in shipping containers to your house by the China Ocean Shipping Company?
In Alberta they actually can. A hotel was certified earlier this year for termination during a campaign. Unfortunately that doesn't carry weight across the country but the fact that one labour board stepped up to enforce that is huge in the labour movement.
its impossible to make "going out of business" illegal. and its easy to go out of business.
Currently testing the waters at work, I want to organize the guys. VP has apparently caught wind of my evil Marxist ideology but doesn't know who specifically is trying to get support. IWW rep is meeting with me Monday, we want to try to get a vote through while managers aren't around much before the new year.
Hey, good choice on the union! They won't help you much with money, but they'll help you help yourself.
Comment deleted by user
No. This is called "contract shifting" and it's a classic union busting tactic. It's mildly illegal, but enforcement is essentially nil.
You'll notice that I clearly and directly said that amazon would have no connection to this company right? Well, that's because business will always try and shift core components of their business to "contractors" so they don't have to have more employees. More employees = bad. So you get a "contractor" that does a core component of your business, and then every time they try and unionize you "stop doing business with them" and they fold. Then they reopen as a different corporate entity and the process begins anew. Happens all the time, and while it's illegal, again, no enforcement.
I don't know why you're supporting the practice, it drives down wages and makes things worse for society. But I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Also if this do e incentivos ir twice it could be coincidental. But if this happens systematically it's clearly indicative of union busting. A but like a fast food franchise shutting down when the workforce is talking about unionization and then magically reopening some time later. These are broader patterns of union busting companies use.
Obviously he's one of the millions who've bought into the anti union value system that's been sold to people for generations. "The market" thing is a perfect way to argue why doing something shitty is on the people trying to undo the shitty situation they're in. "If the market won't bear you attempting to gain control over your working life then well... tough luck." When people who aren't rich buy into that shit its really proof of how effective business propaganda has been.
Mildly Illegal is not a thing. Its illegal. Or it is not.
Labour law masters and law student here. Not really. There are lots of types of crimes which have varried consequences and realistic enforcement, and objectives behind enforcement. You can call it a binary but that's not how it really works past surface level theory or in practice. The objective in labour disputes isn't often to punish the side that engages in illegal activity, it's to get both back to a place where bargaining can continue. So technically illegal, but very, very different in the way its treated, looked at and sentenced from premeditated murder or white collar fraud. This is by the way, ignoring intentionally ambiguous laws that have to be interpreted heavily
That's actually difficult to qualify in the real world. Sometimes breaking the law presents less risk to a business than following the rules. This happens when fines are cheaper than being in non-compliance.
That's 100% not true.
In Canada, if one has a union, then one is under the purview and control of "administrative law," not law-law. So one has no access to the courts, and there are funny precidents that change jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Canada doesn't have a codified "labour law", that was struck down as unconstitutional in 1926. What we have is a complex network of shifting responsibilities. Provinces set most (but not all) labour law, not the feds, and municipalities can further meddle in some provinces. Lots of jurisdictional picadillos.
So something that is considered "not allowed" in one jurisdiction is clearly allowed in another, and different precedents apply differently. Further, there generally aren't legal penalties here, there are judgements. To get access to the courts one has to break out of the labour relations system, which is essentially impossible.
Ergo, "mildly illegal" is the easiest shorthand for that.
Videotron did get caught at one point and was forced to hire everyone from Atelka(a call center subcontractor) as permanent employees
Was working at Videotron when it happened
We can end this entire thread with that.
Let’s not. The situation is shitty and this is a good starting point to have an unpleasant discussion about an important topic; the right for people to organize against unfair conditions. There are laws to protect unionization but they obviously aren’t strict or enforced enough. Let’s talk about it.
It's the same for labour violations. My brother got screwed out of thousands of dollars from his shitty employer. It's been two years and he hasn't seen a dime even though he won. The amount of paper work he's had to do, and just worm in general is absurd. At this point he's only going after it out of principle. Most people aren't going to find it worth it.
Comment deleted by user
They don't enforce them or they enforce them in ways that basically pan out in a cost benefit analysis as being 'worth it'. The real world is a remarkably different place when you stop idealizing the way our systems work and recognize how power disparities influence the results.
People should be required to post a comment summarizing the article if they post a link with a pay wall.
OP obviously has interest in the site linked since its the ONLY site he ever links.
Crazy that's allowed to fly. I've been banned from other subreddits for WAY less.
Came to say this, fuck paywall news sources.
Honest question. With ad blocking so rampant, how do you suggest sites make money to keep the lights on?
Use Brave.
Use Outline to read the article.
You can use it for most sites. Just add "www.outline.com" before the URL.
It’s like that south park episode
I loaded 16 tons of... amazon boxes?
Being a union member is one of the best things I have going for me. Hoping they keep strong and get it done.
Well, according to some people here we're part of a big conspiracy to destroy the economy. I must have missed that memo because I've never heard anything like that...
Crazy because I actually have money to spend and restaurant servers to tip well. Union workers prop up society by having more to spend.
Yeah but your boss can only buy 3 new cars and take 2 international vacations per year ever think about that
"If you put in the extra effort there'll be a bonus at year end!"
"...I didn't say a bonus for you."
That extra money you have to spend could be paying dividends to your company's shareholders, though, and just think how much better for the economy it would be for a few obscenely wealthy people to hoard a little bit more money than for a bunch of middle class folks to go out and buy stuff!
You know what I did with a (union) paycheque that I pulled a shitton of overtime on earlier this year? Bought a new TV from a local Toronto business. But please keep listening to your corporate overlords that unionsbad and the idea that silver-spoon richboys like John Tory or Doug Ford give the slightest of fucks about Canadian workers.
Trickle down economics does not work for the middle class. It only works if it trickles down from the rich /s
Not all of society-- just unionized employees are propped up to the detriment of economically marginalized people who would otherwise be hired but aren't.
Unions can have a positive function, but as merely a tool to increase wages, they are guaranteed deadweight loss.
I wake up thankful every single day for my union card.
I'm sorry but a 3rd party contractor is a 3rd party contractor, Amazon could easily shift delivery to Canada post and extend estimated delivery by a day or two.
so in order to avoid working with a union, you think they will switch to a even more unionized group and on top dealy all their shipping by multiple days
The more likely scenario would be Amazon get another 3rd party contractor, which may be basically the same old one with a different name. The unionized workers are gone, and the message is sent.
I think the issue here is: Amazon doesn’t want to have unionized workers. They don’t care if the delivery service has their own union.
This. What Amazon cares about is cost. If a unionized company can compete on cost, they aren't going to give a shit.
That is not true at all, and that's what makes it scary. That used to be the old argument. It actually at least some semblance of validity. "We can afford to pay union wages!" Bullshit of course but it might make some shareholders unhappy.
What it about now is being able to fuck with you. And you not having any recourse. That's why companies like Toyota and Honda pay their workers MORE than the big three does.
Contractors always cost more than full time employees but yet companies use them en masse. Why? Because contractors can be fucked with in this manner as well as many others. Like I said, scary but that's that state of things now.
https://outline.com/bq6XX3
PAYWALL - use OUTLINE.COM to get around most paywalls.
It's a pendulum. Companies treat employees like shit and employees unionize. Unions get too greedy and companies leave for more profitable labor.
Except the pendulum hasn't swung back in favour for workers in decades.
They may never shift back in favor of the worker again. The world is MUCH smaller now with airplanes and internet. Someone in a poor country wants to do your job better than you do for less money.
Depends on the industry. Most unionized employees have a pretty sweet gig compared to their private-sector counterparts.
Comment deleted by user
Sure, I meant to say most unionized employees in my experience make above market rate for the work they do.
If the market pays it it's "market price."
Employers winknudge set wage rates low and then proceed to pay "market rate." Which is one reason how Canada has had wage stagnation in every sector except executives and physicians since 1974. The other is the unlimited attack on unions. And since this is reddit, you can wave to the legions of paid anti-union activists working as interns in North America's endless pool of right-wing think-tanks who are in nearly every thread with their list of contrived talking points (although some are getting more sophisticated at it now, lots of "as a $MINORITY unions are $BAD" now).
Comment deleted by user
Comment deleted by user
Wow! This is useful information.
Do you have a link for that? :) Genuinely asking and not trying to be snide
Comment deleted by user
I think this is it: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015005-eng.htm
Because first world workers no longer have a monopoly on labour. Going on strike isn't going to make your skills worth any more, it's just going to accelerate the flight of employment elsewhere.
So maybe unions are a bad idea
Thanks in large part to Wal-Mart. By all accounts, they're vicious and duplicitous at every level, and they willingly sell poisoned garbage. I still can't believe any self respecting human being would walk through the doors, let alone shop there.
> I still can't believe any self respecting human being would walk through the doors, let alone shop there.
The prices, dawg. The prices.
Delivery companies can't just leave lol
They can automate though.
They'll automate eventually anyway.
Short haul drivers might be out of a job in the next 10 years. But that's only dock to dock. Home delivery will still need someone to walk the package to the door unless they can come up with a robot that can accurately walk across different paths and surfaces and avoid obstacles to get to where the package needs to be.
Or they move to neighborhood boxes or local pickup locations. A robot can deliver to a bunch of boxes in one central area or eliminate the last mile and package theft with a pickup point at a drugstore or convenience store.
Not fast enough.
They still need drivers for the next decade, at least.
I’m not anti-union but I am anti-lazy employees that view unionization as a license to skive work and leave their coworkers to carry the load.
Obviously any big private corp sees unions as corporate cancer. They would rather fire a whole plant then allow it to spread.
These exploitative companies are the real cancer
If the company wasn’t shit, their workers wouldn’t have to look into unionizing.
This is why I don't buy shit online. The workers in e-commerce are treated like shit. I know shit working conditions are in every industries supply chain but we gotta start somewhere. I saw a documentary recently that showed how e-commerce giants hire temp workers instead of giving workers permanent jobs, I think name was Temporary is Permanent.
You think companies like best buy or Walmart treat their workers any better?
I can't speak for Walmart but I worked for Best Buy for 5 years and loved it. Again, can't say much about the warehouse guys that work at the depots, but as far as in-store employees it was great. Honestly wouldn't mind returning if I wasn't in a higher paying job now that's more in my field of education. But as far as student jobs to get you through high school/post secondary, Best Buy is probably one of the better places. They often pay above minimum wage too.
I can speak as a former Walmart employee - wouldn't recommend it. People come in dumber than a board, find a way to challenge policy and employees are reprimanded for attempting to uphold the policy set by head office. If you attempt to not uphold policy, guess what? Reprimanded.
It's a revolving door and the rotator is covered in scat.
I hate this shitty rebuttle… What he is doing is a start. He clearly said that "I know shit working conditions are in every industries supply chain but we gotta start somewhere" its literally 40% of his statement and than you respond with exactly what he said.
Dude I just said above shit happens in every industry and gotta start somewhere. Since I've become adult I barely shop at Wal-Mart and only bought few things from best buy.
You aren't going to improve the working conditions of the people who have no choice but to work in e-commerce by boycotting them.
You cause a net benefit by taking your business to smaller, more expensive but better run companies.
I wish there was a balance when it came to unions, right now I work a union job and the employee rights and pay are great, but looking objectively half the employees do dick all. There’s also the issue in not even trying once you’re a union employee because everything just goes by seniority anyways, you could be the best employee there ever was and since bill was hired an hour before you, you’ll never have precedence over him.
Comment deleted by user
So, again, as the person above you said, all the best postings are given out based on seniority not actual performance on the job. Seems like a huge disincentive to work any harder than the minimum to not get fired.
Comment deleted by user
Well you don't become the richest person in history by treating your employees like they matter
Comment deleted by user
Because Amazon would just switch to other 3rd party services lol.
Let's say you owned a window cleaning company and I hired you to clean my windows. Does that make me your employer or am I just a customer? Should your employees be able to form a union and just randomly label me their employer when I just want my windows cleaned?
Dont they take a vote on it or something?
In these situations, I like to think of an argument i once heard:
Buddy said “because of unions we are losing all the jobs to Mexico!!”
My brother’s reply was “If we didnt have unions, we’d be Mexico”.
Your brother doesn't know what he is talking about. Mexico has a much higher rate unionization than Canada. In fact, when opening a business/plant with more than 3 employees you have to send out notices to the Confederation of Mexican Workers so they can come pitch to the employees. The Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party just ended 70 years of consecutive federal goverment rule. They left the unions in fantastic shape (the already organized ones are fine it is the new/small ones that can't break through the system the large ones have).
The union did jack shit for the GM workers. Yet nonunion Honda/Toyota workers still have their jobs.
They are contractors not employees.
If they want to unionise fine, but if their costs increase im 100% sure amazon will just use a differnt company.
The issue for amazon is that the union would likely grow once it has started, as a simple yes/no do you want to join union would be all that is required instead of setting up a union.
That's how I understand it.
Amazon will justvuse a differnt company.
Plus they alredy use a unionised option of Canada Post...
Comment deleted by user
It sounds almost as if they are trying to get amazon labelled as their employer, this doesn't make any sense at all.
Here's to hoping they win the rights to have a union.
good. canada post already fucked my xmas. i had to go out to real stores. in real life. people looked at me, and asked me questions. i had to walk behind slow walkers and drive around on streets with people who can't even signal, let alone have winter tires. i nearly died, because of unions.
lol no fucking shit. No company on Earth would welcome a union. If a company is willing to accept a union voluntary it either 1)doesn't need one in the first place or 2) has a deal with the union (referred to as a 'company union') to undermine labour standards through a Collective Agreement.
Or 3) sees unionization as inevitable and wants to get off on as amicable a relationship as possible with them
i mean yea they're not just gonna let you do it
Now why would big bad Amazon do that? 🤔
r/southpark
"We're not anti-union but we're not neutral either."
What?
Union words: Living wage.
God forbid.
Comment removed by moderator
Since when is skill a prerequisite for unions?
Unions started because of factories imposing cruel and dangerous working conditions on unskilled labour. If anything, skilled labour needs unions less because they have more individual leverage and are harder to replace if they walk.
There’s a union for grocery store workers. I wouldn’t consider that a “skilled trade” either. Same with Canada Post
Comment deleted by user
Oh I completely agree with you. I am not against workers unionizing, just pointing out that unions aren’t only for “skilled trades” as OP suggested.