> What would workers gain from being dishonest

Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.

Not to say either party is being honest or being dishonest. But it's clear there's plenty to gain on both sides by, on the one hand, painting organizers ad bad employees, and on the other hand, painting working conditions as worse than they are.

Peeing in Coke bottles because of a lack of bathrooms and allowances for biological needs might be a sign.

What?!? Now I'm canceling that case of Coca Cola I just ordered on Amazon Prime.

And why would they do it then, had they already good working conditions?

Because 'good' is relative and conditions can always be better.

Software engineers at Google were fired (allegedly) for attempting to unionize (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/06/ex-goog...). Google jobs are some of the best jobs in the industry, in terms of benefits, base salary, and stock compensation.

Unionization isn't always about jobs being good enough. It's also about being able to set up a collective front for the workers to negotiate their arrangement with company owners. That's something every employee can want and can benefit from.

> > What would workers gain from being dishonest

> Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.

Getting union representation requires, in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, at least a 50% buy-in from other employees. You're not going to get that by lying to them about their own working conditions. This kind of dishonesty can attract some fist-shakers on the internet, but they don't get a vote.

> Just compare the incentives for both parts to be dishonest and you have your answer. What would workers gain from being dishonest except the risk of being fired or retaliated upon?

Pay raises, more time off, better benefits. A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.

>And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions?

Because when Amazon shows good conditions, everyone says that it's a manufactured scenario or just an anecdote.

>Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight?

Which is precisely what organizers want to exploit with publicity that could very easily be taking things out of context. A union organizer has almost nothing to lose by massively exaggerating.

>Does Amazon really need your support, or are the workers one paycheck away from homelessness in need of it?

Depends on whether or not you care about being manipulated into supporting something that could be a lie. It's not even "support" of Amazon, it's just questioning of the accounting of one side of a debate.

> Pay raises, more time off, better benefits.

And those are bad because?

> A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.

And yet, most don't. The mind boggles.

> And those are bad because?

I'm not against these things for warehouse workers at all, but just to answer your question, potential downsides include:

1. The money has to come from somewhere. Since Amazon keeps fairly small profit, this would likely come from passing costs on to consumers, and reducing Amazon's investment in future growth, which ultimately costs their future consumers. This increases cost of living for non-Amazon workers, and since Amazon is a good source of cheap items, it may disproportionately burden poorer people.

2. Where I am, Indeed.com says Amazon warehouse workers are paid slightly above average ($16/hour). If they were paid significantly above average, it can make it hard for small businesses to keep their workers.

> > Pay raises, more time off, better benefits.

> And those are bad because?

They're not bad. But them being good for workers is not an argument for why workers should receive them.

Only bad for the party they are being extorted from. Which is essentially what happens when a monopoly over your labor supply is in place.

Many workers experience monopsony for their labor for reasons that might not make sense to you (switching costs, rational risk aversion, fallible human psychology). A union on their side just levels the playing field. Empirically, societies that support monopoly bargaining by unions (and structurally encourage creative thinking and incentive alignment between unions and employers) have become much better places for their worst-off cohorts. Possibly not better if you're a smart and talented entrepreneur or highly skilled technologist; parts of the US are clearly great for that. But you may have to step over homeless people to get to work.

> Many workers experience monopsony for their labor for reasons that might not make sense to you (switching costs, rational risk aversion, fallible human psychology)

Both sides face similar issues related to terminating their mutually agreed to relationship.

Stop ordering from Amazon if you really feel so strongly about this. No point making all this grand-stands while on the other hand, you will just goto Amazon for your needs. That is the real way to hurt them.

I did that, literally decades ago. That was still at the time when Amazon was selling books only.

They promised the earth on privacy and after a few month suddenly pulled a bait and switch on that.

For me that was such dishonest behavior that I pulled my business from them and never, ever ordered anything else.

A fulfilled, satisfying life is not dependent on being an Amazon customer.

True, but alone I can't make a difference. We must unite, in the workplace and as consumers. That's why it's as important to be vocal about it and convince other people to stop ordering from Amazon.

You can stop doing it and still be vocal about it.

That's what I just said. You on the other hand, assumed that I buy from Amazon with no reason to do so.

Many people do this, especially since ordering anything remotely non-trash on Amazon is a lottery nowadays.