> Unions don’t always contribute to a better outcome for their workers

You can say this about anything.

Getting a job doesn't always contribute to a better outcome for the unemployed.

Getting healthcare doesn't always contribute to better health outcomes.

Getting housing after being homeless doesn't always lead to a better life.

> It’s hard to motivate a vote for unions when Amazon pays double the federal minimum wage.

So many people repeating the same things over and over.

> So many people repeating the same things over and over.

So you can tell something new. I am not sure if blue collar workers are looking for total revolution to overthrow this capitalistic system.

Yeah, but this is the problem with the current debate around unions. Pro-union individuals aren’t willing to say, “Unions have some serious drawbacks“ and anti-union individuals aren’t willing to say, “Unions solve some critical issues for modern employees”.

Instead, both sides (rightfully) call each other out on their biases and no voter feels able to trust either side.

I don’t think the debate is over whether there has ever been any benefit or downside from any union, but rather what the expected net benefit or downside is from any given union, and perhaps even more importantly, what rights union organizers, union opponents, and workers ought to have.

I think it’s pretty silly to quibble over whether someone will answer gotcha questions like “can you name one good/bad thing that has ever happened in a unionized/non-unionized workplace.” That’s just not relevant.

I’m not talking about whether or not unions are objectively good or bad. I’m talking about perception. If one side is attempting to withhold facts are that obvious and self-evident, then no one is going to trust that side even if they’re objectively right.

Consider Obamacare. Objectively, it was an awesome law that covered millions of previously uninsured Americans. However, it was a PR disaster because people were told they could keep their plans and their premiums wouldn’t increase. Because of how impossible it was to lie about those two things and because the Obama administration lied about them anyway, people greatly distrusted Obamacare, even though most of them actually liked the law and its outcomes.

Similarly, if a worker is told by a pro-union advocate that no one will lose their job with a union but that worker also readily sees that many workers lose their jobs when unions cause companies to collapse, that worker is going to feel lied to despite knowing that union membership is probably in their best interests.

That's a false dichotomy. The solution to a badly run union is to run it better, not dissolve it and surrender all your power to your boss, just as the solution to a badly run republic is to elect better leaders, not abandon democracy and go back to the bad old days of monarchy. Unions are workplace democracy. Opposing them is by definition supporting workplace monarchy.

This is extremely ideological to the point of simply being untrue. The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one. Unions are a huge tradeoff and better as a last resort.

I don't see how "you should just hope for an employer who is benevolent in spite of every possible economic incentive otherwise" is less idealogically motivated.

But anyway yes in my case it is idealogical and I won't dispute that at all. Anything that reduces the power of companies or increases the power of works is something I favor regardless of political practicality.

What makes you think we would see better outcomes if workers had more power than managers?

I didn't say anything about managers. My beef is with the power of owners not their deputies. Managers are in some sense workers and are welcome to the fight if they're willing to roll.

"The best outcome is no democracy and a benevolent king that gives you a fair deal so you don't want elections. Democracy has huge tradeoffs and is better only as a last resort."

You're right. It's ideological. And you're on the wrong side of it.

> The best outcome for everyone

You state it as if it is somehow obvious, but really need to show your work here.

If it is just some reductionist claim about not having a third party consuming resources, that's almost too silly to respond to. But if you also want to forbid employers from hiring lawyers, at least you'd then be consistent.

> The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one

This is extreme wishful thinking. The very nature of corporations like Amazon is in conflict with giving workers a "fair deal". Thus, exploitative labor practices exist.

A lot of unions ended up being just another means for the mafia to steal from the poor, skimming off the top of pensions funds and the like. Similar corruption exists today. It is inevitable.

I hate how the term privilege is thrown around these days, but man, this bizarre narrative reeks of privilege and some marxist fantasy.

Bezos is in his position because of his competency. He built the thing. Democracy is not a virtue in a workplace.

These laws and regulations developed not just randomly but because corporations treated workers almost like slaves.

Slaves? Like employees are forced to work, they have no choice in the matter, they're chained and cannot leave Amazon?

Either you're diluting what Slavery means or proposing the former which is false.

Every single employee at Amazon is free to go work for Walmart, Uber, local lumber yard, grocery stores or whatever.

The employees of Amazon have never been slaves and the comparison is disingenuous. Saying he was never tested on his competency is ridiculous. There were literally millions of people in the USA richer than Bezos at the time he started Amazon. There are many people on Wall Street who were *orders of magnitude* richer than Bezos that tried to start internet companies that crashed and burned.

> [Bezos] was never tested on his competency.

This is extremely naive. There are lots of failed CEOs and failed companies. Amazon survived AND grew over 20 years while actively fighting off competition from Walmart, Google, etc.

But luck is a major factor in this. If in ten years, Amazon tanks, history will say Bezos was a bad CEO. There is never a real demonstration that skill is involved. Some companies win and some companies lose.

In 10 years it's more likely that the US govt will declare bankruptcy than Amazon.

> but they are democracies

I really don't like democracy mixing with my business. It's the best, terrible system we have for when we have no other choice but to come to a mutual decision. But it really should be your last option.

I'm not sure why it should be my last option. There are several problems with autocratic leadership, one of which is that many times, the whims of the autocrat are fundamentally at odds with the good of the people he manages.

Many times, maybe, but I suppose I'm arguing it's a corner case.

Perhaps that those power structures are so natural to us implies just how successful they've been in our history. And not in the sense that fear is a good motivator, but because the reality is that most principals aren't all that far removed from their agents.

> Similar corruption exists today. It is inevitable.

OK, so if it's inevitably why hasn't this happened to the creative unions in Hollywood like SAG, WGA, the DGA, and the PGA?

Are...are you holding up Hollywood as an example of pure, legal employee protections? You know, the industry largely stood up by largescale money laundering schemes?

Perhaps but this ignores the million+ dollar campaign Amazon leveraged to push people to vote no. It's not like it explains all the vote but it's definitely a component.

I have little expectation that a propaganda campaign could meaningfully shift worker-voter perspectives for this specific vote. They're working off of the old propaganda over the past decades and their perspectives on the ground. The recent ads and such we're seeing are about the greater narrative and trying to set the stage for union-votes 5-10 years from now.