Amazon HQ2 and other news
Comments
-
mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency
(60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland 0 -
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland0 -
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland0 -
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland0 -
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.0 -
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?0 -
There’s absolutely not a shot in hell that the construction and trades unions would have “allowed” a campus to be built in LIC with non-union contractors. It wasn’t about that but rather the warehouse unionization effort.tempo_n_groove said:
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I get the warehouse part but like I said, most of LIC was built non-union.Halifax2TheMax said:
There’s absolutely not a shot in hell that the construction and trades unions would have “allowed” a campus to be built in LIC with non-union contractors. It wasn’t about that but rather the warehouse unionization effort.tempo_n_groove said:
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?
0 -
Where’d you read that? Source?tempo_n_groove said:
I get the warehouse part but like I said, most of LIC was built non-union.Halifax2TheMax said:
There’s absolutely not a shot in hell that the construction and trades unions would have “allowed” a campus to be built in LIC with non-union contractors. It wasn’t about that but rather the warehouse unionization effort.tempo_n_groove said:
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I live here and are part of the industry so I know what's being built by who and where. My company gets asked to bid on these projects sometimes. There is tons of projects going up that are non union still.Halifax2TheMax said:
Where’d you read that? Source?tempo_n_groove said:
I get the warehouse part but like I said, most of LIC was built non-union.Halifax2TheMax said:
There’s absolutely not a shot in hell that the construction and trades unions would have “allowed” a campus to be built in LIC with non-union contractors. It wasn’t about that but rather the warehouse unionization effort.tempo_n_groove said:
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?
If you google it I'm sure a few articles will come up but this is basically how it happened. Residential was never really done by unions so that was what was getting built first, then there were the commercial buildings too. But byy this time though the unions had their hands full with WTC, Hudson yards, 2nd ave extension, 42nd st and now Javits and the term that is used is "everybody's eating".
When it comes to public works it's all still union. That hasn't changed.
Here is a good article.
https://commercialobserver.com/2017/06/organized-labor-doesnt-have-the-grip-they-once-did-thanks-to-open-shop/
0 -
Ah, that makes sense. We had a malfunction at the junction.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
The implication in my opinion is that if Amazon sniffs collective bargaining anywhere on any of these projects they will pull the plug.
A factor in them pulling the headquarters from New York was them having issues with the warehouses too. It's all tied together. The timing of it all is just to big of a coincidence.
By pulling the plug that sends a message to any further cities and projects that collective bargaining is a no go with Amazon. They will sacrifice a little bit for a long term gain for the corporation. These white collar jobs are small potatoes when you look at how many blue collar employees they have across North America. They would take a big hit if they started to unionize.
Walmart's tactics in the past are a good example for what's going on here. They would rather burn the store down then let it unionize.
0 -
But now that I think about it, this will all be a moot point in a few years when Amazon replaces all those warehouse jobs with robots. Good times.0
-
Probably sooner if union jobs. The $ increase helps justify the automationdignin said:But now that I think about it, this will all be a moot point in a few years when Amazon replaces all those warehouse jobs with robots. Good times.hippiemom = goodness0 -
I don't disagree.cincybearcat said:
Probably sooner if union jobs. The $ increase helps justify the automationdignin said:But now that I think about it, this will all be a moot point in a few years when Amazon replaces all those warehouse jobs with robots. Good times.0 -
Interesting read. So it seems that unions typically get the public works and commercial real estate and the non-union gets the residential. Also, seems like unions get a piece of the residential based on developer need and cost rather than contractual obligation but the non-union is creeping upward due to budgets from the developer/CM. That said, I don’t think that was the issue that scared amazon away as I’m not sure the state and mayor would get that deep down in the details. Everything I’ve read is that was due to four issues regarding the unionization effort for the warehouse and the subsequent backlash. Regardless, it shows how transparency might have helped. Another issue is the 25K in jobs as often times it’s a transfer and consolidation of existing jobs and not truly “creating” new jobs. Again, transparency might have helped as now amazon is saying they’ll add to existing locations and not continue to search for a second location, this despite Newark offering $6BB in incentives. Something stinks. Oh, and Amazon just announced a $700MM investment in an electric car manufacturing start up that’ll compete with Tesla. Guess they really needed $3BB in subsidies? Thanks for the link as having recently been in NYC, there’s construction everywhere.tempo_n_groove said:
I live here and are part of the industry so I know what's being built by who and where. My company gets asked to bid on these projects sometimes. There is tons of projects going up that are non union still.Halifax2TheMax said:
Where’d you read that? Source?tempo_n_groove said:
I get the warehouse part but like I said, most of LIC was built non-union.Halifax2TheMax said:
There’s absolutely not a shot in hell that the construction and trades unions would have “allowed” a campus to be built in LIC with non-union contractors. It wasn’t about that but rather the warehouse unionization effort.tempo_n_groove said:
I'm gpoing to take the union angle a different way.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
I said somewhere earlier that most of LIC was built up using non-union workers.
Let's say that they wanted to make sure that continued but somewhere someone balked on that?
Maybe Amazon wanted to build using non-union so there dollar would go further?
Thoughts?
Am I too far down the well to reach for this?
If you google it I'm sure a few articles will come up but this is basically how it happened. Residential was never really done by unions so that was what was getting built first, then there were the commercial buildings too. But byy this time though the unions had their hands full with WTC, Hudson yards, 2nd ave extension, 42nd st and now Javits and the term that is used is "everybody's eating".
When it comes to public works it's all still union. That hasn't changed.
Here is a good article.
https://commercialobserver.com/2017/06/organized-labor-doesnt-have-the-grip-they-once-did-thanks-to-open-shop/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Wait... What's the difference between progressive taxes and an income cap?mrussel1 said:
Maslow pyramid always comes in handy.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
No one is removing the financial incentive to innovate. We're not nationalising industry and removing profit. This isn't communism ooga booga
By ensuring society is able to provide fundamental physiological needs, you are freeing up resources for people to innovate.
Sure, some people are lazy and will wait for the handout. But how is that different than now? These people will always be a burden on society, this is a different way of dealing with that problem.
Progressive taxes is the way to go, not some arbitrary cap on wealth.
A rose by any other name...0 -
Yeah, unless the top marginal tax rate is 100%. If it's that number, then it is an income cap. Anything less than that is not by definition.CM189191 said:
Wait... What's the difference between progressive taxes and an income cap?mrussel1 said:
Maslow pyramid always comes in handy.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
No one is removing the financial incentive to innovate. We're not nationalising industry and removing profit. This isn't communism ooga booga
By ensuring society is able to provide fundamental physiological needs, you are freeing up resources for people to innovate.
Sure, some people are lazy and will wait for the handout. But how is that different than now? These people will always be a burden on society, this is a different way of dealing with that problem.
Progressive taxes is the way to go, not some arbitrary cap on wealth.
A rose by any other name...0 -
dignin said:
Ah, that makes sense. We had a malfunction at the junction.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
The implication in my opinion is that if Amazon sniffs collective bargaining anywhere on any of these projects they will pull the plug.
A factor in them pulling the headquarters from New York was them having issues with the warehouses too. It's all tied together. The timing of it all is just to big of a coincidence.
By pulling the plug that sends a message to any further cities and projects that collective bargaining is a no go with Amazon. They will sacrifice a little bit for a long term gain for the corporation. These white collar jobs are small potatoes when you look at how many blue collar employees they have across North America. They would take a big hit if they started to unionize.
Walmart's tactics in the past are a good example for what's going on here. They would rather burn the store down then let it unionize.
I like your interpretation. Timing was everything. Amazon executives met with union leaders Wednesday and pulled out on Thursday. They probably want zero to do with union leaders telling them anything about their business models and how they will be run in the city.
As far as robots go, unfortunately automation will continue to increase.
I'm curious if Amazon thinks about who will be buying their products in the future.
Robots have zero need for a Kindle or fire.0 -
Or an Amazon Prime membership.Lerxst1992 said:dignin said:
Ah, that makes sense. We had a malfunction at the junction.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
The implication in my opinion is that if Amazon sniffs collective bargaining anywhere on any of these projects they will pull the plug.
A factor in them pulling the headquarters from New York was them having issues with the warehouses too. It's all tied together. The timing of it all is just to big of a coincidence.
By pulling the plug that sends a message to any further cities and projects that collective bargaining is a no go with Amazon. They will sacrifice a little bit for a long term gain for the corporation. These white collar jobs are small potatoes when you look at how many blue collar employees they have across North America. They would take a big hit if they started to unionize.
Walmart's tactics in the past are a good example for what's going on here. They would rather burn the store down then let it unionize.
I like your interpretation. Timing was everything. Amazon executives met with union leaders Wednesday and pulled out on Thursday. They probably want zero to do with union leaders telling them anything about their business models and how they will be run in the city.
As far as robots go, unfortunately automation will continue to increase.
I'm curious if Amazon thinks about who will be buying their products in the future.
Robots have zero need for a Kindle or fire.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
That's a great point.Lerxst1992 said:dignin said:
Ah, that makes sense. We had a malfunction at the junction.mrussel1 said:
Wdignin said:
Are these serious questions?mrussel1 said:
What's the message? What's the implication? We don't want high paying jobs here unless we get to dip our beaks a bit?dignin said:
It's also a message to any other city or union. It's pretty simple stuff.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?Lerxst1992 said:Meltdown99 said:
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.cincybearcat said:
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.Meltdown99 said:
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html
"Labor leaders wanted the company to refrain from aggressively discouraging employees from joining a union. Amazon had been resistant. It has no unions across its huge nationwide network of warehouses or elsewhere among its work force."
Labor laying the law to Amazon execs...hmmmm
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat a little nervous about the overwhelming strength of unions here), I can relate to exactly how Amazon executives felt coming out of this meeting.
Im sure they were saying wtf are we getting ourselves into here. Unions run the roost unlike any other US location
I can speculate Amazon was also interested in a larger logistical footprint as part of their HQ here. And also wanted to tell "union leaders" to STFU about its Staten Island location. Which IMO is exactly what they did by breaking the deal.
What makes NYC perfect for a PJ residency (60 million within a few hour drive) also make it perfect for Amazon logistics. Maybe not in queens but certainly SI, Bronx or WestchesterRockland
My bad, I read the message inverted, that the union was sending a message. But no, I don't see that as an Amazon message either. They are already in Staten Island, and the union vote is moving ahead. The point still stands that HQ2 would be a white collar site. Of course there will be some bluer collar workers in the food areas and such, but still a white collar site. So I don't know how pulling out of HQ2 advances an anti-union stance, if that's the implication.
The implication in my opinion is that if Amazon sniffs collective bargaining anywhere on any of these projects they will pull the plug.
A factor in them pulling the headquarters from New York was them having issues with the warehouses too. It's all tied together. The timing of it all is just to big of a coincidence.
By pulling the plug that sends a message to any further cities and projects that collective bargaining is a no go with Amazon. They will sacrifice a little bit for a long term gain for the corporation. These white collar jobs are small potatoes when you look at how many blue collar employees they have across North America. They would take a big hit if they started to unionize.
Walmart's tactics in the past are a good example for what's going on here. They would rather burn the store down then let it unionize.
I'm curious if Amazon thinks about who will be buying their products in the future.
Robots have zero need for a Kindle or fire.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help