amazon says only 15 employees struck yesterday, but:
1) they only refer to a single location, though the strike was global
2) photos of the location show many more people than that
3) amazon doesn't consider most of its workers to be employees
brazen misinfo because humane treatment is ~too expensive~
it just seems so weird that when the folks who do the work say "hey this sucks in preventable ways" management goes "you ungrateful buffoons! who has agitated my workers into such delinquency? no one but meddling traitors could claim my rule is anything but benevolent" like whoa, jeff, this doesn't need to get weird so why are you making it violent
@garbados it's _almost_ like extremely uneven distribution of wealth leads to the assumption that other people are trying to take advantage of you when they tell you you aren't doing enough for them
@garbados AND this is of course charitably interpreting corporate hesitancy to support workers as "mistrust" and not "outright neglect in favor of profit".... i think the former may actually be a true motive for some smaller organizations who are barely afloat, who still get scared of union organizing / employees demanding more
but the latter is clearly the motive for companies the size of amazon who are making ridiculous amounts of money
re: amazon, organizing
@tcql yeah definitely. i feel like "mistrust" is the angle that bluebloods sell to the petit-boug, that somehow making decisions about work is harder than working and therefore cannot be trusted to workers, who wouldn't be workers if they knew how to make decisions. i get this from "small business owners" all the time. but mere inches behind the rhetoric of mistrust lies the profiteer's zero-sum antagonism and their unrepentant disdain for your comrade's welfare.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!