Money, Unionization, and Assumption

Let’s begin with two initial baseline assumptions: 1) everyone needs money, and 2) everyone deserves to be fairly compensated for their work. This should be an easy foundation, a comfortably agreeable statement. If the truthfulness of either of these statements is in contention for you–without the employment of theoretical fringe cases for argument's sake–this piece and its ideas will probably ring hollow to you. However, if you agree with the two baseline assumptions in broad strokes, allow me to argue for the unionization of workers in multi-million or billion dollar companies such as Amazon and Starbucks.

“Unions” refer to employee-led organizations that operate independently of the employing organization (thereby distinguishing them from internal services such as human resources) and attempt to argue contracts in favor of the employees. In other words, unions are where workers can form a coalition to ensure that their rights are protected and their pay is fair. They can argue for better working conditions/hours, better pay, and better benefits. Most operate through collecting union dues, giving them a budget that they can then allocate to bargaining campaigns, ads, or even protests. It’s a “by the workers, for the workers” system.

Overall, unions provide a voice to the people. They elevate the voices and concerns of the individual employees to new, powerful heights. Unions were instrumental in establishing aspects of employment that we take for granted, such as the 40 hour work week. And since the formation of unions is protected under national law, we would expect to see unions rise everywhere, especially for workers whose job entails minimal pay and harsh working conditions–people who are most vulnerable to predatory business practices.

Yet, since its inception in 1994, Amazon workers–specifically the people who work in warehouses–have found it extremely difficult to unionize; as of writing this article, there is no union that exists for the people working in Amazon warehouses. And though they go through backbreaking work–coming home winded after grueling hours of physically exhausting labor–their pay is minimal and their working conditions dismal. The allegations of people urinating in jars to not fall behind quotas and workers dying of exhaustion in the warehouses still hang grimly above the heads of corporate executives.

Why, then, isn’t there a union? Amazon warehouses are rife with abuse, the workers receive minimal pay and benefits, and there shouldn’t be any legal hurdles in creating a union. As it stands, all signs point to unionizing, do they not? Yet they haven’t done so. Or, to be more accurate, the workers were prohibited from doing so.

You see, companies like Amazon don’t like their workers unionizing. If they successfully unionize, that means that there is a powerful legal authority they must negotiate with instead of individual, powerless workers. And they already know what the union will argue for: better wages, better working conditions, less oppressive shifts, etc. If such negotiations go through, then Amazon would most likely have to expand wages, offer benefits, expand their staff to accommodate for the changes, and so on and so forth; simply put, it would significantly decrease their profit margin.

Opponents of unionization argue that such loss in profit margin is an overall detriment: Imagine the drops in the stock share prices! Imagine the decrease in money generated by the company! Imagine how weak American industries would be compared to the foreign industries if they had to spend millions of dollars capitulating to the people’s demands! Does the unionization of workers bring comparable benefits to what unfettered companies bring in now?

This is where we must harken back to the two baseline assumptions we agreed upon at the beginning of the article: 1) everyone needs money, and 2) everyone deserves to be fairly compensated for their work. What unionization argues for is a third idea to be added to the basic assumptions: 3) when compensation does not seem fair, everyone deserves a method to negotiate fair compensation. Philosophically, it’s difficult to find an opposing argument to such a statement; as of writing, I have not encountered a genuine counterargument.

Yet, when put in the perspective of vague hypothetical economic doom predicted by those who stand to lose most from it, unionization suddenly seems like an intellectual theory that warrants discussion. What are its pros and cons? What are its possible impacts? Can we really afford to pay these workers what they rightfully deserve? I hope you can hear that all such pretense of argument falls short of effectively arguing for the silencing of the voices of abused workers.

If I may be so bold, I would like to argue that the question of unionization should not be a question. There should be no debate surrounding the question “should people unionize or not?” Let it be acknowledged that the specific questions regarding the impact of unions on the bottom line of the company or the workers is a question of implementation, not of existence. You can litigate – literally and metaphorically – if the union is helping after the union forms. However, until then, the position of fighting against giving a platform for workers to negotiate their pay and working conditions on their own terms should be logically indefensible.

Let us reiterate. 1) everyone needs money, and 2) everyone deserves to be fairly compensated for their work. Let us hope, in the near future, that the third statement–when compensation does not seem fair, everyone deserves a method to negotiate fair compensation–can be an assumption instead of a debate.