"Amazon workers look for justice from a business-friendly Supreme Court. A case involving payment for time spent waiting in line heads to the highest court. Isn't this what unions are for? "
So reads the headline in this Salon article by Andrew Leonard. Yes, I thought, Amazon workers need to form a union or join an existing union and make it work. The larger the organized work force, the more a scab worker has to learn before s/he becomes profitable, the more likely it is that workers can win.
Since most "journalism" today is only opinions cast into "reporting-type" formats, I was not surprised the Mr. Leonard's article turned from facts - the real grievances of Amazon workers - to opinion. But for God's sake, can't the opinions on an ostensibly left-leaning site be reasonable and fact-based?
No. Mr Leonard states as if written in stone that, "since there are no strong unions in the tech sector, workers have no alternative but to go the courts. And if they pursue their grievances to the ultimate level, they end up before a Supreme Court stacked with business-friendly justices."
So, Salon implies that unions are entities that are handed down to workers. They aren't created by workers. They aren't weak now, but only needing a strong, united, pissed-off work force to build them up. No, there is no alternative but to turn Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomas, et al. You know, the way the Democratic Party allowed George W. to be elected by the Supreme Court instead of standing up for the People's franchise.