Union's evidence in Amazon vote 'could be grounds for overturning election'

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-labor-board-says-evidence-presented-by-union-amazon-vote-could-be-grounds-2021-04-28/

by throwawaysea • 5 years ago

103 112 5 years ago

reuters.com

drannex• 5 years ago

I wish them the best, it needs to happen.

dannyw• 5 years ago

Amazon is offering competitive wages (especially for Albama's cost of living), and benefits from day one.

Maybe a majority of the workers there prefer the status quo?

andybak• 5 years ago

Maybe. Maybe not.

Once it's determined whether this was a fair vote, we'll know for sure I guess.

The RWDSU submitted nearly two dozen objections to Amazon's conduct during the election, which it said prevented employees from a "free and uncoerced exercise of choice" on whether to create the company's first U.S. union.

robobro• 5 years ago

As an iww organizer with friends across the US in Amazon warehouse management and on the ground- no

Unions are just bringing democracy into capitalism. How can any red blooded American oppose them?

Edit: not sure why I'm being down voted, did I say something offensive??

esyir• 5 years ago

You have democracy in your capitalism already, that's what your elected government and their regulations are.

chrisseaton4• 5 years ago

Unions are just bringing democracy into capitalism. How can any red blooded American oppose them?

Well they had a democratic vote and decided they did not want to be represented by this union. That's democracy working.

nieksand• 5 years ago

1. At their best unions protect members from managerial malfeasance, but unions also go out of their way to protect incompetents who should be fired. That is soul crushing as a coworker, bad for the company, and possibly harmful to customers.

2. Unions are heavily involved in politics. As a worker, part of your paycheck is being seized to support politicians whom you may vehemently oppose.

3. American unions fixate on seniority and credentials as metrics of merit. This is a poor fit for professions like software engineering and educators, where those only loosely correlate to actual performance.

4. Unions foster adversarial relationships within companies, an us/them mentality against "management". Sometimes the environment is already toxic so nothing is lost, but it can also turn an otherwise reasonable workplace sour.

josefx• 5 years ago

Comrade you are thinking communist thoughts, it hasn't been that long ago that the U.S. army would end any workers rights protest guns blazing. Protecting the FREEDOM(TM) of US companies to exploit anyone and anything all over the world.

bongobingo• 5 years ago

Does that democracy include the right to not join the union?

zeckalpha2• 5 years ago

I suspect many of the child comments don’t understand how IWW differs from RWDSU.

sammorrowdrums• 5 years ago

I would be willing to listen to that line of argument, but having seen the Amazon manager training videos, the doitwithoutdues.com site, the countless other articles, evidence and anecdotes about Amazon's particularly aggressive forms of trying to prevent unionisation, the twitter ambassadors tweeting the official talking points etc.

I don't think we can rule out the possibility we don't actually know what the employees truly think because they're in the middle of an all out propaganda war.

And I certainly don't think Amazon would put so much effort into fighting this if their employee treatment, benefits and compensation and general employer track record made employees genuinely not even consider the Union option.

As an outsider, it just feels like watching media reporting a war. I don't trust it due to propaganda and clearly opposing biases at play between the interested parties.

refurb9• 5 years ago

Voting goes the way I think it should = people rationally voted for their best interest despite all the propaganda

Voting doesn't go the way I think it should = people were clearly swayed by propaganda and didn't vote in their best interest

Either we treat people like adults and trust their voting or we don't. One doesn't get to pick and choose which voting is "right".

chrisseaton4• 5 years ago

And I certainly don't think Amazon would put so much effort into fighting this if their employee treatment, benefits and compensation and general employer track record made employees genuinely not even consider the Union option.

You can say the same thing about any political campaign!

Do you think people must not really want Joe Biden as president because he had to spend $6 billion to persuade them through campaigning?

wdn• 5 years ago

One of my neighbor works fir Amazon warehouse here in NJ, he is quite happy, never heard him complain about it.

Yeap, I agreed with you. The media is untrustworthy and is a propaganda machine. Good thing is they are digging their own grave now.

bko2• 5 years ago

The union is free to pay Amazon employees $15 an hour to watch their propaganda videos.

This paternalism of low wage employees needs to stop. They can make up their own mind and actually have skin in the game as opposed to some tech worker making 10x as much telling them they're being brainwashed

LatteLazy5• 5 years ago

I try not to have a strong opinion about amazon workers, because I am not an amazon worker, so it isn't my business. If they want to unionised, that's their right, if not, that's their right too.

That said, I was deeply unsurprised by the result of the vote. I looked at the pay and benefits and thought "I wouldn't rock the boat if I were them".

It seems odd to me that people think a union would be popular here. Unions I've dealt with were a nightmare of politics and ineffectiveness. Partly that's their own problem, partly its a result of legal frameworks that they're stuck in.

I was also surprised how much of a fuss people made about Amazon when 101 other companies are worse and older and get a free pass (Walmart still has more employees than amazon in the US I think).

I think this and other issues around big tech (Google and competition, Apple and supply chains) are more about their failures to engage in PR than them actually being worse than average. I wonder if we will see a move from all/any of them to plug this gap in their moats

MomoXenosaga• 5 years ago

One analysis in a local newspaper was something that blew my mind: in the US your health insurance is tied to your employer?!. Just think about how absolutely insane that is. Your boss has life or death power over you and your loved ones. Apparently that's how Amazon was able to threaten it's workers.

LatteLazy5• 5 years ago

In fairness, that's because amazon gives its workers health insurance. Plenty of similar workers get nothing (Walmart for instance).

More generally I agree this needs totally rethinking, but Democrats have been trying to do that for at least 20 years so it might be a list cause...

zelon88• 5 years ago

"Competitive" wages are a form of slavery.

It means you don't truly consider the employees value. You just pay him 15 cents more than the guy down the street.

Jyaif• 5 years ago

But then the guy down the street will have no one to employ, so he'll have to pay 15 cents more than the other guy, and so on and so forth.

geofft3• 5 years ago

Maybe! If so, a free, fair, and legal vote will tell us that!

heymijo3• 5 years ago

Maybe a majority of the workers there prefer the status quo?

Analysis showed this is what happened. Please don't mistake that to mean the status quo is good. There is an enormous power imbalance between Amazon and the laborers in Bessemer, Alabama.

This has happened many, many times throughout American history. Coal towns are a canonical example of holding all the cards against labor. The hallmarks of that relationship exist here.

pydry4• 5 years ago

IIRC amazon managed to swing it so the cohort voting was dominated by newbies who got hit only by the anti union propaganda, hadn't yet suffered the worst excesses from management and were keen to not rock the boat and lose the job they'd just gotten.

Kneecaps072• 5 years ago

If this is what the workers got without a union, imagine how much better it could be with a union negotiating on their behalf?

Red_Leaves_Flyy7• 5 years ago

Amazon is offering competitive wages (especially for Albama's cost of living), and benefits from day one.

No. Amazon does not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-w...

The most recent figure for the median wage in greater Birmingham, a metropolitan area of roughly one million people that includes Bessemer, was nearly $3 above Amazon’s pay there, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

LatteLazy5• 5 years ago

Exactly. You can work at amazon with zero skills and be only 3 dollars behind the median of a population full of doctors and lawyers...

LatteLazy5• 5 years ago

The RWDSU alleged that Amazon's agents unlawfully threatened employees with closure of the warehouse if they joined the union and that the company emailed a warning it would lay off 75% of the proposed bargaining unit because of the union.

Amazon denies this.

Especially the email, either that happened or it didn't. Either way someone needs to go to jail for perjury.

apples_oranges• 5 years ago

I just finished Sam Walton's Book "Made in America". It's about Walmart, but I heard somewhere it's required reading for all Amazon managers. Anyway, it's a fantastic book, and there's something about their Anti-Union stance in it:

"I have always believed strongly that we don’t need unions at Wal-Mart. Theoretically, I understand the argument that unions try to make, that the associates need someone to represent them and so on. But historically, as unions have developed in this country, they have mostly just been divisive. They have put management on one side of the fence, employees on the other, and themselves in the middle as almost a separate business, one that depends on division between the other two camps. And divisiveness, by breaking down direct communication, makes it harder to take care of customers, to be competitive, and to gain market share."

I just post this because I the vibe in discussions on those union-related posts always seems so aggressive and stand-offish.. It's good to understand many perspectives before picking a side, if any.

(Also this is just an excerpt, there's much more about employee compensation in the book.)

ceejayoz2• 5 years ago

Are Walmart "associates" particularly well off as a result?

knute• 5 years ago

I think it's important to remember that Sam Walton died in 1992, and the Walmart of today has very little in common with the Wal-Mart of 1992.

eventualhorizon• 5 years ago

Walmart was a very different company under Sam Walton. Sam tried to visit every store once a year. When he got there he would throw the managers out and talk with the employees to find whether or not the managers were doing their jobs. He also believed in empowering the employees. Employees were responsible for particular sections of the store and had access to sales and inventory data and made decisions about how the section was run. In short Mr. Walton felt that the line employees were the most important people in the organization and treated them accordingly.

This of course did not survive after he passed and Walmart employees are not well off today. The quote about Unions above does seem to fit his philosophy but rings hollow with the changes that occurred after his death.

refurb9• 5 years ago

Better off than what? Than if they had a union?

Maybe we can look at example like the US auto industry to get an answer there? The answer being "if you were an early member of the union, yeah, a later member, not so much".

pydry4• 5 years ago

This is a perspective that will be broadcast by the financial media (usually uncritically) and rammed down the throats of employees in compulsory anti union seminars. It's pretty hard to miss.

Even if it weren't broadcast at us relentlessly it's not like it's in any way surprising.

It would be mildly interesting if he questioned why unions in Europe were vastly less confrontational and acted in a way he purports to prefer, but I imagine that's a topic that would get uncomfortable for him fairly quickly.

Instead he simply declares his sworn enemy "too confrontational".

Latty• 5 years ago

"We don't need them because it has downsides for me." is an argument for Unions, not against them. The fact that he accepts the need/value for workers in a union, then completely ignores that to say they are not needed because it's bad for the business just shows not even the willingness to pretend to care about employees.

We see, time and time again, that as businesses do better, they don't use that to help employees, they use that as a weapon to treat employees worse. As they get bigger they can drive out competitors who might compete for employees, and can more easily replace any employee, reducing their ability to negotiate more. "What is good for the business is good for the employee." clearly does not hold for most businesses like Walmart.

gameswithgo• 5 years ago

And divisiveness, by breaking down direct communication, makes it harder to take care of customers, to be competitive, and to gain market share

That is all true, it also makes it easier for employees to negotiate a better deal for themselves, which then encourages management to replace the people with foreign labor or robots. Such is life.

teclordphrack22• 5 years ago

but they do that without a union. So whats your point?

geofft3• 5 years ago

It's always struck me as weird that unions in the US exclude management, even when "management" is defined as "someone getting paid $2 more per hour to train and schedule workers." The interests of a Wal-Mart bakery manager and other bakery workers are generally closely aligned, so Mr. Walton has something of a point there. And frankly the same is true of knowledge work - the interests of someone like me who's a senior engineer on the IC track are generally closely aligned with someone who took the manager track, which starts out at the same level, and has three or four junior engineers as direct reports.

Now, the interests of the entire staff at any given Wal-Mart store are generally not aligned with those of Mr. Walton, nor are the interests of engineering staff and line managers aligned with the interests of the C-suite. Simply having supervisory authority doesn't really change the pressures on you, especially when there's an IC track (whether baker or engineer) very close to your role. Nor are the interests of the staff of any Starbucks store aligned with those of Starbucks corporate, nor those of almost everyone involved with physically shipping Amazon packages with those of Amazon corporate, nor those of the people racking Google datacenters and those of SVPs at Google, etc.

So there is an entirely natural division that already exists. Our present form of union forces everyone with supervisory authority to take the side of the big bosses. I think if we had unions that could genuinely represent all laborers, they'd work a lot better.

pc86• 5 years ago

You have to draw the line somewhere though, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making it sound. I'm sure I could find someone who is a director or even VP but is still very close to the "laborer" side of things, especially in tech. Likewise, there are plenty of low-level front line managers with dozens of reports who have no idea what they do day-to-day. It's easy to separate the Waltons from the person icing a cake in a bakery because they're dozens of reports apart. But it's much harder to actually put that line between two individual people at any level of the organization.

TheNorthman• 5 years ago

Built into the very fabric of unionism is the acknowledgement that capital and labor have fundamentally different goals, i.e. class struggle. An acknowledgment for which the only logical conclusion is an independent workers movement.

There is a term for unions that don't acknowledge this divide and favor a "collaboration" between capital and labor: Yellow unions. It is not an endearing term and they are (rightfully) outlawed in the US.

emptysongglass• 5 years ago

I want to go after the presumption that representation foments division. It's an American-made idea and it's not a good one. Take it out and throw it in the bin.

Denmark has two thirds of its workforce under a union. I'm not hostile with my employers and I don't need my union representing me 99 percent of the time. If I have a problem I talk directly to my managers like a {woman, man, transperson}. It's only when my workplace is doing something illegal or trying to screw me that I first go to my union for advice and only after, if their advice hasn't worked, would I ever consider letting my union speak for me.

That's how all Danes do it here. And it works out fine for everyone. So please reconsider this no-good, destructive idea that underlies this logical fallacy.

The fact is that leadership by its nature as leadership, wields power. Workers under leaders need help to protect from gross abuses of power that arise from wielding power.

damagednoob• 5 years ago

It's an American-made idea and it's not a good one. Take it out and throw it in the bin.

Actually, I think your comment belongs in the bin. No one was making generalisations until you stepped in. Denmark may be this unionised Utopia that everyone can learn from (I doubt it) but unions in other countries (e.g. UK, South Africa) can exhibit these counter-productive behaviours as described.

JoBrad• 5 years ago

Maybe you mean for white collar workers? The separation between blue collar management and employees is very old: it’s in verses of “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, and is even discussed in the Bible.

vidarh4• 5 years ago

It's good to understand many perspectives before picking a side, if any.

With that in mind, I'd point out that the history of unionisation in America (and everywhere) is one of extensive bloodshed as employees have died both from unsafe labour practices [1], as well as from outright murder, intimidation and other attempts at shutting down organisation of labour.

So, yeah, it's divisive. May 1st as the international day for labour demonstrations was put in place to commemorate the Chicago Haymarket Massacre [2], on the request of what is now the AFL-CIO, and to resume the fight for the 8 hour working day that costs many lives and caused far more injuries and people forced out of their jobs - a fight that took many decades.

It's very easy to ask people to not be "divisive" when you're the one with the money and the power, and not the ones who have the rights they have now as a consequence of the deaths and sacrifices of people being "divisive" by daring to stand up for themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

kodah2• 5 years ago

It's very easy to ask people to not be "divisive" when you're the one with the money and the power, and not the ones who have the rights they have now as a consequence of the deaths and sacrifices of people being "divisive" by daring to stand up for themselves.

The person you're replying to is talking about how people act in discussions about this topic.

So, with that in mind, who can ask you (read: metaphorical you) to not be divisive, aggressive, or stand-offish when discussing unions with lay people?

pizzaowl• 5 years ago

I'd love some German style unions but it's the companies that won't give them a shot.

eli_gottlieb• 5 years ago

But historically, as unions have developed in this country, they have mostly just been divisive. They have put management on one side of the fence, employees on the other, and themselves in the middle as almost a separate business, one that depends on division between the other two camps.

But workers and management really are on two different sides of the fence. We have intrinsically opposed material interests. Management are not our friends.

refurb9• 5 years ago

But my understanding is that's not how unions work in Europe. Typically the unions see themselves as another party that benefits from a successful and profitable company. You are correct that they have different goals, but the difference is is that they want the same thing.

At least in the US, you see much more antagonistic approach. Company is facing cheap imports that hurt sales? Some unions say "fuck you, not my problem, pay me".

offtop54• 5 years ago

Isn't it a completely rational fear that Amazon would just fire most employees if they unionize against Amazon's wishes. Even if this isn't exactly legal, it would take years to sort it out in court. Rent's due Monday, no one has time to wait for justice to prevail

mikepurvis2• 5 years ago

Well yes, but that sort of precariousness and the obviousness of the power imbalance between the parties is precisely what makes a union so necessary in the first place.

ceejayoz2• 5 years ago

Yes, it's a rational fear.

There should probably be GDPR-style "significant percentage of corporate global revenue" penalties available in these scenarios.

refurb9• 5 years ago

Why do you think it would take years? The NLRB has been known to interject during strikes when either side is breaking the law. It’s not like they can’t act quickly.

offtop54• 5 years ago

Rent's still due Monday.

Hypothetically let's say Amazon is found to be at fault, even if action is taken your still out of work. I consider myself fairly educated, and I still have no idea what remedies exist if Amazon was to close a warehouse due to unionization. For working class people who are more concerned about paying their bills, voting for a union sounds like a very risky proposition. There's a very good chance Amazon would find a legal trick to either lay off a significant numbers of their staff, or convert some workers to being tempts

roody15• 5 years ago

Once upon a time Republicans represented the managerial and investor class and Democrats represented labor (1920’s-1990’s).

Now the corporate DNC is just pro mega corps with lip service to corporate safe “progressive” topics that don’t challenge their power. Identity politics etc.

Sorry more of a rant here but I don’t see unions getting much help anytime in the press or national stage and doubt Apple, Google, Wal mart and Amazon will see any real movement towards unionization.

It’s almost like a movie script... see we were open to the idea of unions ... but the people “chose” not to unionize ... wink.

jl2718• 5 years ago

Unions will eventually find ways to persist symbiotically with big business by making it impossible to do small business.

mk81• 5 years ago

I've seen this one before.

It goes laches, no standing and moot.

Red_Leaves_Flyy7• 5 years ago

America is lacking a strong militant labor movement. The kind of movement like we saw in Venezuela, or from environmental activists. Chain yourself to your truck, machine, or desk with 5,000 of your comrades and go on a hunger strike prepared to get beat up and flung around by the local pd for a great a-roll. Coordinate with local press to have camera crews in there 24/7 live streaming everything. Since it's a strike, have everyone get busy on social media engaging in the public discourse and sharing dank memes.

bell-cot• 5 years ago

My impression (over a few decades) is that news stories about a unionization vote (won, lost, or upcoming) near-always proclaim the employer's "vote no" campaign to be exceptionally aggressive and underhanded. Perhaps my news sources quietly ignore the ~99% of unionization votes where such is not the case. But I suspect that both pro- and anti-union readers feel quite flattered by such characterizations, and so journalists have learned to proclaim that in near-all their stories upon the subject.

Whether or not that suspicion is correct, I get the impression that even a slightly-competent union would have fully expected Amazon to fight hard and nasty in this case. A couple stories (from seemingly-pro-union sources) seemed to say that the location was one which Amazon would have chosen, if they had to face a union vote. Compared to other Amazon warehouses, this one paid notably less-bad wages (relative to the local job market), had notably less-evil managers (again, relative), etc.

If that's vaguely correct, then how can the union's decision to fight in Bessemer, AL be explained? "The union is a sock puppet of Amazon's, and losing was the secret plan..." sounds cool. But there are many different unions in this world. Perhaps while a noisy one was picking and losing a fight in Bessemer, the savvier ones were quietly continuing with their own plans for Amazon.

jjtheblunt• 5 years ago

Do Amazon employees get a worse deal from the union than from Amazon, via its scale (i.e., healthcare rates, etc)?

Union's evidence in Amazon vote 'could be grounds for overturning election'

Related Stories