4 ms·

Definitely not illegal. You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on

Definitely not illegal. You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? It's ok if this is doesn't sit well on you. As I said in the parent comment, if unions were easy they wouldn't make sense. Things companies that have unions or are dealing with unionization efforts can do [1]: - Describe the good features of working for your company, such as existing benefits, job security and steady work. - Remind them that signing union authorization cards doesn’t mean they must vote for the union. - Inform them of the disadvantages of belonging to a union, such as the possibility of strikes, serving on picket lines, paying dues, fines and assessments. - Explain the meaning of the phrases “dues checkoff” and “union shop.” - Inform them of any prior experience you’ve had with unions and what facts you know about the particular union that’s trying to organize them. - Tell your employees how their wages and benefits compare with other unionized and nonunionized companies with less desirable packages. - Disclose the names of known gangsters or other undesirable elements who may be or have been active in the union, provided this is accurate information that can be verified by official sources. - Inform them that, insofar as their status with the company is concerned, they are free to join or not to join any organization they choose. - Express the hope that your employees vote against this or any union. [1] https://www.thehrspecialist.com/14099/unions-in-the-spotlight-what-employers-can-and-cant-do https://www.thehrspecialist.com/14099/unions-in-the-spotligh... Special emphasis on the last point. This is not me "arbitrarily" deciding anything. I don't even care that much about this. This is simply the other side of the coin. Companies can do this and therefore they do it. I have no personal feelings or strong opinions regarding unionization. I'm just showing the facts.

A12-B 6y ago
When you break a law, you don't immediately go to jail. Its not a video game. There are about a million dollars and hurdles in the way of suing amazon for breaking labour laws. They are engaging in far more than just informing their employees of a no-vote. These are facts too. Things an employer can't do: - Engage in surveillance of employees to determine their views on the union. Christ dude, read the article and your own source.
ahelwer 6y ago
> You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? This is staggeringly naive about both how large companies & the legal system operate.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers before they do things? They just go and do whatever without assessing the risks? I think is actually naive to think otherwise. You can still feel something is illegal even though you have the clear of your legal team. I'm not debating that. Also you could take decisions on gray areas against the advice of your lawyers. I'm not debating that either. I would like to understand your side? How is my take staggeringly naive?
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale in comparison to the cost of having their workforce unionized. What you've said above basically amounts to "if a corporation does something, it must be legal, because corporations employ lawyers to tell them whether something is legal". Which is just straight false on the facts of history, and naive.
    - whoisjuan 6y ago
      That’s not what I said. I’m saying that the baseline behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of disincentivizing unions are legal. I don’t know if this particular instance is illegal. On print doesn’t sound good. I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is illegal which is clearly not. I agree with you that law isn’t binary, but the final interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage on what you think is lawful behavior or you don’t. If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.
ashtonbaker 6y ago
> You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? What? You could conclude that anything that Amazon does is legal by this logic. I'm sure they /did/ consult their lawyers - not for lessons on "right" and "wrong", but to find exactly how to skirt or cross the legal line with an acceptable level of legal exposure.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  What you said is not very different from what I said. Read the other thread under the parent comment where we expanded/discussed with another commenter on some of your points.

A12-B 6y ago

When you break a law, you don't immediately go to jail. Its not a video game. There are about a million dollars and hurdles in the way of suing amazon for breaking labour laws. They are engaging in far more than just informing their employees of a no-vote. These are facts too. Things an employer can't do: - Engage in surveillance of employees to determine their views on the union. Christ dude, read the article and your own source.

ahelwer 6y ago

> You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? This is staggeringly naive about both how large companies & the legal system operate.

whoisjuan 6y ago
Really? So you think corporations don't use their lawyers before they do things? They just go and do whatever without assessing the risks? I think is actually naive to think otherwise. You can still feel something is illegal even though you have the clear of your legal team. I'm not debating that. Also you could take decisions on gray areas against the advice of your lawyers. I'm not debating that either. I would like to understand your side? How is my take staggeringly naive?
- ahelwer 6y ago
  If you've ever interacted with a lawyer you would know that "right vs not" is not a binary and all advice is tempered with discussion of risk. In this case, the risk is Amazon has action brought against it by the heavily neutered NLRB and possibly faces consequences many years down the road - consequences that clearly, to them, pale in comparison to the cost of having their workforce unionized. What you've said above basically amounts to "if a corporation does something, it must be legal, because corporations employ lawyers to tell them whether something is legal". Which is just straight false on the facts of history, and naive.
  - whoisjuan 6y ago
    That’s not what I said. I’m saying that the baseline behavior is not illegal. The fundamentals of disincentivizing unions are legal. I don’t know if this particular instance is illegal. On print doesn’t sound good. I was replying to the parent commenter who seemed to think that desincentivizing union formation/joining is illegal which is clearly not. I agree with you that law isn’t binary, but the final interpretation of a law is a binary decision. You engage on what you think is lawful behavior or you don’t. If they did this, they clearly think that the pros outweigh the cons, and they believe they are operating within their legal rights.

ashtonbaker 6y ago

> You think Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world, will engage in any anti-union campaign without consulting their lawyers on what's right and what's not? What? You could conclude that anything that Amazon does is legal by this logic. I'm sure they /did/ consult their lawyers - not for lessons on "right" and "wrong", but to find exactly how to skirt or cross the legal line with an acceptable level of legal exposure.

whoisjuan 6y ago
What you said is not very different from what I said. Read the other thread under the parent comment where we expanded/discussed with another commenter on some of your points.