25 ms·

Amazon union election should be run again, labor board official says

206 points by fooey 5y ago

crooked-v 5y ago
"Should" sounds an awful lot like "won't, and nobody will actually force them to do so".
- slg 5y ago
  From the article: >Myers has recommended the election be run again, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the recommendation isn’t yet public. The recommendation will be considered by a labor board regional director and Amazon has the right to appeal the ruling to an NLRB panel in Washington. If a new election is called, it could happen later this year. "Should" is being used because it is the recommendation of a single official and not yet a final decision.
bruceb 5y ago
The union probably wants this public so they can say Amazon cheated but the union might not want a 2nd vote to actually happen so they don't lose. Claim "Moral victory" and move on for a while.
- kadoban 5y ago
  There's little moral victory to be had. A small story about Amazon cheating doesn't really generate much buzz. Voting again, if nothing else, makes the story more public, there will be a lot of talk about why the vote is happening again and what happened the first time.
  - modriano 5y ago
    But a second landslide defeat with no improprieties would probably kill any chance of unionization ever happening in any Amazon warehouse. The median household income in Bessemer, AL, is $32,301 per household per year (~$15.50 per household per hour) [0] and the per capita annual income is $19,420 (~$9.34/hour) [0]. Considering Amazon's minimum wage is FAR above the wages at least 50% of residents in Bessemer, AL, earn, I think it will be another blowout, as most of those workers would be afraid that Amazon would just shut down that distribution center and open another one in another Birmingham, AL suburb or exurb. [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bessemercityalabamal https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bessemercityalabamal
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Still confused why they picked such an anti-union state like Alabama for an attempt at unionization. I was told by a friend who worked at the UPS distribution center in Montgomery that during the big strike in the 90s, that distribution center had the largest number of workers cross the picket line. It's not that the state government is anti-union, it's that the people in general are anti-union.
  - dnsco 5y ago
    The largest coal mine union strike in 40 years is happening very close to the Alabama Amazon facility, and started just after the Amazon vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/28/union-advocates-rally-striking-alabama-coalminers https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Still confused why they picked such an anti-union state like Alabama for an attempt at unionization. My understanding is the particular area had a long history of unionization, maybe particularly by African Americans. I read about it elsewhere, but here's the first source I could find that speaks to that: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/16/the-amazon-union-battle-in-bessemer-is-about-dignity-racial-justice-and-the-future-of-the-american-worker/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/16/the-ama... > In the South, anti-labor laws are inextricably linked to the historic suppression of Black workers. Racism in the form of no- or low-wage Black labor has been part of the growth model of racialized capitalism. And when workers are unable to collectively bargain and demand their fair share, economic growth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. > Fortunately, the Birmingham metropolitan area—home to Bessemer—has already proven that unionized Black workers can create economic growth and shared prosperity. At the turn of the 20th century, Birmingham labor unions facilitated the establishment of a Black middle class. Black and white miners organized to form the United Mine Workers (UMW) union and, together, secured better wages. Following UMW’s success, what was then known as the Alabama Federation of Labor (AFL) followed the same strategy of a racially integrated membership—in part out of fear that nonunionized Black workers would replace striking workers. As a result, Black Alabamians earned leadership positions and spots in every committee of the AFL, and the union’s first five vice presidents were Black. This inclusive labor movement continued until the 1930s, when U.S. Steel—rife with Ku Klux Klan members—began to restrict job promotions for unionized Black workers, limiting access to senior positions they previously occupied.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  What amazon did though is super sketchy. They created their own ballot boxes and "processed" them behind closed doors, when the votes were supposed to be collected by a neutral third party. Why would they do this for any reason other than to tamper with the votes?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinclift 5y ago
    Potentially to find out which employees would have voted to unionise, in order to expunge or at least neutralise them.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      Occam's razor. If they are already opening the ballot box, why not simplify things and just tamper with the votes? Then they don't even need to care about which employees because the vote fails.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        As this ruling shows, the drive for unionization does not end after one failed vote.
        sam0x17 5y ago
        Nor does Amazon's drive to stop it (without legislation that is)
  - unanswered 5y ago
    > They created their own ballot boxes and "processed" them behind closed doors Do you have any evidence of this? Seems libellous to me and it directly contradicts all of the reliable media reports I've heard on the subject, which state that ballots were deposited in the mail including an official USPS box on-site.
- ojnabieoot 5y ago
  If I were the union I would take the opportunity to campaign on this. Say that Amazon’s leadership is so untrustworthy that they tried to rig an election they probably would have won fair and square - and, more importantly, that the federal government under Biden might actually have your back if AMZ tries to retaliate against you.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Their voice should be heard above all else, and we plan to appeal to ensure that happens. "Their voice should be heard above all else, so we'll ignore reports that we silenced their voice and prevent them from having another opportunity to let out their voice." Just an absurd PR spin.
- tw04 5y ago
  Even worse: > they voted overwhelmingly in favor of a direct connection with their managers What exactly is this garbage? They’re implying you’ll somehow be alienated from your manager. I’ve worked in both Union and non-Union jobs and a union has literally nothing to do with your relationship with your manager beyond a shitty one can’t completely ruin your career in a union shop. If you have a good manager your relationship will be great regardless of a Union. It’ll just be more obvious in certain situations they represent the company first.
nemo44x 5y ago
The people voted and rejected it. You can’t keep voting until you somehow get your way. Come back in 5 years or something. Until then it just sounds like people trying to justify their livelihoods.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  It's hearsay.. It's impossible to tell whether or not the employee is telling the truth.
  - txru 5y ago
    It would be hearsay if the employee testifying had heard another person say they saw the box opened. This is witness testimony under oath. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it perjury for the mentioned act to have not happened.
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      This is correct. Additionally, this isn't just someone's word. Witnesses will be cross examined. Their testimony will be compared with others, along with records. Ultimately the trier of fact will determine if they're credible or not.
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      Sorry, yea used that word incorrectly. I just mean to say one guy said something where it is impossible to know whether or not he is telling the truth.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > The people voted and rejected it. My understanding is the deck is pretty stacked in favor of the company during those votes. The documentary American Factory was pretty eye opening: the workers in that factory were trying to form a union, and in response the company hired anti-union consultants and had all workers sit through all kinds of mandatory propaganda sessions. It's like if the in the month leading up to a federal election, every registered voter was required to watch an hour of Fox News opinion programming every day. Sure it won't influence everyone, but it will definitely tip the scales.
0110101001 5y ago
> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. From previous reporting about this testimony: > Jackson, who was testifying via Zoom after just getting out of the hospital, said that he was leaving work one morning when he saw security guards approach the mailbox. He proceeded to watch them open a large box at the bottom of the mailbox labeled “1P.” While it was dark at the time, Jackson said his headlights illuminated the area, so he was able to clearly see what they were doing. Anyone who's lived in an apartment building would know this was a box for incoming mail, but I wouldn't be surprised if single family housing was the norm around the warehouse.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  It was outside in front of the warehouse, I think it was one of the blue mail boxes that you drop letters off in to send them. They put the mail box up so that it would be easier for employees to mail in ballots on the way to work (this is all iirc from the articles when they put up the mail boxes at back when, but almost positive I read this).
  - dnsco 5y ago
    IIRC they were told by the NLRB not to put in that mailbox (to not create an environment of intimidation) and they did anyway.
- joejerryronnie 5y ago
  So these security guards would just happily proceed with a highly illegal activity when some random dude gets in his car and shines his headlights on them?
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    It was an incoming mailbox, which the NLRB advised they not install during the vote. If you wanted to spook people into not voting or make them regret it later, how would you do it? I'd make them feel like the only safe thing to do was not to vote. I'd put up more security cameras pointed towards the voting areas, put up fake boxes then make it look like the bosses had access to the votes, and let them psych each other out so they never went anywhere near it. I might also pass out some small bonuses, hold off on some layoffs, and remind them what good money $15/hr is when $19k/yr is typical for the area. And none of that is really even playing dirty, like getting managers to pay people to drum up the fear and anti-union sentiment.
myWindoonn 5y ago
Strong shades of Brexit here. The vote was clearly influenced by a concerted anti-democratic campaign, and while a second vote might be fairer, the rule of law lends heavy weight to the first corrupted vote. Irritatingly, once the vote is corrupted, then that's basically the end of the democratic process. We know this from studying over a century of modern totalitarian states.
anigbrowl 5y ago
I really wonder why union votes are necessary, and think the legal framework should be changed. What if those workers who wanted to join a union did so, and the union collectively bargained on their behalf. Those who did not want to join could continue to negotiate with their employer on a 1-1 basis. This outcome is also more efficient for the employer since some % of the workforce is choosing to work through a single representative, lightening the load for HR. Shareholders in a business can associate freely and vote as a bloc if so inclined, so I see no reason why workers should not do the same. For that matter, I often think unions would have an increased bargaining position by holding one share of stock per represented worker.
- unanswered 5y ago
  The whole point of a union is to prevent anyone from being able to compete with them, so allowing non-dues-paying coworkers would defeat the purpose of the nlrb.
- billjings 5y ago
  If not all the employees are represented by the union, the employers will refuse to negotiate with the union, give more favorable terms to the employees who do not join the union, and refuse to hire employees who choose to choin the union. This saps or breaks the union's negotiating strength, leaving the employer free once again to dictate terms to employees unilaterally.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Well so it is said, but I'm not sure this is backed up by reality. I'm proposing a change in the law here, and that could include requiring that if workers choose to delegate negotiation to a union representative companies are required to honor that request. The existing approach is clearly not working that well (as evidenced by plummeting union membership over the years, and the use of tactics by employers to influence union elections) so perhaps it's time to try a different approach.
    - bawolff 5y ago
fallingknife 5y ago
> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. I just don't buy it. 1. The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned. 2. The final total was 70-30. It would be impractical for Amazon to change the outcome because the size of the manipulation would have to be massive compared to the vote total, and would be easily detected. 3. It makes sense that the union lost the election because Amazon pays way above market in wages + benefits for the region. The union would be unlikely to have the leverage to increase compensation and might even be forced to take a cut, so it would be a hard sell to workers to pay dues.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  On 2; so what? If it turns out Amazon broke the rules, “well they would have won anyways” isn’t an excuse. We have rules and votes so we can determine the outcome as fairly as possible, not to validate what we think would probably happen anyways. If it’s shown they broke the rules (your point on 1 is fair), then they have to redo the election. If Amazon wins again, then fair’s fair.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Oh yeah, if it's shown (with real evidence) that they actually tampered with the votes it should be rerun and people should go to jail. Point 2 is just a reason why I think they didn't.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Ah, totally fair.
  - AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
    the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result: "The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome" If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.
balozi 5y ago
Is the underlying accusation by the union that Amazon somehow tampered with US Postal Service mail or mailboxes? Because that would be quite a grave accusation, far worse than any charge of union vote improprieties.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  If you've been following the story for a while, it is extremely likely that this took place, and it is extremely likely they will get away with it as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bryan_w 5y ago
  It's super weird especially since there are USPS mailboxes that you "open" to get get large packages out of.
hagy 5y ago
In this attempt, I hope the organizers take the time to listen to many workers to understand their employment concerns as well as concerns with unionization. In the previous attempt, I found their website sorely lacking in specific demands, https://bamazonunion.org https://bamazonunion.org The messaging seemed to be generic arguments in favor of unions combined with some general Amazon and Bezos criticisms. Even reading through the linked reports, didn't seem to provide a particularly convincing argument. E.g., they begin their concerns about workplace safety with > The report notes that between 2013 and the time of publication earlier this year, seven workers had died at Amazon facilities. According to the report, two were crushed by forklifts in the warehouses, one was run over by a truck, one was killed by a driver in its parking lot, one suffered a fatal heart-related event during an overnight shift, one was dragged and crushed by a conveyor belt, and one was killed and crushed by a pallet loader. Two more Amazon workers were killed just weeks ago when a warehouse in Maryland partially collapsed during a storm. While workplace deaths are certainly concerning, nine deaths in eight years for a workforce that is now up to 876,000 workers [0] suggests these deaths are exceedingly rare and may not be something most workers are thinking about. Further, there’s already OSHA requirements for workplace safety and I’d imagine all firms, including Amazon, want to avoid worker deaths and will make the necessary changes. I think a union will need to address the specific demands of the workers they will be representing rather than generic arguments for unionization. Further, Amazon may be a particularly challenging workplace to organize since they already pay exceedingly well for unskilled labor, with a starting minimum rate of $15/hour and surprisingly good health benefits. [1] For many workers, Amazon may be the best job they’ve ever had and these workers may be concerned about risking the situation. This includes risks like Amazon shutting down a unionized warehouse, which should be illegal, but there are workarounds. More likely, Amazon would just not grow a unionized warehouse and instead grow nearby ones to control labor costs. This would include building new warehouses if necessary. Amazon may also be particularly aggressive in automation investments for a unionized warehouse, which would allow them to justify layoffs for redundant workers. Some analysts have even proposed that Amazon may be able to have “dark warehouses” (i.e., warehouses that keep the lights off) with full automation within 10 years. [2] Union concerns may lead them to invest even more aggressively in automation tech. In general, I want to see workers' concerns addressed at all firms, and unionizing may be the best approach for this Amazon warehouse, but I think this will be challenging and will require organizers to put a lot of thought into the specific demands that the majority of workers want. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-number-of-employees-workforce-workers-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-number-of-employees-w... [1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/employee-benefits https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/employee-benefits [2] https://futurism.com/the-byte/amazon-automated-warehouses-10-years https://futurism.com/the-byte/amazon-automated-warehouses-10...

206 points by fooey 5y ago

crooked-v 5y ago

"Should" sounds an awful lot like "won't, and nobody will actually force them to do so".

slg 5y ago
From the article: >Myers has recommended the election be run again, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the recommendation isn’t yet public. The recommendation will be considered by a labor board regional director and Amazon has the right to appeal the ruling to an NLRB panel in Washington. If a new election is called, it could happen later this year. "Should" is being used because it is the recommendation of a single official and not yet a final decision.

bruceb 5y ago

The union probably wants this public so they can say Amazon cheated but the union might not want a 2nd vote to actually happen so they don't lose. Claim "Moral victory" and move on for a while.

kadoban 5y ago
There's little moral victory to be had. A small story about Amazon cheating doesn't really generate much buzz. Voting again, if nothing else, makes the story more public, there will be a lot of talk about why the vote is happening again and what happened the first time.
- modriano 5y ago
  But a second landslide defeat with no improprieties would probably kill any chance of unionization ever happening in any Amazon warehouse. The median household income in Bessemer, AL, is $32,301 per household per year (~$15.50 per household per hour) [0] and the per capita annual income is $19,420 (~$9.34/hour) [0]. Considering Amazon's minimum wage is FAR above the wages at least 50% of residents in Bessemer, AL, earn, I think it will be another blowout, as most of those workers would be afraid that Amazon would just shut down that distribution center and open another one in another Birmingham, AL suburb or exurb. [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bessemercityalabamal https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bessemercityalabamal
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Still confused why they picked such an anti-union state like Alabama for an attempt at unionization. I was told by a friend who worked at the UPS distribution center in Montgomery that during the big strike in the 90s, that distribution center had the largest number of workers cross the picket line. It's not that the state government is anti-union, it's that the people in general are anti-union.
- dnsco 5y ago
  The largest coal mine union strike in 40 years is happening very close to the Alabama Amazon facility, and started just after the Amazon vote. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/28/union-advocates-rally-striking-alabama-coalminers https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Still confused why they picked such an anti-union state like Alabama for an attempt at unionization. My understanding is the particular area had a long history of unionization, maybe particularly by African Americans. I read about it elsewhere, but here's the first source I could find that speaks to that: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/16/the-amazon-union-battle-in-bessemer-is-about-dignity-racial-justice-and-the-future-of-the-american-worker/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/16/the-ama... > In the South, anti-labor laws are inextricably linked to the historic suppression of Black workers. Racism in the form of no- or low-wage Black labor has been part of the growth model of racialized capitalism. And when workers are unable to collectively bargain and demand their fair share, economic growth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. > Fortunately, the Birmingham metropolitan area—home to Bessemer—has already proven that unionized Black workers can create economic growth and shared prosperity. At the turn of the 20th century, Birmingham labor unions facilitated the establishment of a Black middle class. Black and white miners organized to form the United Mine Workers (UMW) union and, together, secured better wages. Following UMW’s success, what was then known as the Alabama Federation of Labor (AFL) followed the same strategy of a racially integrated membership—in part out of fear that nonunionized Black workers would replace striking workers. As a result, Black Alabamians earned leadership positions and spots in every committee of the AFL, and the union’s first five vice presidents were Black. This inclusive labor movement continued until the 1930s, when U.S. Steel—rife with Ku Klux Klan members—began to restrict job promotions for unionized Black workers, limiting access to senior positions they previously occupied.
sam0x17 5y ago
What amazon did though is super sketchy. They created their own ballot boxes and "processed" them behind closed doors, when the votes were supposed to be collected by a neutral third party. Why would they do this for any reason other than to tamper with the votes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- justinclift 5y ago
  Potentially to find out which employees would have voted to unionise, in order to expunge or at least neutralise them.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    Occam's razor. If they are already opening the ballot box, why not simplify things and just tamper with the votes? Then they don't even need to care about which employees because the vote fails.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      As this ruling shows, the drive for unionization does not end after one failed vote.
      - sam0x17 5y ago
        Nor does Amazon's drive to stop it (without legislation that is)
- unanswered 5y ago
  > They created their own ballot boxes and "processed" them behind closed doors Do you have any evidence of this? Seems libellous to me and it directly contradicts all of the reliable media reports I've heard on the subject, which state that ballots were deposited in the mail including an official USPS box on-site.
ojnabieoot 5y ago
If I were the union I would take the opportunity to campaign on this. Say that Amazon’s leadership is so untrustworthy that they tried to rig an election they probably would have won fair and square - and, more importantly, that the federal government under Biden might actually have your back if AMZ tries to retaliate against you.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Their voice should be heard above all else, and we plan to appeal to ensure that happens. "Their voice should be heard above all else, so we'll ignore reports that we silenced their voice and prevent them from having another opportunity to let out their voice." Just an absurd PR spin.

tw04 5y ago
Even worse: > they voted overwhelmingly in favor of a direct connection with their managers What exactly is this garbage? They’re implying you’ll somehow be alienated from your manager. I’ve worked in both Union and non-Union jobs and a union has literally nothing to do with your relationship with your manager beyond a shitty one can’t completely ruin your career in a union shop. If you have a good manager your relationship will be great regardless of a Union. It’ll just be more obvious in certain situations they represent the company first.

nemo44x 5y ago

The people voted and rejected it. You can’t keep voting until you somehow get your way. Come back in 5 years or something. Until then it just sounds like people trying to justify their livelihoods.

bostonsre 5y ago
It's hearsay.. It's impossible to tell whether or not the employee is telling the truth.
- txru 5y ago
  It would be hearsay if the employee testifying had heard another person say they saw the box opened. This is witness testimony under oath. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it perjury for the mentioned act to have not happened.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    This is correct. Additionally, this isn't just someone's word. Witnesses will be cross examined. Their testimony will be compared with others, along with records. Ultimately the trier of fact will determine if they're credible or not.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    Sorry, yea used that word incorrectly. I just mean to say one guy said something where it is impossible to know whether or not he is telling the truth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
> The people voted and rejected it. My understanding is the deck is pretty stacked in favor of the company during those votes. The documentary American Factory was pretty eye opening: the workers in that factory were trying to form a union, and in response the company hired anti-union consultants and had all workers sit through all kinds of mandatory propaganda sessions. It's like if the in the month leading up to a federal election, every registered voter was required to watch an hour of Fox News opinion programming every day. Sure it won't influence everyone, but it will definitely tip the scales.

0110101001 5y ago

> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. From previous reporting about this testimony: > Jackson, who was testifying via Zoom after just getting out of the hospital, said that he was leaving work one morning when he saw security guards approach the mailbox. He proceeded to watch them open a large box at the bottom of the mailbox labeled “1P.” While it was dark at the time, Jackson said his headlights illuminated the area, so he was able to clearly see what they were doing. Anyone who's lived in an apartment building would know this was a box for incoming mail, but I wouldn't be surprised if single family housing was the norm around the warehouse.

bostonsre 5y ago
It was outside in front of the warehouse, I think it was one of the blue mail boxes that you drop letters off in to send them. They put the mail box up so that it would be easier for employees to mail in ballots on the way to work (this is all iirc from the articles when they put up the mail boxes at back when, but almost positive I read this).
- dnsco 5y ago
  IIRC they were told by the NLRB not to put in that mailbox (to not create an environment of intimidation) and they did anyway.
joejerryronnie 5y ago
So these security guards would just happily proceed with a highly illegal activity when some random dude gets in his car and shines his headlights on them?
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  It was an incoming mailbox, which the NLRB advised they not install during the vote. If you wanted to spook people into not voting or make them regret it later, how would you do it? I'd make them feel like the only safe thing to do was not to vote. I'd put up more security cameras pointed towards the voting areas, put up fake boxes then make it look like the bosses had access to the votes, and let them psych each other out so they never went anywhere near it. I might also pass out some small bonuses, hold off on some layoffs, and remind them what good money $15/hr is when $19k/yr is typical for the area. And none of that is really even playing dirty, like getting managers to pay people to drum up the fear and anti-union sentiment.

myWindoonn 5y ago

Strong shades of Brexit here. The vote was clearly influenced by a concerted anti-democratic campaign, and while a second vote might be fairer, the rule of law lends heavy weight to the first corrupted vote. Irritatingly, once the vote is corrupted, then that's basically the end of the democratic process. We know this from studying over a century of modern totalitarian states.

anigbrowl 5y ago

I really wonder why union votes are necessary, and think the legal framework should be changed. What if those workers who wanted to join a union did so, and the union collectively bargained on their behalf. Those who did not want to join could continue to negotiate with their employer on a 1-1 basis. This outcome is also more efficient for the employer since some % of the workforce is choosing to work through a single representative, lightening the load for HR. Shareholders in a business can associate freely and vote as a bloc if so inclined, so I see no reason why workers should not do the same. For that matter, I often think unions would have an increased bargaining position by holding one share of stock per represented worker.

unanswered 5y ago
The whole point of a union is to prevent anyone from being able to compete with them, so allowing non-dues-paying coworkers would defeat the purpose of the nlrb.
billjings 5y ago
If not all the employees are represented by the union, the employers will refuse to negotiate with the union, give more favorable terms to the employees who do not join the union, and refuse to hire employees who choose to choin the union. This saps or breaks the union's negotiating strength, leaving the employer free once again to dictate terms to employees unilaterally.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Well so it is said, but I'm not sure this is backed up by reality. I'm proposing a change in the law here, and that could include requiring that if workers choose to delegate negotiation to a union representative companies are required to honor that request. The existing approach is clearly not working that well (as evidenced by plummeting union membership over the years, and the use of tactics by employers to influence union elections) so perhaps it's time to try a different approach.
  - bawolff 5y ago

fallingknife 5y ago

> Myers’ recommendation centers on the mailbox, according to one of the people familiar with it. During the NLRB hearing, an employee said Amazon security guards used keys to open the mailbox, testimony that former NLRB chair Wilma Liebman said could be reason enough to overturn the result. I just don't buy it. 1. The evidence seems to be based on the word of a single employee. If that's enough evidence to overturn an election, it will be hard to have one that isn't overturned. 2. The final total was 70-30. It would be impractical for Amazon to change the outcome because the size of the manipulation would have to be massive compared to the vote total, and would be easily detected. 3. It makes sense that the union lost the election because Amazon pays way above market in wages + benefits for the region. The union would be unlikely to have the leverage to increase compensation and might even be forced to take a cut, so it would be a hard sell to workers to pay dues.

ashtonkem 5y ago
On 2; so what? If it turns out Amazon broke the rules, “well they would have won anyways” isn’t an excuse. We have rules and votes so we can determine the outcome as fairly as possible, not to validate what we think would probably happen anyways. If it’s shown they broke the rules (your point on 1 is fair), then they have to redo the election. If Amazon wins again, then fair’s fair.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Oh yeah, if it's shown (with real evidence) that they actually tampered with the votes it should be rerun and people should go to jail. Point 2 is just a reason why I think they didn't.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Ah, totally fair.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
  the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result: "The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome" If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.

balozi 5y ago

Is the underlying accusation by the union that Amazon somehow tampered with US Postal Service mail or mailboxes? Because that would be quite a grave accusation, far worse than any charge of union vote improprieties.

sam0x17 5y ago
If you've been following the story for a while, it is extremely likely that this took place, and it is extremely likely they will get away with it as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bryan_w 5y ago
It's super weird especially since there are USPS mailboxes that you "open" to get get large packages out of.

hagy 5y ago

In this attempt, I hope the organizers take the time to listen to many workers to understand their employment concerns as well as concerns with unionization. In the previous attempt, I found their website sorely lacking in specific demands, https://bamazonunion.org https://bamazonunion.org The messaging seemed to be generic arguments in favor of unions combined with some general Amazon and Bezos criticisms. Even reading through the linked reports, didn't seem to provide a particularly convincing argument. E.g., they begin their concerns about workplace safety with > The report notes that between 2013 and the time of publication earlier this year, seven workers had died at Amazon facilities. According to the report, two were crushed by forklifts in the warehouses, one was run over by a truck, one was killed by a driver in its parking lot, one suffered a fatal heart-related event during an overnight shift, one was dragged and crushed by a conveyor belt, and one was killed and crushed by a pallet loader. Two more Amazon workers were killed just weeks ago when a warehouse in Maryland partially collapsed during a storm. While workplace deaths are certainly concerning, nine deaths in eight years for a workforce that is now up to 876,000 workers [0] suggests these deaths are exceedingly rare and may not be something most workers are thinking about. Further, there’s already OSHA requirements for workplace safety and I’d imagine all firms, including Amazon, want to avoid worker deaths and will make the necessary changes. I think a union will need to address the specific demands of the workers they will be representing rather than generic arguments for unionization. Further, Amazon may be a particularly challenging workplace to organize since they already pay exceedingly well for unskilled labor, with a starting minimum rate of $15/hour and surprisingly good health benefits. [1] For many workers, Amazon may be the best job they’ve ever had and these workers may be concerned about risking the situation. This includes risks like Amazon shutting down a unionized warehouse, which should be illegal, but there are workarounds. More likely, Amazon would just not grow a unionized warehouse and instead grow nearby ones to control labor costs. This would include building new warehouses if necessary. Amazon may also be particularly aggressive in automation investments for a unionized warehouse, which would allow them to justify layoffs for redundant workers. Some analysts have even proposed that Amazon may be able to have “dark warehouses” (i.e., warehouses that keep the lights off) with full automation within 10 years. [2] Union concerns may lead them to invest even more aggressively in automation tech. In general, I want to see workers' concerns addressed at all firms, and unionizing may be the best approach for this Amazon warehouse, but I think this will be challenging and will require organizers to put a lot of thought into the specific demands that the majority of workers want. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-number-of-employees-workforce-workers-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-number-of-employees-w... [1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/employee-benefits https://www.aboutamazon.com/workplace/employee-benefits [2] https://futurism.com/the-byte/amazon-automated-warehouses-10-years https://futurism.com/the-byte/amazon-automated-warehouses-10...