Amazon Unlawfully Confiscated Union Literature, NLRB Finds (vice.com) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Amazon illegally prohibited an employee from giving workers pro-union literature, confiscated that literature, and gave workers the impression that their organizing activity was being surveilled at the company's Staten Island fulfillment center in New York, according to National Labor Relations Board charges and other documentation reviewed by Motherboard. An NLRB investigation found that Amazon illegally prohibited Connor Spence, a Staten Island employee involved in union organizing, from distributing pro-union literature in a break room on May 16 -- and then confiscated the literature -- also in violation of U.S. labor law, according to evidence provided by the NLRB to the union's attorney.
Connor Spence, a 25-year-old warehouse worker in Amazon's JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island, who filed the unfair labor practice charge, told Motherboard that on May 16, he was in the break room distributing leaflets about unions and copies of a notice that Amazon had to post in a Queens warehouse for violating workers' union rights, when an Amazon security guard approached him and told him he did not have permission to distribute the leaflets. "He took the union literature away and wouldn't give it back," Spence told Motherboard. "I filed the charge so that there's accountability in place that prevents them from doing this in the future." [...] "Amazon is very obviously anti-union. They cross the line a lot when it comes to stopping workers from unionizing," Spence said. "Unfortunately labor law isn't very strong in our country, but I'm hoping Amazon cares about its image and these stains on their record." "The finding comes on the same day as an NLRB officer in Alabama released a report recommending the rerun of a union election in an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama," adds Motherboard. "The NLRB's report on the Bessemer election found that Amazon illegally discouraged labor organizing, in part by pushing post office officials to install a mailbox outside the warehouse where workers were urged to drop their mail-in ballots, which an NLRB officer wrote 'destroyed the laboratory conditions and justifies a second election.'"
"The NLRB investigation also found that Amazon illegally created the impression of surveillance of workers' organizing activity at JFK8 on May 24."
Connor Spence, a 25-year-old warehouse worker in Amazon's JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island, who filed the unfair labor practice charge, told Motherboard that on May 16, he was in the break room distributing leaflets about unions and copies of a notice that Amazon had to post in a Queens warehouse for violating workers' union rights, when an Amazon security guard approached him and told him he did not have permission to distribute the leaflets. "He took the union literature away and wouldn't give it back," Spence told Motherboard. "I filed the charge so that there's accountability in place that prevents them from doing this in the future." [...] "Amazon is very obviously anti-union. They cross the line a lot when it comes to stopping workers from unionizing," Spence said. "Unfortunately labor law isn't very strong in our country, but I'm hoping Amazon cares about its image and these stains on their record." "The finding comes on the same day as an NLRB officer in Alabama released a report recommending the rerun of a union election in an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama," adds Motherboard. "The NLRB's report on the Bessemer election found that Amazon illegally discouraged labor organizing, in part by pushing post office officials to install a mailbox outside the warehouse where workers were urged to drop their mail-in ballots, which an NLRB officer wrote 'destroyed the laboratory conditions and justifies a second election.'"
"The NLRB investigation also found that Amazon illegally created the impression of surveillance of workers' organizing activity at JFK8 on May 24."
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot steal an electronic document, you just take a copy the original remains. But this sounds like taking the hard copies, ie something printed on paper - in this case the original owner no longer has possession - so it is theft.
What would be interesting to know is what made the security guard act as s/he did ? Was it his own volition or was he asked to by some cowardly manager ? Whoever: the guard and/or manager should be charged with theft.
Re: (Score:1)
labor laws say that they can't block union talk (Score:2)
labor laws say that they can't block union talk
I'm Honestly Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and in addition it should be illegal to take in any help or tax cuts from the government
No, it should be illegal for (local) governments to offer those in the first place. Amazon does not need tax cuts.
Re: (Score:1)
So, if you're living in a city whose industry is gone, filled with crumbling infrastructure and poverty, and Amazon agrees to locate part of their operation in your city if certain compromises are made, but will go somewhere else if they are not, you don't want your elected officials to be permitted to negotiate with them?
You're all kinds of stupid, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you're living in a city whose industry is gone, filled with crumbling infrastructure and poverty, and Amazon agrees to locate part of their operation in your city if certain compromises are made, but will go somewhere else if they are not, you don't want your elected officials to be permitted to negotiate with them?
You're all kinds of stupid, aren't you?
If it's illegal to offer those kinds of incentives, there is no "somewhere else."
And Amazon distribution centers, as centers for their own delivery trucks, can't be located just anywhere. New York may offer better tax breaks, but the biggest warehouse in New York won't be making same day deliveries in Los Angeles.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand. You want Stalin to eliminate all local considerations, and place decision making as far away from the practical realities of the situation as possible. Because you want things to be fair.
Your position is not particularly unique. The people in China, Russia and Vietnam felt the same way you do.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand. You're a retarded troll. And not even very good at it.
Or maybe you're a paid Amazon shill. But you're still not very good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. How do I get a job like that? Does it pay well?
Re: (Score:2)
The moment a local authority says "We'll give you a $1m tax break for building a warehouse here" (for example) then anyone else building a warehouse there should be entitled to exactly the same tax break.
To make special tax deals with only specific companies is unfairly discriminatory - favoritism - and should be not just illegal but criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree that companies should be able to require their workers be vaccinated? And they should be free to fire anti-vaccers?
Re: (Score:1)
Plenty of anti-vaccers getting fired now, and frankly I applaud our corporate overlords for doing so. The idiots put it on social media, for anyone to read, and then they get fired. No need for government involvement at all. That's some tasty schadenfreude! Especially since it only seems to impact right wingers. Sure, it's sad when some Fox News watching right wing anti-vax nut dies and leaves his family penniless, but looking on the bright side, one less republican voter, am I right? Maybe the problem will
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree that companies should be able to require their workers be vaccinated? And they should be free to fire anti-vaccers?
Yes, I do. Freedom goes both ways.
You have the freedom to reject a life saving vaccine, a company has the freedom to reject idiots who do so.
That does not, of course, include those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that 90% of evrybody who tries to weasel out of vaccnes because "muh medical conditions" are full of shit and its probably best to just give them till monday to clear their desk so a non ridiculous idiot can take their job.
Because seriously folks your "fibromiyalgia" does not preclude you, you'll still fucking die if this virus gets you in whats left of yr brain.
Re: (Score:2)
You've just argued for the repeal of the 13th amendment.
I can't help but wonder if that's your intent.
Re: (Score:2)
You've just argued for the repeal of the 13th amendment.
Oh really? Where do you read that?
I'm not saying that workers should not be allowed to unionize at all. I'm saying that no owner of private property should be compelled to host the workers wanting to unionize, or their materials.
It's the same thing as mandating that the Democrats host flyers for the GOP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"You are paying for labor, not,,,control over their thinking or learning while on your property."
I am sure that companies that pay to train their staff would be surprised to learn that.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of a straw man argument, you're doing a pretty good one with your example as well. Having employees in your premises is very different from having someone trespass on your property.
In any case, that was just to illustrate that no, you're not allowed to do *anything* on your premises because, there are laws, and laws apply everywhere. And laws say that workers are protected and you're paying for their labor, not to have full control on their persons, which would be ... slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Joining a union is a right employees have. If you don't like the idea of employee rights, you are free to not employ people.
Re: I'm Honestly Surprised (Score:2)
I'd be fine with that if unions wouldn't force you to join and financially support their political causes, even if you don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better idea, make them watch Heavy Metal, Fritz the Cat, Coonskin, and then the Censored Eleven.
What's the Punishment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main outcome is clarifying the employees' rights, which could lead to unionization in the future.
Seems to be working great! [marketwatch.com]
Re: (Score:3)
forced to rehire and make them unable to be fired (Score:2)
forced to rehire with back pay and make them unable to be fired for some time + can't be forced to take an shit shift or have hours cut.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Amazon is balking at the cost. At least not the pure monetary cost. They're concerned with being able to run their workforce as they see fit.
Re: (Score:3)
As were slave owning plantation owners in the south before the Civil War.
Too much of anything is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Every employee who is affected by a decision of whether to unionise or not should line up and kick Bezos in the balls. Just as well Amazon isn't a big employer in the USA...
Trumpers are going to seize on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The NLRB's report on the Bessemer election found that Amazon illegally discouraged labor organizing, in part by pushing post office officials to install a mailbox outside the warehouse where workers were urged to drop their mail-in ballots, which an NLRB officer wrote 'destroyed the laboratory conditions and justifies a second election.'"
See? Mail-in ballots DO lead to rigged/fake/stolen elections!
Re: (Score:3)
That's certainly A theory. It's a STUPID theory since even assuming all challenged votes were void more workers still voted against that for, but it's a theory all right.
It takes a miracle (Score:3)
They also sabotaged telegraph lines (Score:2)
A Confederate plot, no doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, I feel old
Re: (Score:3)
Also, any country where an employee can be forced to pay an ongoing fee to a body or entity that they don't want any relationship with, just to be able to work at a particular company (or be fired) doesn't strike me as a country with weak labour law... I would say its completely the opposite, to be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I think that perhaps you either misunderstand what this means, or you might be deliberately mis-stating the principle.
A “closed shop” is a situation that arises where a union and an employer reach an agreement whereby the employer agrees to only hire union members. Closed shops were declared illegal in the United States under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet "closed shops" still exist in the US in everything but name - they are now called "union shops" and the NLRA grants unions the ability to require payment of "fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative" from both members and non-members as a requirement to continue employment.
The only difference between a "closed shop" and a "union shop" is that the union cannot require membership of the union - but a union in a union shop can still require non-members to
Why is Amazon... (Score:2)
Me, two minutes ago... (Score:3)
"Well, that's not acceptable. Oh wait...I wonder if the 1000/6000 grit sharpening stone I ordered Sunday is arriving soon... 'Delivered!'... yep - front step."
You think you're so clever and classless and free (Score:3)
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
Bezos' penis-shaped craft (Score:2)
Amazon can't tolerate unions! Why, how would Jeff Bezos be able to afford to ride in his penis-shaped craft if he had to employ enough workers to keep up with the workload, pay a living wage, respect health & safety laws, & provide health insurance so that workers don't go bankrupt & end up homeless if they have an accident at work?
If you steal a candy bar (Score:2)
And are caught, you will go to jail for at least several hours, have a criminal record, and can kiss employment and the ability to rent a home goodbye. Depending on how many you stole before, you might go to jail for years.
Watch and see what Amazon's punishment is for violating the fucking constitution.
No, really, watch and learn.
Can anyone help me understand (Score:2)