Amazon Bars Off-Duty Warehouse Workers from Its Buildings (apnews.com) 90
The Associated Press spoke to an Amazon warehouse worker in North Carolina who wants to unionize. "On our days off, we come to work and we engage our co-workers in the break rooms," he said.
But now the Associated Press reports "Amazon is barring off-duty warehouse workers from the company's facilities, a move organizers say can hamper union drives." Under the policy shared with workers on Amazon's internal app, employees are barred from accessing buildings or other working areas on their scheduled days off, and before or after their shifts. An Amazon spokesperson said the policy does not prohibit off-duty employees from engaging their co-workers in "non-working areas" outside the company's buildings.
"There's nothing more important than the safety of our employees and the physical security of our buildings," Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said....
The notice of the new policy, dated Thursday, says the off-duty rule "will not be enforced discriminatorily" against employees seeking to unionize. But organizers say the policy itself will hinder their efforts to garner support from co-workers during campaigns.
The article notes Amazon told employees their move was instead motivated partly by a need to, in an emergency situation, know exactly which employees were still in the building.
But now the Associated Press reports "Amazon is barring off-duty warehouse workers from the company's facilities, a move organizers say can hamper union drives." Under the policy shared with workers on Amazon's internal app, employees are barred from accessing buildings or other working areas on their scheduled days off, and before or after their shifts. An Amazon spokesperson said the policy does not prohibit off-duty employees from engaging their co-workers in "non-working areas" outside the company's buildings.
"There's nothing more important than the safety of our employees and the physical security of our buildings," Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said....
The notice of the new policy, dated Thursday, says the off-duty rule "will not be enforced discriminatorily" against employees seeking to unionize. But organizers say the policy itself will hinder their efforts to garner support from co-workers during campaigns.
The article notes Amazon told employees their move was instead motivated partly by a need to, in an emergency situation, know exactly which employees were still in the building.
I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:4, Insightful)
But here, I'd say fair enough. They don't have to provide a venue for people trying to convince others to form a union. Once the union is formed, I am of the opinion they do need to provide facilities for the union, like in most large companies in western European countries. But as long as the union isn't formed. Why should they help?
It's not like they're visiting troublemakers door too door and breaking their legs, mafia-style. They're just saying "You may want to unionize, just don't count on us to make it any easier." Fine by me: no-one expects undue kindness from Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Our fine editors are too busy digging up as many pro-union stories as they can find.
The editors' obsession with union stories is kinda weird. TFA isn't even tech-related, since it is about warehouse workers, not Amazon's programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
The editors' obsession with union stories is kinda weird. TFA isn't even tech-related, since it is about warehouse workers, not Amazon's programmers.
That's kind of like complaining that people in a thread about building nuclear bombs are talking about what happens when those bombs explode. Yes, they are separate subjects in one sense, but in another sense they are directly connected. The work that Amazon's software developers do has a direct impact on why many Amazon workers feel they need to unionize and how the company is trying to prevent them from doing so. Discussing technology without discussing its consequences puts you in an ethical vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Less opportunity for a disgruntled worker to shoot up the place.
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:3)
At the previous place that I worked, hourly employees were required to leave after their shift had ended. The idea was they wanted to avoid any possible issues arising from hourly workers possibly doing work off of the clock and all of the legal shit that can go along with it. Those of us who were salaried could come and go as we pleased.
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:2)
Yeah I know
Re: (Score:2)
>"At the previous place that I worked, hourly employees were required to leave after their shift had ended. The idea was they wanted to avoid any possible issues arising from hourly workers possibly doing work off of the clock."
Exactly. Where I work now has the same policy and it has nothing to do with unions. In fact, it is very common. Hourly workers making claims on hours not worked, safety issues, being sued for accidents, infection control, distraction to people actually working, possible theft a
Re:I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, it's illegal for an employer to be obstructive in this way
In what way? In telling employees that if they're not on the clock, they need to leave the premises? It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, and we all know it's because they're trying to stop the employees from forming a union, but the fact of the matter is that they're the employer, they own the warehouse, the workers must do what the employer tells them in relation to when to be there and when to leave, and the workers just need to follow those rules.
Again, I'm on the side of Amazon workers forming
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well your opinion is both stupid AND wrong.
The decision is vastly more likely to do with having people not covered by Amazon's insurance in the warehouses rather than trying to prevent unions. The prevention may be a welcome side effect, but I'm betting it's more a CYOA insurance requirement policy. Workman's comp, and the company insurance won't cover employees that just came to "hang out" at the plant.
That means Amazon would be on the hook for whatever amount of money the people could weasel out of the
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:2)
Here's a quick history lesson as to what that looked like a century ago.
That was an exceptionally short 'history lesson' - and completely irrelevant.
Amazon has no requirement, morally or legally, to permit off-shift workers into a distribution center to hang out in the break room - the union angle is as meaningless as your 'quick history lesson'.
No one is arguing for/against unions, does your employer indulge you hanging out in the break room after hours? These are not salaried office workers 'burning the midnight oil' to finish their TPS reports, these are hourly workers who h
Re: (Score:2)
True, and such it always was. However, at least they can't get away with things like this [wikipedia.org] today.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon will do whatever they think they can get away with to get what they want.
Indeed, but never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by the normal operation of companies the world over. I used to work at a union shop. We were peaceful and coexisted with the company. In many years there was one strike.
We were barred from coming in off shift for the same reason! This isn't an office watercooler. You should have no more people in a factory, plant, or manufacturing facility than strictly necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Or does everyone where you live keep to the speed-limits at all times?
Re: (Score:2)
Could be an insurance issue (Score:2)
Over the decades I've seen many seemingly strange rules trace back to insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Over the decades I've seen many seemingly strange rules trace back to insurance.
An insurance company has zero qualms in forcing you to spend tens of thousands of dollars to meet building codes they surreptitiously supported in order for them to avoid ten dollars in liability. Many building, electrical, plumbing, aircraft, railroad, and trucking codes are promulgated by "Code Self Regulating Societies" that are run by people associated with the insurance industry, then copyright the (required by law) code books so you must buy _their_ code book.
Nice racket, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
>are run by people associated with the insurance industry
Hence the UL (Underwriter's Labs) authored electrical codes being mostly focussed on preventing fire rather than human safety, since that's what costs the insurers more. Compare with the European codes which are much more focussed on human safety because that's what codes are for.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the UL (Underwriter's Labs) authored electrical codes being mostly focussed on preventing fire rather than human safety, since that's what costs the insurers more. Compare with the European codes which are much more focussed on human safety because that's what codes are for.
UL does not author the electrical codes. The US National Electric Code (NFPA 70) is managed by committee and administered by the NFPA. The committee is chaired by a NECA member. UL has 1 member out of 12 on the NEC correlating committee and about 36 or so members on various code making panels. Half of those 36 are alternates. There are about ~380 total panel and committee members. UL makes up about 10% of that, plus or minus.
Anyone with a cursory familiarity with the NEC knows that 90.1 states "The purpo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the electrical certification literally called UL certification. It's printed on the back of your power supplies.
The NEC is on the other end - what you do with the gear once it's built.
UL is in many other areas of certification, E.G. they are an accredited NIST CST lab and certainly engage in authoring some of the specs (as I have too - we both have our text in I.G. 7.18 and 7.19, along with others), but that seems a lot less self serving that the UL electrical certification.
Re: Could be an insurance issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Amazon obstruct? I can come into any office around the world at any time and talk to my colleagues about anything. Why can't warehouse workers, assuming they're not like actually obstructing on the warehouse floor. They should be treated the same way as any other employee.
Can I come hang around too? (Score:2)
Coz, the more the merrier if your company's offices are social clubs...
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an employee, sure, why not?
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:1)
In many offices you arenâ(TM)t allowed in if youâ(TM)re not on duty. Many reasons, primarily liability but also, people can claim to have worked and they would be obligated to pay your hours. Also, offices are for work, if itâ(TM)s not work related, it is stealing time.
Re: (Score:3)
I can come into any office around the world at any time and talk to my colleagues about anything.
Are you paid hourly? Does the company pay you extra for coming in to do this, even if you are not scheduled? I am guessing the answers here are "no" and you are a salaried IT/knowledge worker professional.
Why can't warehouse workers, assuming they're not like actually obstructing on the warehouse floor. They should be treated the same way as any other employee.
Because they are paid by the hour. They clock in and out and are not generally doing "knowledge work." They don't hang out after hours to talk about better ways to sort pallets, if they are there after hours they are there to socialize or do other non-work-related things. (This isn't a dig - this is the wo
Re: (Score:3)
They don't hang out after hours to talk about better ways to sort pallets, if they are there after hours they are there to socialize or do other non-work-related things. (This isn't a dig - this is the work I did for several years before going to college and it's the honest truth.)
Same here. And I was working in a warehouse. The parking lot was for getting together.
They have very very little in common with salaried or management employees in terms of pay, job expectations or career path.
Actually the managers on the warehouse floor were generally former warehouse workers. Picked for assistant manager, sent away for training for a month, learned the rest apprentice-like. When things got busy and the schedule threatened the manager and assistant got their hands dirty working along side us. I also recall being a newb doing something incorrectly and slowly and the manager worked along side me for fifteen minut
Re: (Score:2)
The US union system really needs some reform.
There is indeed major problem where corporations have way too much power, especially after "Citizens United v. FEC"
Unions in the US are not strong enough to really fight the corporations, however they often will shoot them selves in the foot by also playing low ball tactics where it isn't needed, and fail to make sure the company can stay in business, and the Union should suppose to help the company as well, by making sure the employees are safe and happy, which
Re: I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (Score:4, Insightful)
especially after "Citizens United v. FEC"
Why? Explain please, and be specific - if groups of people called "unions" can take money from individuals (members) and make political donations, why can't business owners take their money and make political donations.
You understand the issue in Citizens United was nothing more than showing an anti-Hillary movie 'too close' to Election Day... the horror.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions aren't for-profit, limited liability corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They also don't have to let employees go "shopping" in their shipping facilities in off hours. This seems to be very basic security.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
So why lie and say it's for safety reasons then?
Union Busting (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it another few years and we'll be back to armed strike breakers. And not the "like the time I went to Shelbyville kind". The kind with mini-guns (yes, that was a thing... in the 70s).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This was made stricter during COVID. Competent management would have used COVID as a cover for this policy change. Or when the warehouse was blown away by the tornado. But this indicates an incompetent management which also indicates a need for a union
Seen people get a worse deal after unionizing (Score:2, Troll)
that's all this is. So sick and tired of mega corporations lying to us, or the number of people who haven't figured out that if Unions didn't work they wouldn't spend this much time, effort and money busting them.
Actually it an expense whether the union works or doesn't. And I've definitely seen employees who voted union regret that decision when they see their first paycheck, they had a better deal before the union. They thought they were going to get the same deal, or maybe an improved deal. Nope, they got the standard contract which was inferior. This was a small factoring manufacturing cardboard packing of various types. Not sure which union they signed up with. But they were locked in for a year before they co
If unions didn't work (Score:2, Informative)
And no, you're not seeing that. What you're seeing is the effects of Union busting. It's called Gas Lighting. I'm sure they were promised a better deal if they just left the Union. Maybe they got it... for 1 year. But a common trick is to chip away every year and without Unions that's what happens.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
they'd let the union form, fail and people would learn they don't work. That's not what happens. Anywhere unions form wages go up and working conditions improve.
Not in the example I offered, I personally witnessed the/ This small corrugated factory's employees were royally pissed off and deceived. Union wages might be better than average, but if you are at a well run decent place your union contract might be inferior. The small factory was run by its owner, he thought if he treated his people well and fair he wouldn't have to worry about unions. Bad guess. When wages decline, perks gone, the place run in strict compliance to the union contract, the employees were p
Re: (Score:2)
An example is anecdotal evidence and meaningless, it is if unions in general improve wages, not that there is an example where they have not.
Re: (Score:2)
An example is anecdotal evidence and meaningless, it is if unions in general improve wages, not that there is an example where they have not.
Its not about whether wages are actually improved, its about the union organizer being free to lie and remain unaccountable. The contract has a clause, the contract is the total agreement, all previous documents and verbal promises are null and void.
You best read some union contracts before voting, don't go into this ignorant and helpless.
Also a modern anecdote is more valuable than the ancient history of unions, when they were once worker run and valuable. Now they are an entirely different beast, th
Re: (Score:2)
>The contract has a clause, the contract is the total agreement, all previous documents and verbal promises are null and void.
You know what that says? That says the owner of that factory was a piece of shit. The union contract has only a baseline stipulation that has to be met.
I.E. 1: you can't pay one employee at level 2 service years more than another employee with the same number of service years. Nothing ( usually ) is in the contract that PREVENTS the employer from paying all tiers more, or giving a
Re: (Score:2)
>The contract has a clause, the contract is the total agreement, all previous documents and verbal promises are null and void.
You know what that says?
That's the union's clause. It allows the union organizers to mislead workers.
That says the owner of that factory was a piece of shit. The union contract has only a baseline stipulation that has to be met.
So very wrong. The owner actually treated the employees well, like family. They union organizers convinced the employees they were leaving money on the table by not unionizing. They were misled. The employees quickly recognized they were conned and wanted out, but had to wait a year. If the owner was so bad why did they want to ditch the union and return to their old situation?
The employees effectively told the employer they did
Re: If unions didn't work (Score:2)
Unions DO NOT guarantee you higher wages. What on earth makes you think they do? Actually it's questionable whether people in unions really do make more money at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Unions DO NOT guarantee you higher wages. What on earth makes you think they do?
Union organizers make that pitch. They speak in generalities that do not apply to your case. They relay on the contract clause that say this contract is the total agreement and that any previous documents and verbal promises or assurance are null and void.
The employees at the corrugated factory I referred to ultimately believe they were lied to. They regretted their vote and couldn't wait to vote to get out of the union.
Study and read union contracts before voting for a union. Know what you are gettin
Re: (Score:2)
Mgmt+Union - 2 self-interested groups over you (Score:2)
And the next time they got a vote, they got rid of the union. You don't get a vote on your management, so the only way most workers can have any control over them is to unionize.
When voting for a union you are not getting control over one self-interested bureaucratic group, you are adding a second self-interested bureaucratic group to also have control over you.
I'm sorry but my 40+ year IBEW member grandfather cured me of those academic historical views of a union. According to him, unions were once vital. But they largely fulfilled their original mission, they got the important demands turned into law. Then they because a just another group of profiteers searching for a reason
Re: (Score:2)
And the next time they got a vote, they got rid of the union.
Nope. This was a small 20 person shop run by the owner. The owner decided he didn't need this BS, sold to a large competitor, who relocated to Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
And the next time they got a vote, they got rid of the union. You don't get a vote on your management, so the only way most workers can have any control over them is to unionize.
Personally if I don't like the management, I go find another job.
Re: Union Busting (Score:3)
Maybe it maybe it isn't. There is NO reason an employee should show up to their place of employment on days off unless they are talking to HR, quitting or possibly picking something up they forget. It is not Amazon's responsibility to provide a venue for employees to meet in this manner. They can find a local Starbucks to meet at on their own time.
Re: Union Busting (Score:2)
They are keeping off-shift workers outside their secure distribution. Enter buildings. I think the /. Summary implied they could talk in the parking lot but not in the facility.
This is just a basic security and safety issue, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
that's all this is.
Yeah. Except that it's perfectly standard practice for many companies across the world, including those with active unions. So no you're just jumping on the anti-union bandwagon.
The same union who says how dangerous of a place Amazon is to work, the same union who complained about Amazon's last emergency response, and they are now complaining that Amazon won't let off duty people not working into the facility to do non-work related stuff. I'm *SHOCKED*! It's clearly a union busting move!!!! /s
You want to do
It's for their safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Safety: the first refuge of the tyrant attempting to justify whatever he wants to do.
Re: (Score:2)
We have interns where I work. One of the first rules we drill into their heads is "when you leave, make sure you leave your badge here, DO NOT take your badge home. If you get home and realize you still have it, contact us immediately!" In an emergency, the guy that manages the interns has the important job of making sure the interns are accounted for He does this by checking the badges. If a badge is missing, we assume the intern is still here on campus somewhere. We'e been out on the lawn for two fi
Re: (Score:3)
Don't try to twist a very real and common safety practice into something nefarious and discourage its use! It's no different than being a vocal anti-vaxxer. You'll only cause harm.
A real safety practice?? Who the hell leaves their employee badge at the office? That's something you have with you and just scan in when entering and exiting.
Re: (Score:1)
Does everyone have a badge, or just interns? Then does everyone follow this system? I don't understand how anyone can get inside the building *if they intentionally left their badge inside*, unless the badges are stored in an unsecured location...
My work does use the badge system to generate the "who is in the building" list in cases of emergency, and YES it requires that badging In and badging Out are distinct. We also have no t
Re: It's for their safety (Score:3)
Does your employer let you 'hang out' in the break room when your not 'on the clock'?
These are hourly workers in a secure facility with as much as a billion dollars in goods inside there.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your employer let you 'hang out' in the break room when your not 'on the clock'?
Yes. And I can also use whatever equipment I want when I'm off-duty: Laser cutter, plasma cnc, powder coat sprayer and oven, arc welder, et cetera. It's a nice perk.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety: the first refuge of the tyrant attempting to justify whatever he wants to do.
I remind you that this is the same union who complained that Amazon's emergency procedures are completely and wholly inadequate, and the same Amazon which has a horrible safety record that OSHA has put them on notice.
This "tyrant" who dares tell people who aren't on the clock and not working to not come to a facility that said people complain is hazardous is not doing what they "want" to do, they are doing what they are "forced" to do, change practices relating to safety and emergency response.
Also this is
They should have done this sooner. (Score:2)
They should have done this sooner. There was a murder at an Amazon warehouse in Horn Lake, MS, that probably would have been prevented if Amazon hadn't let the murderer wait around for the victim. It may hurt unionization, but it's better for the safety of everyone.
We'll Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Under the policy shared with workers on Amazon's internal app, employees are barred from accessing buildings or other working areas on their scheduled days off, and before or after their shifts. An Amazon spokesperson said the policy does not prohibit off-duty employees from engaging their co-workers in "non-working areas" outside the company's buildings.
I can not think of any employers that allow off-duty employees to return to the office/worksite and 'chat up' fellow employees on other shifts.
The article notes Amazon told employees their move was instead motivated partly by a need to, in an emergency situation, know exactly which employees were still in the building.
Remember all the crap Amazon took when the tornado came near one of their facilities? It makes sense they want to control the number of souls inside a facility at all times.
Re: We'll Duh! (Score:3)
I can not think of any employers that allow off-duty employees to return to the office/worksite and 'chat up' fellow employees on other shifts.
I can't think of any employers that would explicitly disallow something like a D&D night at the office, as long as it's compatible with whatever physical security controls they have, security guy needs to lock up at a certain time, etc. Or hawking some charity in the break room even. All that usually gets a pass, why wouldn't meeting to talk about compensation, workplace policies, union stuff?
Remember all the crap Amazon took when the tornado came near one of their facilities? It makes sense they want to control the number of souls inside a facility at all times.
I remember the problem being people could lose their jobs if they left their shift early to avoid the tornado,
Re: (Score:2)
he corporate break room isn't a community center, and we're talking about a warehouse, not a corporate office staffed with salaried professionals.
It's great that all your previous employers tolerated organizing a D&D session in the break room after hours, but you miss the point - this is a "round-the-clock" facility, and this isn't the accounting department meeting after-hours, it's the warehouse workers returning to talk to the workers on a different shift while they are on the clock.
Imagine it were a
Comment removed (Score:3)
Coincidence? (Score:2)
https://www.kxan.com/news/texa... [kxan.com]
shut up (Score:2)
"...the policy does not prohibit off-duty employees from engaging their co-workers in "non-working areas" outside the company's buildings...."
MOST companies don't allow off duty workers to just fuck around in the work areas either, but the quote above shows explicitly that unionistas can do their stuff on company property just not actually getting in the way of people working.
Um, ok (Score:2)
"Hey boss, mind if I come in when I'm not working, so I can, er, cause trouble?"
"Um, yeah ... no."
Safety excuse is transparent bullshit (Score:2)
"Amazon told employees their move was instead motivated partly by a need to, in an emergency situation, know exactly which employees were still in the building."
You mean the information that Amazon absolutely already has from the security check required to get into and out of the buildings that contains the break rooms?
Does anyone really think security is just checking for weapons and theft and they don't check who is entering and exiting their warehouses and know definitively who is in the building at all
Riiiight (Score:2)
We're doing this for your own good...
Funny how this regard for their workers didn't show up until they started losing unionization votes.
Totally okay to have someone come in and force the employees to assemble in one place for indoctrination and FUD. Which should be flat out illegal. It is not an exercise of free speech to force a captive audience to submit to your coercive efforts. Of course the US Star Chamber will find a historical constitutional right for employers to do this.
Wouldn't you think a co
There are two sides of the coin... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had some experience working alongside unions. I used to work in construction back in the early 2000s on a large scale project involving the construction of a new wing of the hospital along with a dedicated power plant that would provide backup power, water treatment, steam, and med-gas to the new wing. The project was union driven and while I, personally, was not a member of any of the unions onsite (the guy slogging the broom around and picking up trash doesn't qualify), I did get to see first hand how unions operate and the mentality of union workers in general.
You were not allowed to innovate, or do anything with any measure of efficiency as a union worker. For example, if a union mechanical worker needed to move a wire out of the way or temporarily disconnect it to weld something, he couldn't do that himself. He HAD to call an a union electrician over to do that work for him, even if it would take him a few minutes to move the wire. This isn't because of any safety or engineering reason, but rather a mentality reason where a union mechanical worker touching anything not exclusively related to his field constitutes "taking work away from someone else". You are required to be inefficient and exist only within the confines of your specific tasks, otherwise you're seen as taking work away from someone else and (presumably) stealing food out of the other guy's mouth. This attitude pervaded the entire site and fights would nearly break out between members of different unions when some perceived boundary between work types was crossed.
Another example actually related to me during lunch break, where I expressed interest in how the work got done by the mechanical guys. One of the nicer union guys explained the entire process of cutting and welding pipes. He even went further, actually letting me use an acetylene torch to cut a piece of scrap metal pipe so I could see how it was done first hand and because I'd never used a torch before. One of the other union guys blew a fuse and ran to the site foreman and made a huge scene out of it. His reason? I wasn't a dues paying member of his union and should not be allowed to touch any tools that don't relate to my job. Fortunately, the tools they were working with were actually all owned by the contractor company that signed my paycheck, and I was only using scrap and it was during a lunch break, so he was basically told to take a hike. But the experience definitely soured my interest in actually joining a union and learning a trade.
So while I'm all for workers rights and humane, decent working conditions, I can also see why Amazon isn't entirely thrilled about unions and workers unionizing. Look, I get the typical reaction to Amazon here. Big corporations are evil corporations, or something along those lines. But while forming unions may be initially done with the best of intentions for the workers, they have a bad habit of morphing into money sucking, inefficient behemoths that ultimately drive up costs to consumers. Look no further than the United Auto Workers union (https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-news/if-uaw-doesn-t-change-it-s-toast) for an example of this.
Amazon says (Score:1)
Amazon says "There's nothing more important than the safety of our employees and the physical security of our buildings," except exploiting staff and ensuring they never form unions.