Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

US Labor Board Rejects Amazon's Challenge to Historic Unionization Vote (msn.com) 69

Posted by EditorDavid from the hearing-loss dept.
The Gallup polling organization found that 71% of Americans now approve of labor unions, according to results announced this week. "Although statistically similar to last year's 68%, it is up from 64% before the pandemic and is the highest Gallup has recorded on this measure since 1965."

And meanwhile, a federal labor board "has rejected Amazon's effort to stop thousands of workers in New York City from unionizing at one of the retailer's largest warehouses in the United States," reports UPI.

Specifically, America's National Labor Relations Board (or NLRB) plans to throw out Amazon's objections to a vote by 2,600 workers to unionize at one of the company's warehouses, according to the Washington Post. "The company has held up the proceedings in an objection hearing that dragged on for months," the Post adds, but the ruling "clears a path for the union to become the first certified bargaining unit within the company's vast e-commerce empire." Both sides have until September 16 to file additional exceptions, the NLRB's Kayla Blado said in an email. "While we're still reviewing the decision, we strongly disagree with the conclusion and intend to appeal," said Amazon's Kelly Nantel in a statement.....

The news is a win for the organized labor movement, which has continued to work toward unionizing Amazon this summer. New organizing campaigns have sprung up in Kentucky, California and North Carolina, and Amazon workers at a warehouse near Albany, N.Y., are slated to vote on unionization in the coming months.

Amazon has accused the NLRB regional office of being biased against the company, and it's possible the company could sue over the outcome. Its tactics could delay contract bargaining, a process that itself could take months or years to complete.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Labor Board Rejects Amazon's Challenge to Historic Unionization Vote More

US Labor Board Rejects Amazon's Challenge to Historic Unionization Vote

Comments Filter:

  • Meanwhile... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Saturday September 03, 2022 @12:47PM (#62849361)
    ...in a different country, if anyone wants to join a union, they don't have to ask all their colleagues to join too, nor do they have to ask the management for permission: They just join one. And they have a choice of unions. And once a union has negotiated an agreement with the major employers, that agreement is enshrined into law as the standard employment contract for that type of job. Everyone wins. There also tends to be less of a belligerent attitude by management towards workers & unions. They often work together constructively because workers often have insights into how they can improve productivity, efficiency, &/or competitive edge.
    • I'm confused, how does that allow unions to keep collecting dues or exert ongoing Political Influence?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      But that makes things more expensive! And that's like kicking Americans in the balls! And then shoving a red hot poker up their a^Weyeballs!

      The US is truly a fucked up place when it comes to employee protection.

      • Maybe in the short term, but over the long term it would just shift profits from investors to the workers. At the start a company might try and be able to pass the extra costs on to customers, but that just leaves room for competition to enter the market. Even if it did increase average prices, workers that saw a similar increase in wages come out ahead unless they're spending their whole paycheck on goods or services that increased in price due to increased cost of unions to the company.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by splutty ( 43475 )

          Yep. I forgot the tag :D Because in the US what you just said is anathema.

          • The US doesn't offer choice of unions. All you really do is exchange one master for another. The people who despise unions and the people who cheerlead them are both naive. Anytime you have a monopoly situation it's going to screw the people who aren't running it.

    • ...in a different country, if anyone wants to join a union, they don't have to ask all their colleagues to join too, nor do they have to ask the management for permission: They just join one. And they have a choice of unions. And once a union has negotiated an agreement with the major employers, that agreement is enshrined into law as the standard employment contract for that type of job. Everyone wins. There also tends to be less of a belligerent attitude by management towards workers & unions. They often work together constructively because workers often have insights into how they can improve productivity, efficiency, &/or competitive edge.

      I don't think that can be true the way you described it.

      There are multiple unions for a single employer, and once the employer negotiates a contract with any of them it legally becomes the standard contract for that job??

      I'm not saying the North American system isn't destructive, the relationship is highly adversarial, and the unions see their role as extracting redirecting as much of the profit as possible to the workers (which can sound nice, except that can raise compensation until it kills the company,

      • I've probably over-simplified it. Actually, all the relevant unions & employers work together to negotiate the deals/contracts & the govt ratifies it. Basically, it's a bunch of employment lawyers, representing the workers & employers, sitting down & thrashing it out together.

        The kind of dynamic you've described clearly doesn't happen. Workers won't destroy their own jobs with unreasonable demands - That'd be a stupid thing to do. The collaborative model works pretty well here & it's a

    • That's horrible. So glad I don't have to live in such a regime.

    • Let me see if I read what you said correctly - so people join different unions and pay the respective unions their dues, while some people don't pay any unions by not joining. One union negotiates a good contract, and it becomes "enshrined into law as the standard employment contract for that type of job" so that everyone, including those who pay other unions or not pay any union at all, fall under that same contract? Did I get that right? If so, what's the incentive to join a union, just wait for someone u

      • ...everyone, including those who pay other unions or not pay any union at all, fall under that same contract? Did I get that right? If so, what's the incentive to join a union, just wait for someone union to negotiate a good contract which becomes law and it cost you nothing.

        Yes. That's how it works & it does work. Not everyone's in a union & some sectors are under-represented by unions & it shows in their pay, conditions, & job security. What's your problem with everyone benefiting from unions whether or not they're members? We don't say, "Democracy only for those who vote!" do we?

        • I don't have a problem with that system, just clarifying how that works. I wish a voluntary membership to a choice of your union was the case in the USA. IMO people should have the right to choose who represents them (including self representation), rather than be forced to pay a specific union for representation. The system of enshrining union contracts into law however would probably not work great in the USA as many people would just not join a union thinking others will and the benefit will come anyways
          • Here's an example of another country that has similar union & worker protection laws but is having them eroded, probably through international pressure, i.e. making these "labour reforms" a condition of receiving military & strategic aid in their fight against the Russian occupation. The neocons & neoliberals never miss a chance to profit from a crisis: https://www.opendemocracy.net/... [opendemocracy.net]

            These kinds of union laws, worker protections, & legal frameworks are not uncommon but the neocons &

      • Sounds like the UK for sure, and pretty much every other European country I know about.

        Workers can join unions that are nationwide and represent millions of members, or smaller ones that are very local.

        You don't get the whole company unionising. You can opt in. You pay dues only if you are a member. Membership is voluntary.

  • Automation is the ONLY solution. Amazon needs to tell all its vendors to stop sending items in weird retail packaging that only humans can pick. They should standardize on robot handleable boxes with QR codes or something on it. We need to stop relying on humans as much as possible. Let's face it, there are bad people out there. Plus, humans are not meant to do work.

    • It will happen if/when they unionize. Amazon already pays above minimum wage but you can be sure that once the union is approved they will demand insane waged to over $30/hour plus bennies for unskilled labor.

      • Re:Automate! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by narcc ( 412956 ) on Saturday September 03, 2022 @02:40PM (#62849607) Journal

        You mean they'll demand fair wages and better working conditions? Oh, the horror.

        We have UPS drivers baking cookies on their dashboards when they're not dropping dead. Normal people think this is a problem A strong union would have prevented the situation from getting this bad in the first place.

        We've had 40 years of anti-union propaganda and the people have finally seen through the bullshit. They know that they're getting screwed and they're tired of it. Unions are making a comeback and it's going to be glorious.

        You don't want unions? Then you should have paid a living wage, offered good benefits, improved working conditions, and listened to your employees and maybe they wouldn't see the need to form a union. You brought this on yourself. You should be thankful that it's a union that you're getting and not the guillotine.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by sabri ( 584428 )

          We've had 40 years of anti-union propaganda and the people have finally seen through the bullshit.

          Actually, it's the other way around.

          For many many years, unions could steal money out of people's paycheck using "mandatory union dues" on the premise of "involuntary representation". They recently lost that ability, and many people dropped out of unions.

          Union bosses are losing their powers, and those that haven't are facing stiff competition. Just look at all those teacher union bosses trying to shove CRT through kids throats while the parents take very legal action they can. Not to mention, the large

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            Fair wages for unskilled labor == minimum wage.

            That's complete bullshit.

            First, not all unskilled labor should be compensated the same way. Some unskilled work is damn difficult and hell on the body. People doing those jobs deserve significantly higher wages. Unskilled jobs still need done and it's only fair to compensate people appropriately for doing them.

            Second, minimum wage, at present, is not a living wage. Raise the minimum wage to $17/hour and tie it to inflation if you want to claim it is anything even remotely resembling fair compensation.

            A

    • Amazon needs to tell all its vendors to stop sending items in weird retail packaging that only humans can pick

      Yes a multi-billion dollar company telling vendors what they do and do not need to do will go over dashingly. Especially during a period when antitrust whispers in Congress have amplified into everyday chatter. Yes, let us have Amazon strong arm smaller companies for their own benefit solely out of the discomfort they have for labor unions. That is quite the plan there.

      We need to stop relying on humans as much as possible

      We have collectively made no country a place where that is sustainable. First world nations have neither the political stomach or the so

      • A multi billion dollar company is EXACTLY who can tell vendors how to package their products for ease of handling. You should look at how, say, Walmart directs its suppliers how to package and price their products. In many cases there are Walmart exclusive SKUs to reflect these demands (the degree to which products are Walmartizex, for example with cheaper materials, might amaze you).

        • Walmart directs its suppliers how to package and price their products

          Which is hilarious that you bring them up because I've actually worked within those standards for almost fifteen years before moving on and I've seen a bit on how those exact things evolved. And I can tell you that things like VICS BOL, GS1 standards, X12 standards, and cube containerization did not come solely the dictum of Walmart. Walmart adopted several commercial standards, NMFTA standards that are backed on ANSI standards, and so forth and mandated that other's follow suit. It's one thing to mandat

          • Walmart has numerous unique requirements. It also has the luxury of being able to say to its suppliers "We will pay $x for this item. You figure out how to meet that price point and call us back. Or not.".

            • Walmart has numerous unique requirements

              I'll be more than happy to hear some of these unique requirements that they've forced onto others that is seen nowhere else in the logistics industry.

              It also has the luxury of being able to say to its suppliers "We will pay $x for this item. You figure out how to meet that price point and call us back. Or not.".

              That is absolutely not how it is done. There is a bid price for take on product. "Submit bids for retail product and line consideration" and those are sent to a group to review. Having done almost fifty different lines for Walmart among other retailers, there is absolutely NONE of that going on. Now you may see something like this [wsj.com]:

              Wal-Mart Ratchets Up Pressure on Suppliers to Cut Prices

              But that is a far cry fro

  • Unions suck but so does Amazon....

    Gunna go with unions on this one. Except for the teacher's unions, they still suck, but others are mostly under control now and not just extensions of the mob anymore. But Amazon is pretty horrible and quite out of control.

    • Teacher's unions in NY are the worst, but I imagine if you're a company in the market for a modern warehouse in the area, things are looking up for being able to purchase one already built.

  • "While we're still reviewing the decision, we strongly disagree with the conclusion and intend to appeal,"

    Translation: "As lawyers we agree with the decision, but we're getting paid so we'll find some way to appeal."

  • then the corporate elite at the top of amazon's food chain can no longer treat their warehouse workers and delivery drivers like sweatshops in third worlds do
  • Only companies that properly pay and respect people get to be 100+ years old, others just wither and die

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I wish that was the case. For example, Walmart is 60 years old and I would be quite surprised if it was gone in another 40.

  • 71% of Americans may approve of unions. On the other hand, only 10% are actually in a union (down from a peak of around 30% in 1950). I wonder what the other 61% think: unions are great for you all but I don't see a need for me?

    Yes, yes, I know: anti-union thugs and moustache-twirling managers keep workers from forming unions. Not buying it. Workers have been leaving unions in droves for decades. I expect it's because companies hate them (naturally enough) and the workers find they don't add enough value.

    • Here is where the 61% work:
      1% are wealthy (Yes, some wealthy people think unions are good)
      10% are the people that think unions are good for other, lower paid employees. They are doctor, lawyer, upper/middle management, etc. where no union is needed
      5% are self employed.
      20% want a union, but they work in a corporation where most others do not want a union. They keep trying, but failing to convince people.
      20 are not working. Stay at home moms, students, retired, disabled, or just plain out of work.
      5% are i

      • Nice list. Is that just your guess or is there research behind it?

        Regardless, you could simplify it. I'd lump all the self-employed, not working, and imprisoned people in the "good for you but not for me" camp.

        I'm not so sure about your second group, "good for low paid employees but not well-paid me." Unions today seem to be most firmly embedded in government positions, teaching being the hot button of the last two years. Teachers are not especially low paid. Median teacher salary is somewhat above median p

    • Workers have been leaving unions in droves for decades. I expect it's because companies hate them (naturally enough) and the workers find they don't add enough value. The only places unions are keeping a foothold are in government jobs (like the teacher's union).

      To one of your points: the workers find they don't add enough value.

      That's the crux of the whole argument, yes? If a union adds value (gets you better conditions, more money, etc.) workers will want it. If it doesn't (caving to the employers' demands, taking too much in union dues) they won't.

      This is an opportunity for unions to make a comeback. Too many people have been screwed over by employers for too long. But unions need to actually provide some value. Too many of them quickly became mini-corporat

      • This is an opportunity for unions to make a comeback. Too many people have been screwed over by employers for too long. But unions need to actually provide some value. Too many of them quickly became mini-corporations in their own right, enriching their own C-suite at everyone's expense. They will need to do better than that, if they are to actually make progress.

        No doubt, the pendulum swings both ways. For the first half of the 20th century, unions grew to an acme around 1950. By then they seemed to turn into either sluggish hindrances or outright subsidiaries of the Mob (c.f. Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters and the Longshoremen). I'm sure that turned many people away from unions. Today it seems people have forgotten the corruption and are willing to give unions a second chance. Maybe this will work out better than the last time. I'm somewhat skeptical but I'm also freq

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close