The NLRB says ....

[jaF0]

.... there is enough evidence of corporate misconduct to conduct a hearing on a possible re-vote at the Alabama warehouse.


Anybody have a feel for how often those go in favor of the workers?

 

[RobDownSouth]

.... there is enough evidence of corporate misconduct to conduct a hearing on a possible re-vote at the Alabama warehouse.


Anybody have a feel for how often those go in favor of the workers?

During the former guy's administration, unions seldom went to the NLRB because it was packed with pro-business stooges eager to union-bust without regard to the merits of a complaint.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Like you got a chance in a union vote against arguably the most powerful corporation to have ever existed.

 

[jaF0]

New vote ordered.

 

[pecksniff]

Like you got a chance in a union vote against arguably the most powerful corporation to have ever existed.

It's amazing that characterization can plausibly be applied to a home-delivery retail business.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Most of the time the re-votes have no major impact on the decision to unionize or not unionize. The vote there in Alabama wasn't close, so I wouldn't expect a significant swing in opinion. The original vote came back 1798 against, 738 for. We'll see though.

 

[pecksniff]

Would this apply to unionizing the whole company, or only that one warehouse?

 

[jaF0]

Most of the time the re-votes have no major impact on the decision to unionize or not unionize. The vote there in Alabama wasn't close, so I wouldn't expect a significant swing in opinion. The original vote came back 1798 against, 738 for. We'll see though.

It probably won't change, but the speculation is that the strong arm tactics led to a flawed number of no votes under duress, even if it was only implied.

Apparently re-dos are quite rare, so the NLRB must have something convincing.

 

[pecksniff]

It probably won't change, but the speculation is that the strong arm tactics led to a flawed number of no votes under duress, even if it was only implied.

Is there any reason to expect those tactics won't be applied in the re-vote?

 

[Paul_Chance]

It's only the one warehouse complex. The union(s) are mainly trying to get their foot in the door in Amazon facilities.

Alabama is also a right-to-work state (meaning even if they succeed is unionizing a facility, they'll be limited to folks who want to be in the union).

Usually, if you hold a revote under NLRB direction the NRLB sends a small army of monitors and holds the revote under closer scrutiny.

 

[jaF0]

^^ Which is, and always has been a major objection of mine. No one should ever be forced to join a union, even if others choose to.

 

[pecksniff]

Alabama is also a right-to-work state . . .

Urgh.

Right-to-work laws (called also "right-to-work-for-less laws") are not, as the name might suggest, laws that guarantee that citizens have a right to be gainfully employed (that would be another system altogether[2]). Rather, they are laws that forbid unions from doing things like requiring represented workers to pay any kind of dues. This means that workers are legally free to hold employment without paying a red cent to the union that represents them. It is highly debatable whether this freedom is of any practical use to workers.

"Right-to-work" laws are derived from legislation forbidding unions from forcing strikes on workers, as well as from legal principles such as "liberty of contract," which as applied here sought to prevent passage of laws regulating workplace conditions.[3]

The term itself was coined by one Vance Muse, a Republican operative who headed an early "right-to-work" group, the "Christian American Association", to replace the term "American Plan" after it became associated with the anti-union violence of the First Red Scare.[4][5] Muse used racist rhetoric when he campaigned for these laws, such as when he said:

From now on, white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs.[4][5]

Other stuff Vance Muse did: fought against women's suffrage, a child labor amendment, the 8-hour work day and Felix Frankfurter (a Jew) as a Supreme Court justice, while launching the very first steps towards the Southern Strategy.[4][5] His "Christian American Association" was also anti-semitic as well as anti-Catholic.[4][5]

This Vance Muse was every bit as odious as you might gather from the above.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I sit in a weird place - I am generally pro-union and I think more industries would benefit from unionization.

But...and there is always a but...it depends on whether or not the union, both on national or local levels, is functional.

Which is why I'm also pro right-to-work.

I've seen both environments - where the union is strong, compassionate, and reasoned and improves the conditions for the individual worker and where the union is dysfunctional and collects dues that are promptly spent on shit for the union leadership whose deals are not in the members best interests.

My main complaint in union work has always been when the unions make it impossible to fire (or nearly impossible to fire) "bad" actors. I've seen environments where you (as union labor) are carrying dead-weight who are way more trouble than they're worth and get away with it because they're politically connected to union leadership.

In an environment like an Amazon warehouse, where you have a mix of full time and part time workers, I think it's a tough sell. There is a dynamic tension there around the whole issue of flexibility. The part-timers love that they are able to select the hours they work and to flex those hours and this is in direct contrast to the people who want/need the full-time security of regular schedules, etc.

It's similar to the dynamic tension that exists within any of the flexible work worlds (such as Uber, Lyft, etc.)