{"id":3959,"date":"2021-04-22T14:24:03","date_gmt":"2021-04-22T19:24:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3959"},"modified":"2021-04-22T14:24:03","modified_gmt":"2021-04-22T19:24:03","slug":"the-votes-are-in-or-are-they","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3959","title":{"rendered":"The Votes Are In . . . or Are They?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sarah Ryan<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Associate Editor<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2022<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On Friday<\/a>, April 9th<\/sup>, Amazon successfully withstood the largest push for unionization yet for its U.S. workers when its Bessemer, Ala. warehouse employees voted \u2018no\u2019 to unionizing. The final tally of ballots showed only 738 votes in favor of joining the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union<\/a> (\u201cRWDSU\u201d) compared to 1,798 votes against it. After a tally, any party may file objections to the conduct of the election or to conduct affecting the election\u2019s results\u2014and the RWDSU is doing just that.<\/span><\/p>\n

After Friday\u2019s election results were revealed, the RWDSU immediately announced<\/a> its intent to file Objections<\/a> to the conduct of the election and related Unfair Labor Practice charges (\u201cULP<\/a>s\u201d), with the National Labor Relations Board (\u201cNLRB<\/a>\u201d). The RWDSU contends that Amazon interfered with the rights of its Bessemer, Ala. warehouse workers to vote in a free and fair election, a right guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act (\u201cthe Act\u201d). \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Act<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Act<\/a> was originally passed in 1935 to protect employee and employer rights and to reduce labor and management practices that are harmful to workers, businesses, and the economy. Under the Act, it is unlawful for employers to interfere with their employees\u2019 right to unionize.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sections 7 and 8(a)(1)<\/a> work together to define what constitutes \u2018interference\u2019 with employee rights. Section 7 guarantees employees \u201cthe right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid protection,\u201d as well as the right \u201cto refrain from any or all such activities.\u201d Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer \u201cto interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe most aggressive anti-union campaign I\u2019ve seen\u201d <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The RWDSU contends that it can prove that Amazon created an \u201catmosphere of confusion, coercion, and fear of reprisals\u201d and therefore interfered with its employees\u2019 freedom of choice in the union election. In the months leading up to the Tally, Amazon launched a series of counter-union efforts including text campaigns compelling workers to vote \u201cNO\u201d and an anti-union website (which has since been shut down<\/a>). The company\u2019s anti-union efforts also permeated the workplace. Amazon blanketed parts of the warehouse (even bathroom stalls) with banners and fliers that read \u201cDo it without dues<\/a>,\u201d attempting to convince employees that the union was only interested in collecting workers\u2019 hard-earned money.<\/span><\/p>\n

Workers were pulled into one-on-one meetings on the warehouse floor and attended mandatory \u201cinformation sessions<\/a>\u201d where Amazon boasted about how it already meets its employees\u2019 needs through a $15 starting pay, generous health care, and other benefits. When asked about its anti-union efforts, Amazon claimed<\/a> it was merely \u201cproviding education that helps employees understand the facts of joining a union.\u201d However, Amazon\u2019s warnings about dues seemed more deceitful than informational given the fact that Alabama is a right-to-work<\/a> state, meaning that workers who didn\u2019t support the union would not have been required to join or pay union dues.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Amazon in violation? <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Some of Amazon\u2019s anti-union efforts seem more improper than others under the Act. Section 8(a)(1) gives several examples of company conduct that would be considered unlawful under Section 7. For example, an employer may not convey the message that selecting a union would be futile, but Amazon\u2019s \u201cDo it without dues\u201d slogan appears to suggest just that. It is also generally illegal for companies to poll employees about the extent of their union support (unless specific safeguards<\/a> are followed), to explicitly observe employees\u2019 union activities, or even to create the impression that the company is spying on union activities.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, employees have spoken out about feeling like they were under surveillance during the election. One worker said<\/a> that after she asked whether paying union was dues mandatory at an anti-union meeting, an Amazon official asked to photograph her badge. She felt like this was an intimidation tactic meant to demonstrate possible consequences for bringing up such questions. The same employee said that Amazon managers regularly checked in with employees about whether they had voted yet.<\/span><\/p>\n

Similar concerns around surveillance were ignited when a mailbox<\/a> was installed inside an Amazon tent within the facility. Amazon claimed that it was installed to make voting \u201cconvenient, safe, and private,\u201d but many employees wondered whether Amazon was actually trying to monitor the vote. Further, a rumor had spread among employees that Amazon would simply close the Bessemer warehouse if the workers had unionized. Amazon representatives dismissed this as speculation, but the company has engaged in the same or similar behavior in the past<\/a>. Threatening employees with adverse consequences such as closing the workplace is also explicitly prohibited under the Act. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Looking forward <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the Amazon\u2019s strategic response<\/a> to calls for the union vote and carefully constructed anti-union messages, it is clear that Amazon will not surrender to union efforts any time soon. However, labor activists argue<\/a> that what happened in Bessemer has ignited a movement<\/a> in favor of shifting the balance of power from employer to employee. As Amazon is not alone<\/a> in squashing unionization efforts, the Bessemer election serves as a highly-publicized example of how it is almost impossible for workers to unionize under current labor law. In fact, data show that many U.S. employers are willing to use illegal tactics to frustrate workers\u2019 rights, and that they are charged with doing this in 41.5%<\/a> of all union election campaigns. Labor advocates are hopeful that this high-profile fight will incite support for broader change. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday, April 9th, Amazon successfully withstood the largest push for unionization yet for its U.S. workers when its Bessemer, Ala. warehouse employees voted \u2018no\u2019 to unionizing. The final tally of ballots showed only 738 votes in favor of joining the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (\u201cRWDSU\u201d) compared to 1,798 votes against it. After a tally, any party may file objections to the conduct of the election or to conduct affecting the election\u2019s results\u2014and the RWDSU is doing just that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[715],"class_list":["post-3959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-employment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}