Amazon Activist's Firing Deemed Illegal by Labor Board Officials (yahoo.com) 40
America's National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency of the federal government that enforces U.S. labor law.
And its prosecutors "plan to formally accuse Amazon.com of illegally firing an activist who was trying to unionize its New York warehouses," as well as other violations of the law, reports Bloomberg — unless Amazon settles the case first.
New York Focus reports that the fired worker had commuted from a homeless shelter to Amazon's fulfillment center on New York's Staten Island — a facility where Amazon has held mandatory anti-union meetings. But it's not the only place there's been tension between Amazon and union organizers: In March, an NLRB investigation into the firing of Queens Amazon warehouse worker and labor leader Jonathan Bailey found that the company illegally interrogated and threatened him. NBC News reported that eight other workers also said "they had been fired, disciplined or retaliated against for protected activity." A month later, the NLRB found that Amazon had illegally retaliated against Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa, who was fired in 2020 for their workplace activism while employed at Amazon's headquarters in Seattle
The Amazon Labor Union (founded by current and former Amazon employees) "has filed a petition to hold an election at four of the e-commerce giant's facilities in Staten Island," Bloomberg reported Friday. And an official for the group told Bloomberg it could galvanize support for a union if they could get the fired worker reinstated. "It would be monumental for him to go back to the same building that he was terminated from and speak his truth and let workers know that it's OK to speak out." Amazon has been grappling with an unprecedented wave of activism and organizing in North America, including walkouts over safety concerns in Staten Island and elsewhere, as well as unionization drives in Alabama, Canada and New York.... In December, Amazon reached a settlement with the labor board requiring the company to inform workers nationwide of their legal rights and to let employees organize on its property during their time off.
And its prosecutors "plan to formally accuse Amazon.com of illegally firing an activist who was trying to unionize its New York warehouses," as well as other violations of the law, reports Bloomberg — unless Amazon settles the case first.
New York Focus reports that the fired worker had commuted from a homeless shelter to Amazon's fulfillment center on New York's Staten Island — a facility where Amazon has held mandatory anti-union meetings. But it's not the only place there's been tension between Amazon and union organizers: In March, an NLRB investigation into the firing of Queens Amazon warehouse worker and labor leader Jonathan Bailey found that the company illegally interrogated and threatened him. NBC News reported that eight other workers also said "they had been fired, disciplined or retaliated against for protected activity." A month later, the NLRB found that Amazon had illegally retaliated against Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa, who was fired in 2020 for their workplace activism while employed at Amazon's headquarters in Seattle
The Amazon Labor Union (founded by current and former Amazon employees) "has filed a petition to hold an election at four of the e-commerce giant's facilities in Staten Island," Bloomberg reported Friday. And an official for the group told Bloomberg it could galvanize support for a union if they could get the fired worker reinstated. "It would be monumental for him to go back to the same building that he was terminated from and speak his truth and let workers know that it's OK to speak out." Amazon has been grappling with an unprecedented wave of activism and organizing in North America, including walkouts over safety concerns in Staten Island and elsewhere, as well as unionization drives in Alabama, Canada and New York.... In December, Amazon reached a settlement with the labor board requiring the company to inform workers nationwide of their legal rights and to let employees organize on its property during their time off.
Amazon and Bezos can go fuck themselves (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be interesting for Amazon (Score:3)
Gets popcorn, this is going to be fun.
Re:Should be interesting for Amazon (Score:4, Informative)
They aren't "in the pocket of the unions." They're just enforcing the law. That's their job. You're right that Amazon created the problem, but saying they "could have handled this whole union thing better" misrepresents what they did. That implies it was just bad strategy or bad PR. What they actually did was break the law. Repeatedly. In really egregious ways. Firing someone for union organizing is illegal. Threatening someone for union organizing is illegal. Now the NLRB is doing its job and enforcing the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The NLRB is now doing what it's supposed to do. Under twitler it was neutered.
"The NLRA protects workplace democracy by providing employees at private-sector workplaces the fundamental right to seek better working conditions and designation of representation without fear of retaliation."
Re: (Score:2)
"twitler"
Thank you for that! Thank you, very much.
amazon needs to lose that union revote (Score:2)
amazon needs to lose that union revote
Re: (Score:2)
troll.
and a pussy at that
Re: (Score:2)
Cry harder, loser. Amazon is going to lose this fight. Big companies with lots of ongoing worker complaints always end up unionized. It is only a matter of time.
Don't they have the right to freely associate?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, unionization votes fail much more often when there is a do over than the initial referendum. So even if they have to pay a slap on the wrist fine and rerun the voting, they have a good chance of getting what they want long term but spoiling the process.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed.
bezos has nothing to lose by working with unions.
it would be a win win.
and evaluating full fulfillment centers.
bezos could do some real good by putting one on the moon.
he diffidently have a win win win solution
The penalties will be less than the profits (Score:5, Insightful)
If you unions didn't work then they would just let their employees unionize and then wait a little bit until they realized unions don't work. But that's not what happens. What happens is they spend millions making sure you don't get together with your coworkers and talk about how much money you're making and how much money they're making.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the arguments I always see (Score:2)
What would happen to amazon.com's bottom line if there were better jobs for all the employees there? What would happen to Jeff bezos's net worth? Well he'd have to pay more to get workers and treat them better right? Again I'll ask you do you
And ? (Score:2)
That's all dandy and nice, but:
In the end, these people are still out. The message Amazon wanted to send was successful. They'll happily pay whatever small fine comes to them, because that's just a price of doing business to them. If the firings scared enough other people into thinking that they'd prefer to keep their job, that fine was a worthwhile investment.
Until the responsible people are dragged out of the corporate shield and personally punished, stuff like that will continue to happen.
back pay + forced rehire with seniority! (Score:3)
back pay + forced rehire with seniority!
Re: (Score:2)
A few months back pay of minimum wage?
Amazon laughes about that. Bezos probably has that kind of money somewhere lost between his couch cushions.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have missed the last 30 or so years of how the economics of employment have developed.
There will always be enough people working for Amazon. Not finding workers because of shitty pay and shittier work conditions isn't anywhere on the Enterprise Risk list of Amazon, I'm fairly sure.
The economic pressure on the lower class to work any job, two if you can, is so dramatic that you could probably find people to literally eat shit for minimum wage. There simply isn't any alternative. What used to exist i
American employment law... (Score:2)
...is the reason ordinary 'Muricans can't have nice lives. It's not enough that capital owners have ostentatious wealth & live in abject luxury, everyone else must live in filth & misery, & they make damn sure that it stays that way, no matter what.
Then the 'Murican media calls them 'philanthropists.'
Jokes on us all (Score:2)
Let's see, do I want the company taking all my money and doing whatever it wants with no regard to my life...
Or do I want the union taking almost all my money and telling me it's going to make my life better while mostly just pocketing the cash.*
Decision, decisions.
*I've had union jobs. This is precisely what happened at all of them. BTW "not all unions are like that" sounds a whole lot like "not all police are like that", with about the same amount of usefulness or positive effect on the situation, so plea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or do I want the union taking almost all my money
I'm calling BS. Who the heck works for a union that takes "almost all their money"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us a break down of "almost all." What was it - 90%? 95%? How did you pay rent with all of that money gone?
Re: (Score:2)
prove it
Re: (Score:2)
Truly talented people that work hard get fucked by their employers just as often as the employers fuck their suppliers and customers too. Truly talented hard workers often get taken advantage of. Just saying, from experience and observation. Enjoy your ride to the bottom.
Not at all indeoendent (Score:3)
"America's National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency of the federal government "
While technically true, the board is appointed by the President. When there's a Democrat President, the board is composed of former union executives (who filter back to union leadership jobs after having served the board). We get wild swings in NLRB rulings from Administration to Administration because it is composed of politically appointed members. Both Democrats and Republicans appoint a biased board. With the current make up, every ruling is done in extreme favor of unions. Nothing the NLRB does or states can be considered independent or as reviewed without extreme bias. Congress really needs to address how NLRB is constituted to provide balance and less extreme shifts in policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress really needs to address how NLRB is constituted to provide balance and less extreme shifts in policy.
NLRB looks exactly like congress in that regard. So no, won't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't leave us hanging. Tell us what happens when there's a Republican president?
Re: (Score:3)
The "board is composed of former union executives"? You made that up. The current board is mostly lawyers and people who have served in government for many years. You can see the members here;
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlr... [nlrb.gov]
Under twitler it was comprised of all Republicans for the first time in history and chosen for their dedication to corporate interests. Directly in conflict with the mission of the NLRB.
Amazon doesnt give a rats a$$ (Score:1)