Amazon workers unionize

[John Ranalletta]

I am neither pro nor anti union.  Just an observation from 20 years of HR, plant manager, contract negotiator, grievance arbitrator experience.  Let's keep this out of the sin bin (Full Throttle).

 

Many Amazon supervisors and managers will be happy with this development though they cannot say it aloud.  A contract will define work rules, eliminate discretion in work assignments, et al.  While that may not be what the owner wants, a union contract often makes supervising a much, much easier job.  As well, if employees can bargain for higher wages, that will have an upward effect on supervisory salaries.

It's not all honey and roses.  A contract has to be hammered out.  The next step is the hardest and it's one which the folks who spearheaded the unionization campaign rarely survive (stay in office); for, now, they have to deliver a package a majority of members approve.  Euphoria can turn to anger when the group's expectations are dashed.  Negotiating a labor contract starts with the group presenting a list of "demands" which can number in the hundreds.  An inexperienced negotiating team that tries to cherry-pick Amazon will find themselves in a heap of not very good.  The first piece of advice I was given by Bob Chappuis, a master negotiator, "You never agree to one thing without agreement on everything.  It's a package.  Increase here = decrease there."

The Amazon Labor Union (ALU) appears to be an independent entity, unaffiliated with a national union, say, Steelworkers, Teamsters, et al.  That could be a problem in terms of available strike funds, etc.  Will other unions honor an ALU picket line?

This will be interesting to watch, especially, if Amazon's reactions are deemed unfair labor practices like taking away benefits, changing work rules, etc. prior to a new contract being signed.

[Rinkydink]

I was a somewhat reluctant union worker for over 41 years. Working for a huge company made it pretty much a necessity.  I have mixed emotions though. I saw worthless employees protected, good employees let go and over time a weaker and weaker membership. That is not to say that the old heads sacrifices didn’t help me tremendously pay and benefit wise. I walked with a healthy pension that is no longer offered and I am very thankful for that. Over time I noticed union management asking for things in our contract that wasn’t really conducive to our best interest but sure was good for them. I’m being very careful here…it got to a point where the union’s purpose seemed to be asking us to carry a certain ideology. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what type that was. wink wink. 
 

I’m not saying they aren’t needed but as in the case of the auto unions you can most certainly price yourself out of a job. 

[Scott9999]

My background includes being a Teamster for a few years during college.  The trucking company where I spent most of my time, asked me to join in management, before I'd even finished college, which I declined.  (I ended up joining the Navy, having no interest in trucking or retail for that matter, i.e. grew up working in my father's pharmacy, only to find myself heavily involved in both as a Navy Supply Officer.  Life is a curious thing.  Some of my Navy work involved interacting with both private and civil service union workers, as a management representative. Only 4 years of my Navy work was active duty; the rest as an active, drilling reservist.)

 

My conclusion over a 40+ year career about unions is:

(a) They can seem, even be necessary, the only way private workers can leverage decent treatment from employers.

(b) Unions never work the way they are sold.  They introduce a third, self-interested party into the negotiation, who is a parasite on the business, and while pretending to "represent" workers, actually feathers it's own nest.

(c)  Put crudely, if in the capitalist system, workers are "slaves" to the monied employer/owners, they merely trade one slave master for another, when they unionize. 

(d) Unions, IMHO, are actually parasites to BOTH business and the workers they represent.  Every nickel they cost the business, costs the employees more, similar to government, where $1.00 in taxes results in $0.10 back in services.   The parasite can actually kill off the host, i.e. business, resulting in ruin for many of the employees, particularly, the long time ones.  In both cases, government or unions, it is not automatic, that higher costs can simply be passed off to consumers.  Eventually, the math matters, and the math costs the workers, more than it rewards them.

(e) Unions, as basic socialist entities, have for the most part, uniform pay scales.  Union contracts reward seniority over individual productivity and ingenuity, thus frequently cheating the most productive and creative employees, while degrading the overall quality of the work force.

(f) Unions' first priority is the best interest of the union, not their workers, and certainly, not the business and business investment that generates the income to pay the workers.  ANY union company pitted against a non-union company, will lose if both companies are otherwise well run, and absent interference from 3rd/4th parties (like government).

(g) Finally, unions are an attractive, elegant, hopeful fantasy.   Ultimately, they cost everyone not in Unions management, or than they can deliver in benefits to the employee. 

 

One last thing:  Amazon is an operating, "robber baron" style monopoly.   It does not follow capitalist rules.  For example, it has established such a monopoly over the logistics industry, that no one except Amazon can afford to ship anything.  Rates are ten times higher for the average person, versus Amazon.  That means for someone starting an online business, they MUST do business with Amazon on Amazon's terms, or their items+shipping will be non-competitive with the rest of the market.  There are 100+ ways that Amazon is an illegal monopoly.  So, I expect that unionization will not bother them.  After all, they CONTROL the national market, and can "pay" the union's extra costs, however they decide to, be it taking it out of their resellers, or their customers.  After all, where else are you going to go.  Most of the remaining brick and mortar stores don't carry half the stuff you need, because of Amazon's competition.

 

YMMV.

[John Ranalletta]

My dad fought to organize coal mines.  He was a proud member of the UMWA the successor union to the Progressive Miners.  Union membership was a lifesaver for our family.

 

During the 70-80's, I negotiated labor agreements and arbitrated grievances as company spokesman.  Never had a strike or a lock out.  I'd look across the table and see my dad.  We had tough conversations, but I always respected the person.

[John Ranalletta]

1 minute ago, John Ranalletta said:

My dad fought to organize coal mines.  He was a proud member of the UMWA the successor union to the Progressive Miners.  Union membership was a lifesaver for our family.

 

During the 70-80's, I negotiated labor agreements and arbitrated grievances as company spokesman.  Never had a strike or a lock out.  I'd look across the table and see my dad.  We had tough conversations, but I always respected the person.

In 1978, I was HR director for Fram oil filter co. in Greenville, OH.  It was owned and mismanaged by Bendix then.  The thousand factory employees had a private union.  It was good for both the employees and the company.  Tough conversations, but everybody was family.  The Amazon Labor Union will be challenged as a stand-alone.  Better believe every employee at other Amazon locations will be watching closely. 

[9Mary7]

My experience is that as soon as the Union starts paying union officials, it promotes itself over the members and becomes a corrupt organization.

[John Ranalletta]

1 hour ago, 9Mary7 said:

My experience is that as soon as the Union starts paying union officials, it promotes itself over the members and becomes a corrupt organization.

 

That's typical of most organizations as they grow.  The national wants more dues and like any business they want to reduce expenses.  Arbitrating grievances is very expensive.  Strikes eat cash.  It's tough to strike a balance. Union reps have to use their discretion as to which hills upon which they chose to die.  In almost all grievance procedures that were headed to arbitration, the local rep would seek me out in private and ask if we really had the goods to make a disciplinary action stick.  I'd show them my cards.  But every employee believes his grievance deserves arguing to the supreme court.  When the union refuses to take a grievance to arbitration, the employee bad-mouths the union.  I wouldn't want the job of rep or steward.

 

Every organization, including religious, non-profit, etc. are corrupt to some extent.  Larger organizations are more corrupt and corruptible.  Every organization has its bad actors on both sides of the table.

 

[Patallaire]

11 hours ago, Scott9999 said:

Put crudely, if in the capitalist system, workers are "slaves" to the monied employer/owners,

 

11 hours ago, Scott9999 said:

Unions, as basic socialist entities, have for the most part, uniform pay scales.  Union contracts reward seniority over individual productivity and ingenuity, thus frequently cheating the most productive and creative employees, while degrading the overall quality of the work force

Workers made a choice to rent their labor for the wage they receive, there is no slavery in the deal.  The employer, or in some cases the union, tells you what the wage will be and you agree to that amount for renting your time, mind and body for the wage, it is a simple transaction cancellable at any time by either party, albeit with hoops to jump if unionized.  That transaction is pure capitalism by both parties. 

There is a total disregard for exceptional workers, and they are often discouraged from being such under a union environment, that is the hazard that is not spoken about when unionizing. It is time not talent that advances wages in a union environment.  Talent is dis-incentivized, thus more labor is required to cover the "Average" performance and benefits dictated by the union, thus driving up labor costs as well as the costs of materials and consumer prices. 

[Camhead64]

Our companys founding members always said a company gets a union when they deserve a union. I've been there almost 40 years and over that time we've grown from a family owned construction company a few million per year to a 1.4 billion a year, across 5 market sectors, all open shop.  Our founders philosophy was simple treat every man and woman as you want to be treated, listen to people, hold each other accountable to high standards, your judged on your honesty and keeping your word, good pay on par with industry, good benifits, retirement benifits, mandatory vacation time on your schedule, promote family time, encourage community service, and a healthy profit sharing plan for all employees. Promote the capable to a level that is challenging to each individual. It's worked so well for us, the senior managers moved the company to an "S" corp, fully owned by all employees. No union needed.

 

My personal family made a living via Boston locals, nepotisim was rampant, protection of the compliant not the best was common place, when my grandfather retired, he was embarrased to what it had become. I have my feelings on unions that will be kept to fireside chats. 

 

Just my $0.02. YMMV.

[realshelby]

If you take care of your employees, and I mean start that by understanding good employees are a huge benefit to a company and will HELP a business flourish, you don't really need to worry about Unions. I could end it there but.....

When you have companies so large they are nations themselves, you cannot exist without employee problems. Yes the employees cause some of that. But just as much or more comes from the management screwing those under their control trying to prove their job is needed. A lot more to that, but those that have seen it will wink and nod. 

When you have unions that have been around so long and grown so large that they too become obsessed with proving they are needed you have the same thing as the larger companies face.

Hard to balance it all. There was a time being in a union could save your life. As well as extend it by forcing safety measures to keep air quality up and toxic conditions better controlled.

Unions brought weekends, vacations, and better wages. They also contributed to loss of business by making it so easy to transfer work overseas where they did and do have a work force with no unions and the governments are looking the other way. 

Unions now may not serve the same purpose. The term union has been blackballed by politics as much as anything and programs to outlaw and decrease union power paid for by those that made their money through Capitalism with little regard for labor. 

The biggest mistake unions ( that I have been involved with or had to deal with ) EVER made was making it near impossible to fire and employee!!!!! Some people need fired. Some that get fired should not have been, I get that, but getting rid of employees that won't work or are otherwise unfit to be getting a paycheck is GOOD for both sides. 

Not entirely true that really good employees don't have some advantages on a union ( or non-union) job. In some industry the union benefit package is actually LESS than the non-union competitors. Wages are often 20% higher for non-union operators in my past work. Only way to keep or recruit the better quality operators that union jobs typically produced. 

So, like the OP, I am not either Pro Union or Anti Union. Depends. Times are different now in so many ways.  But I am not brainwashed and I suspect if more was known about why Amazon employees want a union even those here that hate calling employees human will as least see what poor treatment of employees causes. 

[MichiganBob]

I worked in a closed shop for 40 years before I retired (American Association of University Professors). Granted, being a professor in a university is worlds apart from most unionized workplaces. We had the double wammy of a union and tenure. That meant a lot of poor work was protected. And yet, I've seen the abuses of my colleagues in nonunionized universities including arbitrary firing of facuty and unfair work conditions. We all accept that there is no such such thing as perfect and there's always trade offs.  We also know that something might start with good and necessary intentions and morph into something less desirable.  And then there's the eternal conflict  Between Social Darwinism and the Judeo-Christian value that we have a social obligation to protect others in our community, especially the more vulnerable.  At the end of the day, even with abuses, I found more pluses than minuses being in a union. 

[fourteenfour]

Best of luck to them, what many workers will find out soon enough is that they will suddenly have to deal with lazy coworkers who are nearly impossible to be rid of especially if they are friends with the shop steward (or whatever they are called these days). Been there, done that. Unions for low wage jobs are never great and worse the chance of real raises are locked in writing meaning there is little to no incentive to work harder because it will get you nowhere. Plus you get to to turn over two to three hours of your wages per month to the union to do with as they please because they certainly don't want your input.

 

Unions had their time but its long past. They should never had been permitted in public sector jobs but we are stuck with them and tax payers pay for it every day. Businesses can simply pass the cost on and some even shut down warehouses the unionize and move to another county and state; seen this more than once.

 

The sad part is most of the workers most enthusiastic about forcing a union on their coworkers and employer won't see the benefits they dream they will receive but instead find they have yet another layer of management they have to suck up to.

 

 

I was a member of a low skill low wage job back in the nineties and all it got us was a quarterly visit by our union rep whose car cost more than what most of us made per year if not four times the amount in many cases. What it cost was a regimented scale you had to work through for your next ten cents with no opportunity to advance faster and switching to another department even if they wanted you could be derailed because someone with seniority decided they wanted it or their friend needed it.

 

 

[ESokoloff]

In the US Tesla has perhaps a tenth of the workforce of Amazon and Tesla still has lots to grow (& increased stocks value) as a company so maybe not an apples to apples comparison. 
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-us-labor-secretary-elon-musk-not-opposed-to-unionization-if-workers-were-interested/

 

Unionization is not gunna happen @ Fremont (at least for quite some time to come). 

[John Ranalletta]

I'll spare you the details but employees who want to "affiliate" with a union are the same who feel no affiliation with their employee.  By dint of their personalities, they tend to be people who are process and/or rules oriented.  As such they want to feel and be treated like a family member at work, e.g. I'm not just a number, Know my name, Be interested in me as a person.  These folks are also drawn to work that has an unchanging process and can become unsettled with change.  To them, the union is "family", i.e. my brothers and sisters in the movement.  Usually, there's a "clubhouse" or union hall where they can gather, have a beer and be family.  Most being rule oriented judge everything around them by a set of rules.  They want to know exactly what the boss wants and want feedback they are doing as directed.  This isn't praise, it's confirmation I'm doing perfect.  Those of you who've been in unions know many employees carry a small book with union contract so they can measure how supervisors act and their decisions against that set of rules.

 

Some of you who've posted about working for companies who never needed unions experienced this kind of working environment.  If an employer doesn't understand what people want, they can unintentionally drive people away.  Been doing this work with clients for 20 years.

 

[ESokoloff]

4 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

I'll spare you the details but employees who want to "affiliate" with a union are the same who feel no affiliation with their employee. 

I just find it interesting to see the difference between the companies of two of the richest individuals in the world. 
 

My moneys on Elon. 

[John Ranalletta]

 

[randy]

I always say there is a 800 pound elephant in the room when people discuss working, an it rarely ever gets discussed.  And that is supply/demand changes

 

I have worked in both union and non union and for me (union was 45 years ago so may have changed) the union never worked.  I could not negotiate my own salary.  No matter what I did, for the most part promotion was service based, I could get my degree, work extra, take a course, get a certificate, and when it came time for the next position to be open, the senior person would always get it, (again this was 45 years ago so things could have changed).

 

As I moved into non union jobs, I realized I could change jobs at will.  Be a good person, give two weeks notice, work that two weeks better than ever, and leave with my head held high.  I could negotiate, pay, vacation time, etc.  If a company did not feel I was worth what I was asking, NO hard feelings I just moved on.

I have always felt that employees have the power, not the company.  Never have a felt I could not move on to a better option if needed.  i.e. the company needed me more than I need it.

however I do think that has changed in the last 20-25 years.  And it is largely due (in my opinion) to easy outsourcing, and huge immigration influx.  Simple stated, supply and demand says that if you have 30 people applying for a companies 5 open positions then the company now has the power.  Generally speaking prior to say around 1985  employees had all the negotiating power, steadily since 1985 that power has shifted to the Company.  And to me it all come down to supply and demand.  Demand in the US for workers has basically gone down (not as a total number but as a percentage) and supply of workers has gone up significantly.  

then again I am no economist, so what do I know.  this is all just based upon my limited life experience  :-)

[scout6]

One thing that I learned in many years of working in a union job, was that the supervisors just did not want to do the work to fire someone.  It took some effort, and following the rules, but bad actors were gotten rid of.  Of course the opposite was true as well.  When the supervisors did not do their jobs, and tried to fire someone (even bad actors), there were unable to.  Of course, they blamed the union, not their own lack of follow through.

[Hosstage]

I work for a union trade shop, when we have a worker that is less than desirable, we just lay him or her off. Layoffs are very common in our field as construction jobs progress. No real reason needed for a layoff. They go back to the hall and get back on the book.

[John Ranalletta]

On 4/4/2022 at 1:07 PM, John Ranalletta said:

 

 

Uh... wrong.

 

I said the same thing to a union member before I knew better.  This could be judged an unfair labor practice.

 

"Starbucks interim CEO Howard Schultz reportedly snapped at a California barista who was leading a drive to unionize at one of the company's locations - telling him "If you hate Starbucks so much, why don’t you go somewhere else?""