Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed In Leaked Video (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Amazon, the country's second-largest employer, has so far remained immune to any attempts by U.S. workers to form a union. With rumblings of employee organization at Whole Foods -- which Amazon bought for $13.7 billion last year -- a 45-minute union-busting training video produced by the company was sent to Team Leaders of the grocery chain last week, according to sources with knowledge of the store's activities. Recordings of that video, obtained by Gizmodo, provide valuable insight into the company's thinking and tactics. Each of the video's six sections, which the narrator states are "specifically designed to give you the tools that you need for success when it comes to labor organizing," take place in an animated simulacrum of a Fulfillment Center. The video's narrators are clad in the reflective vests typical of the real-world setting. "We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either," the video states, drawing a distinction that would likely be largely academic to potential organizers.
To expound on what non-neutrality might look like, the video adds in plain language (emphasis ours): "We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates. Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession -- things that are generally not associated with union. When we lose sight of those critical focus areas we jeopardize everyone's job security: yours, mine, and the associates.'" Throughout, the video claims Amazon prefers a "direct management" structure where employees can bring grievances to their bosses individually, rather than union representation. However, a number of warehouse workers have expressed to Gizmodo in past reporting that they believed voicing their concerns led to retaliatory scrutiny or firing.
To expound on what non-neutrality might look like, the video adds in plain language (emphasis ours): "We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates. Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession -- things that are generally not associated with union. When we lose sight of those critical focus areas we jeopardize everyone's job security: yours, mine, and the associates.'" Throughout, the video claims Amazon prefers a "direct management" structure where employees can bring grievances to their bosses individually, rather than union representation. However, a number of warehouse workers have expressed to Gizmodo in past reporting that they believed voicing their concerns led to retaliatory scrutiny or firing.
So, to be clear, you allege that Gizmodo also lied about Amazon's statement?
"We're perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.
In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. That's in addition to our full benefits package that includes health, vision and dental insurance, retirement, generous parental leave, and skills training for in-demand jobs through our Career Choice program, which has over 16,000 participants. We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers -- learn more at http://amazonfctours.com./"
Amazon admits that the video exists. Who are you to say that it does not?
Exactly! In Germany, such cooperation is in fact a regular part of corporate governance called co-determination. Here is a good summary of the legal premise.
I can't help but wonder if part of the success of unions was union leaders willing to play dirty themselves.
Unions often seem portrayed in history texts as performing a Ghandi/MLK like non-violent protests; pickets, sit-downs, etc, as if that's what swayed management at many companies.
I wonder if what really swayed management was getting their delivery fleet firebombed while they had their workers locked out or their scabs beat to a pulp.
Minneapolis had a huge trucker's strike in the 1930s. The union side decided nothing moved, so they started stopping and hijacking trucks trying to break the strike. They fought company goons and the police with axe handles. Even though strikers got fired on, the violence against police/management forces got extreme enough that they finally had a to call out the National Guard and the Governor ended up forcing a compromise that was basically a union organizing victory, breaking the anti-union cartel.
The union only succeeded to the extent they were willing to use some kind of force to achieve their goals. It seems like many turning points in labor relations hinged on how willing the union backers were literally willing to meet force with force, even if they technically didn't win any specific street battle. There's a point at which the political system is only so willing to engage in small-scale urban warfare for the benefit of the capitalists.
You're spot on regarding UAW. I grew up in Detroit, and saw it first hand with many family and friends...it was mostly mob run. Additionally, the grocery store union that my mom had to join (and was eventually a steward for) was pretty useless as well. They did virtually nothing for the dues that the clerks were required to pay from what was already essentially minimum wage.
I said the same thing when I worked for a grocery store and had a union. Then go to work for a non-union place and see how that can turn out: have your schedule changed with no notice, be told to skip or cut short breaks, charged to do jobs that higher paid employees are supposed to do, etc. Chances are that the only reason there was a union to being with is because the business was doing that sort of thing to begin with. Sometimes even things that were illegal by state law. Trouble is, without a union, who are you going to complain to? The manager that is telling you to do these illegal things? Raising a stink through state channels will just get you fired for "unrelated" reasons.