All employers are making their case at all times, throughout hiring, with pay rate consistency or discrepancy, communication, management, and culture. Union votes are an outcome of the case an employer has already made for themselves. Once the vote's on, it's going to be very difficult to refute the case they've been making for years.

Taking ownership of the failures that led to the conditions which created support for the union vote in a substantial, committed, and convincing fashion is hard, but potentially an effective way for employers to change the direction of the case they've made to employees.

Directly instructing employees to vote "no", lying about how unions work in their area, lying about the voting timeline, installing an easily surveillable special mailbox for union votes, and pressuring the government to alter traffic controls to prevent employees from being able to spend time outside the workplace during the union voting period - this is how Amazon has chosen to make their case.

'lying about how unions work'. I've seen unions do the same. I was in a union where they promised to accomplish some things... didn't even try. Zero effort to do so, they simply chose not to.

Amazon or any employer should still be able to make their case, even if they're wrong about some things ...

There's a world of difference between making their case and instructing their employees on how and where they should vote and surveilling them while they do it.

> 'lying about how unions work'. I've seen unions do the same. I was in a union where they promised to accomplish some things... didn't even try. Zero effort to do so, they simply chose not to.

Indeed, a lot of unions, especially the big, old ones in the US, have become lazy and more interested in making nice deals with management than with sticking up for the workers.

That said, the experience the workers get from the process of unionizing in the first place can give them the confidence they need to realize that the union bureaucracy isn't doing everything it can, and to pressure it to be better (by things like wildcat strikes, as the teachers in Virginia did very successfully a few years ago).

> Amazon or any employer should still be able to make their case, even if they're wrong about some things ...

I recommend re-reading the post you're responding to, which addressed that the first time you said it.

"As a trillion dollar company we can't afford better working conditions and pay for you"?

The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it [1].

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+bernie+sanders+pay

You really think the only reason they increased their labor costs by billions is because a now irrelevant populist from Vermont doesn't like rich people?

Bernie Sanders is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He's not irrelevant, that's a position with actual power. His committee is the one from which the current 1.9T stimulus bill originates, for instance. That bill doesn't get passed without going through him first. That's far from irrelevant.

The degree of power he is still technically holding on to does not change my point.

> The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it

I don't think this kind of claim, especially without evidence, is helpful. How do you know what their reasoning is? You're telling me on the one hand that this is a big powerful company and on the other hand saying they are easily cowed and susceptible to something as toothless as 'shame'. So which is it? My take is that companies are complex and make decisions based on many factors typically. You have no idea why they did or didn't do certain things, and it most likely has nothing to do with Sanders.

Also consider that trillion Dollars is their market capitalization not liquid cash on their hand. I don't think being a trillion Dollar company changes what they can afford or who they should reward with their profits. Amazon is already paying market-leading wages for unskilled labor and provides benefits. I don't really expect them to pay any more than minimum wage if they have enough workers interested in their jobs, since this is not differentiated work. So the fact that they're doing anything more should be appreciated. I don't think it makes sense to twist that into a criticism.

I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they should get to make it.

By making any case other than robust worker rights and fair compensation, they have demonstrated their culture and priorities as a corporation. But, by all means, I agree that one shouldn't stop their enemy when they're pointing a gun at their feet (edit: to clarify, this implies Amazon is making a strategic failure by fighting unionization efforts, at it reflects poorly on them).

You're hyperbole strikes me as ... kinda out there. Not sure anyone has guns pointed at anyone in this case.

Your comments strike me as unaware or complacent.

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/04/29/Leaving-A...

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/05/06/Answers

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/youre-just-dispos...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazo...

https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696154/amazon-prime-day...

I simply don't think any of that matches the hyperbole.

The humble footgun is not really a “gun” in that sense. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footgun

Did you genuinely not understand the "shooting oneself in the foot" metaphor?

They've had plenty of time to change their behavior. The issues are well known at this point.

> I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they should get to make it.

Yeah, though the problem is that "case" is likely professionally polished FUD (if American Factory is any guide) hammered home in mandatory meeting after mandatory meeting. It's like if every voter was required to attend mandatory info sessions by Republican advocates for 20 hours in the two weeks before an election, while listening to the Democratic advocates was voluntary and optional.

Did they pay them for those meetings?

Read TFA - it's not just that Amazon is encouraging workers to vote no, they've set up mailboxes on-site that they're encouraging people to send their ballots with, making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.

> making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes, even though it's supposed to be anonymous.

heh if it passes and a union is formed i wonder how many "tabs" are going to be kept on employees who dare choose not to join. There's plenty of precedent for unions doing their own threatening and pressuring of employees to increase the coffers.

>making union organizers wary that Amazon is trying to keep tabs on who votes

I can understand being wary, but that's all it is, wary.

How could you possibly know unless you are on the Amazon union busting team?

The fact that it is unknowable does not mean that Amazon is guilty.

I think we are both retreating to our priors, but it also seems speculative that amazon is using a sealed ballot drop off location to somehow track who is voting yes or no.

I think this is pretty standard and if they didn't have drop onsite drop off locations, the story would be that they are discouraging organizers by not providing them

They have a right to. They just can’t stop people from doing certain things. The purpose of unionizing is to say “this company has been treating us unfairly and we’re powerless to stop it. But together we could.” If Amazon was treating its employees fairly, they’d be less inclined to unionize.

I don’t think there’s a single labor activist who disagrees with you. We aren’t saying Amazon is forbidden from making their case, but rather that their specific behavior is unacceptably intimidating and misleading. We agree Amazon is allowed to argue that unions are bad (although I think the rank condescension and borderline dishonesty in the mailer is a legitimate news story - the thing about dues is a lie, Alabama is right-to-work).

The problem as I see it are the two other things:

- telling employees to vote by March 1st in a specific mailbox, even though the deadline is March 29th, is blatant intimidation (since management is clearly surveilling the mailbox and will know if you don’t comply). If that’s not illegal it really needs to be.

- “Protect what you have” is a very suspicious and threatening message that suggests retaliation if workers unionize (especially given the last page in the mailer). I would say this is paranoid if we weren’t talking about Amazon - they lost all presumptions of decency with the traffic light shenanigan.

If it were on equal grounding, or granted equal access, I'd agree.

Equal grounding would be that no one is in a union, or that the employees are in a union, and the companies are in a union of their own. So Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc all get to form their union to negotiate with Big Labour.

Its not fair that Walmart and Amazon must compete against each other to buy labor but the sellers of labor can form a cartel protected by the federal government.

I'm talking about things like the employer being able to put a mailbox at the place where employees exit, mailing things to their home addresses, putting posters on the walls at work, and so on.

In much the same way that political parties should get to make their case inside the voting booth.

Why? They are not part of the process.

Yes, for shame! When will America get to hear the side of the employer?

Mabye the executive of Amazon could be allowed to post a little column in paper like the Washington Post. Maybe the owner of that paper wouldn’t object to that idea.

do you think we should hear about tobacco health risks from cigarette companies?

do you think we should accept climate science from fossil fuel companies?

I mean you either believe in morality or you don't.

If you feel Amazon management isn't moral, they should repent and change their behavior, not "make their case."

I don't think I understand what you're saying.

Imagine we lived in a world with moral consequences, perhaps the sort of world where evil people burn in hell or something like the twilight zone, where supernatural events strike down bad people, rather than the real world.

Lying to people to try to get them to vote against their economic interests seems the sort of thing that lands people in hell or haunted by an evil doll in such a universe.

"He's just making his case" doesn't really seem like sort of reasoning that would follow in a moral universe. The import thing is "is that case moral?"