If the RWDSU Loses At Amazon Again, Here May Be A Few Reasons Why
A Buzzfeed article details some of the reasons RWDSU may lose a second time.
“Facts are threatening to those invested in fraud.”― DaShanne Stokes
QUICK FACTS:
A Buzzfeed article last week details some of the opposition the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union is encountering from Amazon employees in Bessemer, Alabama.
The employee opposition appears to be a problem that has less to do with Amazon’s resistance to unionization and more to do with 1) the higher-than-average wages and good benefits Amazon offers, as well as 2) the union’s own tactics and 3) misleading (or half-true) statements.
DETAILS:
Though it is too early to tell, to have read a lengthy Buzzfeed article last week, one could easily conclude that the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) may be heading to another loss in Bessemer, Alabama.
As importantly, although it may continue to try to blame Amazon, if the RWDSU does lose its second election at Amazon’s facility in Bessemer, Alabama, the reality is, it may have no one to blame but itself.
1. The RWDSU’s biggest hurdle—above average wages and benefits
One major disadvantage that union organizers have with any employer is when the employer already pays above what other employers are paying—even unionized employers.
In Bessemer, the average wage in the area is about $15 per hour, according to PayScale.com.
However, as Buzzfeed notes, employees at Amazon’s Bessemer facility make higher-than-average wages.
When Kylee Rancour relocated from Massachusetts to Bessemer, Alabama, and took a job at Amazon, she was shocked to learn that her hourly wage would increase, even though Alabama’s minimum wage is only $7.25 compared to Massachusetts’s $14.25. Her health insurance package also offered more coverage.
“I still make $3 more an hour than I did before," she told BuzzFeed News. "If it weren't for Amazon's pay and benefits, we would be struggling to afford a place to live.”
Buzzfeed also cited another Amazon employee, Shannon Villa, who went from a “management-track job at Walmart two years ago,” and whose pay rose to $18.30 an hour or about four dollars than he made at Walmart.
“Amazon has great benefits, the pay is good,” Amazon employee OV Garner II told Buzzfeed, “and I like the opportunity to be able to get promoted based off of my work.”
When people feel they are already paid fairly without a union, there is little financial incentive to pay a union1 to try to negotiate a better deal without any guarantee the union can accomplish it.
Somewhat related, on Indeed.com, the number of people who rated Amazon’s Bessemer facility a ‘5’ (the best) outnumbered by two to one those who rated it a ‘1’ (the worst).
Among those things people said they liked were a) “fair pay for job,” b) “ability to meet personal goals,” and c) “clear sense of purpose.”
2. The RWDSU’s overly aggressive tactics:
When union organizers conduct union campaigns telephone calls and home visits to targeted employees are commonplace.
Terry Addington, an Amazon employee quoted in the Buzzfeed article, cited the aggressiveness of the RWDSU’s organizers:
“The union has called over 40 times,” Addington stated. “I've talked to them once [on] the phone and once in person at my house. They don't know when to stop.”
When employees begin to feel harassed, it often turns them against the union and, when employees discuss it with peers at work, it has a tendency to cause more employees to turn against the union.
3. Misleading and Half-True Statements:
Under National Labor Relations Board case precedence, the NLRB has long given wide latitude to union organizers [in PDF] when they seek to unionize employees.
While union organizes can—and, as in the 1977 Shopping Kart Food Market case (linked here), sometimes do—outright lie to employees during union organizing campaigns, most stay short of outright lies and within the confines of what can only be considered misleading or half-true statements.
For example, in the Buzzfeed article, the writer gives several examples, as follows:
Half-True Statements:
“They’re afraid of losing pay, afraid of losing benefits, or their job,” said Amazon employee and union organizer Jennifer Bates. “Those are the tactics Amazon is using. They want to confuse the employees. We often tell them, we have to go through negotiations, what they have is protected. We go to the table with Amazon … We’re the union, and we have the final say on the contract.”
Bates’ statements (highlighted above) are neither false, nor are they entirely the whole truth.
What employees currently have is protected while negotiations are going on.
In other words, when employees vote to unionize, their “terms and conditions of employment” (e.g., wages, benefits and policies) stay in “status quo”—which means they generally do not change while negotiations are going on, whether it is a month, six months, or six years.
Facts:
As a result of negotiations, however, it is entirely possible employees could lose what they had before unionizing.
As the NLRB noted more than 60 years ago, “[t]here is, of course, no obligation on the part of an employer to contract to continue all existing benefits, nor is it an unfair labor practice to offer reduced benefits.” [Source: National Labor Relations Board, Midwest Instruments (1961), 133 NLRB 115 (in PDF)]
Additionally, when Bates insists that “we have the final say on the contract,” she is either naive to the process of negotiations or purposely obfuscating the facts for her co-workers.
While unions can vote to accept or reject a company’s final offer, employers can also implement their final offer if there is an impasse and, as happens on occasion, employers can also lock out employees (see ExxonMobil) until the union accepts the employer’s demands.
Another half-true statement:
The Buzzfeed article goes on to quote Stuart Appelbaum, the RWDSU’s president, as saying that, as with a contract, "workers would have to vote to approve a strike. ”If the workers choose to go on strike, the union has strike funds they would make available to them, but we’re not anticipating a strike.”
However, that statement alone is not the whole story.
Facts:
To his credit, Appelbaum—like many union organizers—is telling half the truth. However, it is not the whole truth.
The RWDSU, like other unions, does allow its members2 to vote on contracts. And, like other unions, it is a simple majority that can accept or reject a contract.
First, what Appelbaum is not stating is whether non-members (since Alabama is a Right-to-Work state) would have the right to vote on a contract at all.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Appelbaum is not explaining how, if union members reject the employer’s contract offer but do not vote to strike—it takes 2/3s of the members voting to strike—the RWDSU has the right to accept the company’s offer even if a majority of members voted to reject it. Here’s why:
The RWDSU Constitution:
According to the RWDSU’s own union constitution, RWDSU-represented employees can absolutely end up in a union contract that they do not want.
According to Article XX Strikes [pp. 25 & 26]
(c) In the event of rejection of the employer’s proposal for a collective bargaining agreement and the failure of the affected membership of the local union to approve a strike by a two-thirds vote, the local union executive board shall, after notifying the UFCW President and receiving acknowledgment of such notice, and notifying and receiving the approval of the RWDSU Executive Board, have the authority to accept such offer.
The RWDSU rule is sometimes referred to as “Contract by Default” and the RWDSU is not the only union that has a rule like this.
For example, the International Association of Machinists union has “contract by default”-type language in its union constitution and, until recently, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters did as well.
It is half-truths and misleading statements like the above that unions would prefer employees not know the facts about.
This is one of the reasons why unions (and the NLRB) are attempting to ban employers from providing information to employees through so-called “captive audience meetings.”
“As Amazon has disseminated its message to workers through texts, calls, and mandatory meetings, RWDSU has continued to use the NLRB process to curtail those efforts,” notes Buzzfeed.
If the RWDSU loses its election at Amazon again, there is little doubt that it will continue blaming Amazon and a “broken system.”
However, if the union lozes again, perhaps self-reflection might be more apropos.
A. Despite the fact that Alabama is currently a Right-to-Work state—which means workers cannot be terminated for refusing to pay union fees, if the RWDSU wins the election in Bessemer, the union will represent all Bessemer employees—even those who voted ‘no,’ or did not vote at all.
B. If Democrats succeed in passing the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act” (or PRO Act), all Right-to-Work state laws would be eliminated and membership fees can be required as a condition of employment.
As Alabama is a ‘Right-to-Work’ state (see above footnote), it is likely that a number of employees, if unionized, would not become dues/fee-paying union members. As a result, since only union members are allowed to vote on union contracts, it is not likely those non-members would be allowed to vote on a contract, unless a constitutional waiver is granted by the RWDSU.
