The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB ruled last month that Amazon had cheated to defeat a high profile union organizing campaign.

It found that Amazon violated federal labor laws during its anti-union campaign at a Bessemer warehouse, Ala. earlier this year. This will result in a do-over election.

The NLRB criticized Amazon’s “flagrant disregard” for federal union election rules and stated that the management had “essentially highjacked” the process and given the impression that it was in control of the outcome.

Last week, Kirsten Swingingen, the head of the virulently antiunion Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, published a misleading op ed in The Hill about the NLRB ruling.

Let’s first be clear about the reasons why Amazon was ordered to rerun its election by the NLRB.
According to the op-ed, Amazon installed a mailbox in order to make voting easier. However, the NLRB repeatedly told Amazon that it couldn’t have onsite voting. After the company pushed for it, and then unsuccessfully appealed against the NLRB decision. In a stunning act of arrogance, Amazon’s top managers ignored these clear instructions and forced the United States Postal Service to install an onsite mailbox just before the election period. A senior USPS manager stated that this was the first instance in his many decades of service when it had set up a “cluster mailbox” for a single customer due to the upcoming NLRB elections.

After being told by the USPS to not place stickers on the mailbox, Amazon covered the mailbox with a marquee with large slogans. The USPS replied, ” Surprise” when asked how he felt about Amazon’s disregard for clear instructions. Moreover, the NLRB discovered that Amazon’s management engaged in illegal monitoring of workers’ voting intentions.

These charges are serious, considering the overwhelming evidence of illegal activity. It would be surprising if NLRB did not reverse the tainted election. This would be a message to employees that the law doesn’t apply to them if they have the wealth, resources and ability to bully them if it was in the way of Amazon’s illegal conduct.

The NLRB Hearing officer and its Atlanta-based Regional director made the decision to reverse the tainted vote. Neither of these people are political appointees – instead, they are career lawyers or “former employees” as the op ed misleads. Swearingen instead resorts to misleading tropes regarding “Big Labor” in order to describe a small, but determined union, the Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union. This union is up against Amazon, one of the most powerful and wealthy corporations on the planet. Bessemer was not the first to find Amazon guilty of illegal anti-union behavior. The NLRB found Amazon in violation of its laws.

It is important to correct a blatant lie about the Protecting the Right to Organize legislation (PRO Act), currently pending before the U.S. Senate. Incorrectly, the op-ed states that the PRO Act “potentially eradicates secret ballot elections” but allows for “card certification” of unions. This is essentially recognizing unions only after authorization cards are signed by the majority of workers, as practiced in many rich democracies.

To be clear, the Pro Act does not mention card check certification. The author created this provision to support her extreme anti-union views. The PRO Act would ban mandatory anti-union “captive audience” meetings- forcible listening sessions. According to Amazon’s own testimony, these were conducted thousands of times at Bessemer. It also imposes harsher penalties on corporations like Amazon who violate workers’ right to choose a union.

The op-ed also states that “Big Labor… succeeded in pushing Democrats to include PRO Act policies into the budget reconciliation bill.” However, the bill only contains the PRO Act provision. This includes the much-needed financial sanctions for corporations such as Amazon that repeatedly violate workers rights.

The NLRB was right to reverse the Bessemer election that was fundamentally tainted due to Amazon’s conduct. The Bessemer campaign demonstrates that the NLRB needs to have more options. As it stands, the law is too toothless for a massively powerful, incredibly wealthy, and frequently illegal corporate bully. The Senate should immediately pass the PRO Act.

Keep an eye on what we are doing

Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.

We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Invalid email address

Thanks for subscribing!