Amazon workers narrowly reject union in historic vote (49.5% vs 50.5%)

> The online giant would have been forced to negotiate with workers on issues such as pay and conditions.

What possible reason is there for voting **against** this?

> In April the union launched a legal challenge against Amazon, claiming it used underhand tactics to encourage members to cancel their union membership.

I heard something on Reddit about this but not sure how true it was.

I heard they had QR codes on posters around the building and scanning it would automatically generate an email that cancelled their union membership.

Does anyone have any evidence that this is true? Because surely that can’t be legal?

I’d be curious how legitimate the vote was, or what underhanded tactics Amazon used.

I know other big companies like Starbucks got in trouble for “hiring” a lot of additional staff a few months before the vote and faking their timesheets to inflate their hours so that they technically had sufficient hours/experience to vote in the union elections, and then instantly firing them after the vote.

People love to vote against their own interests don’t they

My mate worked at an Amazon warehouse. He said the people who do well in there are the knucklehead bully types. Anyone with sense got out of there fast.

Why would anyone vote against this seems to be a common question?

The assumption that people en masse generally do vaguely understand their own interests is where you have to start.

The tightness of the vote suggests that Amazon workers understand that the benefits of trade union membership in private companies outside of the foundational economy (transport, energy etc) are marginal. If you strike against a private company distributing consumer goods, the economy doesn’t grind to a halt overnight and Amazon can certainly outlast strikers, so unionisation would not radically increase the workers’ bargaining power, if at all. Added to that that unionisation carries risks, usually in reduction of workforce size and the risks to benefits become quite closely matched, hence the result.

I think it’s fairly obvious. Not only are Amazon very good a union busting but the majority of their warehouse staff are immigrants.

If you’re an incredibly disposable immigrant worker who’s come to Europe to scrape together some cash and you’ve ended up in the Amazon warehouse, you’re not risking losing that.

This is one of the biggest arguments against mass immigration of low skilled labour. In that it obviously lowers the chances of worker’s seeking expansions of their rights and better pay, in favour of playing incredibly safe as to not offend the corporate overlords.

Corporate America will not be defeated. Were are increasingly beholden to their empire.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%E2%80%98Vassal+State%3A+How+America+Runs+Britain%E2%80%99.

People forget that Amazon workers in Britain are primarily immigrants many of whom don’t even speak English or have any intention to stay long term in Britain. The turnover is extremely high and they’re not interested in long-term benefits but rather short term earn and leave.

I’m sorry but all big businesses should be forced to have democratic models like unionisation. It stops the staff being targeted for wanting to make a union and any negative consequences of that, which I can imagine are the only reasons that people voted against this.

They’re basically controlling vast swathes of our economy it’s not right for them to be run like this when they employ so many people.

If you ever want a clearer example of people voting against their own best interest here it is