© Unknown
The purpose of the proposed union would have been to demand higher wages and the right to strike. It would have been formed under the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW).
Mary Osako, a spokeswoman from Amazon, said, "With today's vote against third-party representation, our employees have made it clear that they prefer a direct connection with Amazon. This direct connection is the most effective way to understand and respond to the wants and needs of our employees. Amazon's culture and business model are based on rapid innovation, flexibility, and open lines of direct communication between managers and associates."
After the union was shot down, IAMAW accused Amazon of pressuring their workers to not unionize.
John Carr, an IMAW spokesman wrote in an email, "The workers at Amazon faced intense pressure from managers and anti-union consultants hired to suppress this organizing drive. We responded when these workers initially reached out to us, and we'll continue to work with them to pursue the collective bargaining rights they're entitled to under federal labor law."
Carr argued that unions are instrumental in providing "fair" wages and are key to creating "an effective safety committee in the fast-paced workplace."
But many argue that unions hurt taxpayers, customers, and even employees due to rigid rules that do not respond effectively to the fluidity of the free marketplace.
John Stossel wrote, "When companies compete for workers, they get higher wages and better working conditions... [Unions] slow growth. And growth - increasing productivity, which leads to higher wages and new opportunities - is what is best for workers."
Often, unions are more effective in right-to-work states, where employees are not forced to join a union or pay dues. In such states, unions exist through free association.
What do you think - were Amazon.com's workers smart to reject the IMAW union?
Reader Comments
I've seen unions rejected time after time in places I've worked. I don't understand it as unions are usually the only protection workers get and offer their only real hope at fair wage increases.
As far as unions protecting dead weight - I haven't seen corporations be any better at shedding dead weight. The corporations themselves often protect the workers that offer least real benefit to the company, while shedding workers who may be more outspoken but get the real work done. Corporations typically can't stand information contrary to their own propaganda and get rid of the people who spread truth and information that could greatly benefit the long term interests of the company as well as all its' people - not just administration.
I'm not saying unions are great - anymore, they often seem to be in bed with the corporate administrators, and work to the detriment of the workers they represent. -- but what else is there? Corporations are basically legally defined and required to be psychopathic (work in the interests of shareholders rather then customers or workers or the general good) - and they are good at acting in a psychopathic manner towards workers in particular.
Amazon only have 27 workers?
Never did understand, why changing from a corporate master telling you what to do, to a union master, who takes a portion of your wages, to tell you what to do, makes any difference?