Skip to main content

A Round of Applause for the Amazon Labor Union

While the unionization of Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse hasn’t exactly gone unnoticed, it has struggled for attention in the hyperactive news cycles of recent days and weeks.

So please, let’s have a warm round of applause for the workers of warehouse JFK8.

They forced a real union election, sponsored by the National Labor Relations Board, fiercely resisted by Amazon. They started as a small cadre of workers with a lot of gripes, no budget, no organizing experience, and the constant threat of retaliation from a highly vindicative and litigious employer.

And they flat-out kicked ass. They convinced fifty-five percent of their co-workers — a landslide, apparently — that they needed to speak with one collective voice, if they ever want Amazon to hear them. They created a new union, the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), completely from scratch.

Organized labor in this country has, as we know, been pummelled into submission. Forty years of right-wing hostility, aided and abetted by the Republican party, has drastically reduced the economic and political clout unions once enjoyed. Through sharp-elbowed tactics at the local, state, and federal levels, Republican administrations have systematically undermined collective bargaining and the right to organize, always for specious — not to mention predatory — reasons.

But what we’re seeing might just be the first glimmer of a labor resurgence, knock wood. It’s a real grassroots movement, independent of any organized initiatives. It’s emphatically not coming from Big Labor — that crippled but still powerful coalition under the AFL-CIO umbrella — but seems to be rising organically from the workers themselves.

This development has led to some soul-searching among the professional Big Labor organizers, the ones who have, for decades, been swimming against the brutally strong currents of anti-union activism. These organizers, to their credit, have watched with admiration the launch of a growing number of fledgling union movements, and they’ve wisely refrained from imposing their “experience” on the newbies. While Amazon JFK8 is getting the most media coverage, there are other examples of similar bottom-up unionizations, most notably in several Starbucks locations.

The unionization of JFK8 was driven by the real needs of real workers on a real warehouse floor — a workplace where sophisticated digital systems monitor their every move. So the movement isn’t just about wages and hours — though those are surely on the table — but also about workplace safety, worker health, job protection, and a host of other issues management will happily ignore until forced to acknowledge them.

The ALU deftly worked around the legion of high-priced corporate lawyers and labor consultants Amazon hires to keep the playing field well tilted. Starting with their own unique understanding of the processes, complexities, and social dynamics of Amazon’s highly diverse workforce, they reached out to their thousands of co-workers and listened to their stories.

They engaged individually with workers from a kaleidoscope of multi-cultural backgrounds. They learned to “speak the language” of the many informal subgroups within the warehouse, earning both their trust and, crucially, their signatures.

Which is how they were able to meet Amazon’s brute-force, take-no-prisoners tactics with a nimbleness and finesse that has taken the worlds of both labor and management quite by surprise.

Of course, Amazon has always known it doesn’t have to be this way. Amazon makes astronomical amounts of money, and even a minuscule percentage of its profits could have made its workers’ lives incomparably easier.

They could have been an exceptional employer. They could have shown loyalty to their workers, and received loyalty in return. Instead they chose to exploit. They adopted a dehumanizing worker model, in which interchangeable humans can be plugged into or out of any job, with only minimal respect or concern for the well-being of those humans.

The pandemic threw a big monkey wrench into this model. On one hand, demand for Amazon services exploded. On the other hand, workplace safety was suddenly a life-and-death matter.

Suddenly, people all over the country, in every sort of workplace, were deciding that the paltry wages and demeaning conditions they were putting up with weren’t worth the risk to their lives. Suddenly, the humans were unplugging, and replacement humans weren’t readily available.

This tightening of the job market has spelled opportunity for the labor movement. Unions have much more leverage when the marketplace won’t let management just fire and replace people on a whim.

And unions need all the leverage they can get. Of all the things we’ve lost sight of in the last few decades — of all the things we took for granted, and which somehow stopped being important — unions are near the top of the list.

The crushing of organized labor in recent decades has had a warping effect on our economy, our politics, our ethics, and, indeed, the basic social contract we live by. It has caused and aggravated grotesque inequalities, and served to ensure that the few remain firmly in control of the many.

It hasn’t always been this way. The union movement goes back more than a century and was once embedded in the fabric of American culture. The long history and colorful language of organized labor — of strikes, lockouts, strike-breakers, scabs, and Pinkertons — were once the stuff of legend. My mother and her friends grew up singing union songs — memorized from Pete Seeger records — around their campfires and on their campuses.

By then, collective bargaining had long since forced a whole range of outrageous ideas on corporate America — eight-hour days, forty-hour weeks, paid vacations, sick leave, and other crazy things that have gone vastly under-appreciated, both for the achievements they are, and for the blood that was shed to win them.

You could say unions invented the middle class. They held out the promise of a living wage — and the dignity that comes with it — to anyone willing to work. Not coincidentally, the nation prospered as a result.

Yes, the record of unions on racial and women’s issues has surely been as appalling as that of every other institution in American life. But the actions at JFK8, largely driven by minority workers, would seem to indicate significant progress on that front.

As institutions go, organized labor still has much to offer us as a society, but we can’t be na├»ve. The small victories at Amazon and Starbucks may yet turn out to be false hopes. Amazon’s lawyers may yet crush the ALU.

But this new grassroots, bottom-up approach can, at least theoretically, be extended to the Walmarts, Home Depots, and Googles of the world. Which, though they’d never admit it, would be to the benefit of those companies as well.

Because given the stakes, given the multitude of hazards in today’s global marketplace, a strong working relationship between management and labor is imperative for both.

For some reason, management never learns that lesson on its own. Unions always end up having to force it on them.

 

Comments

  1. Back when the old-school unions were formed, the exploitation was unabated. Since then, many laws and regulations have been put in place to protect workers from things that only the unions used manage for them. If modern unions are going to make a real difference in regrowing the middle class, they need to tackle medical and post-secondary education costs. While they're at it, maybe they could come up with a better retirement system than "give your money to some of the greediest people on the planet and hope they give you some back when they're done with it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. Unfortunately, those protections need protection. One of our two political parties would roll them back till they disappear.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling