“You can vote any way you want, as long as you vote yes.”
That’s the message officials of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union are sending to Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama.
If a bare majority of those who cast ballots had voted “yes” in the recent union vote, RWDSU officials would have happily claimed that it could “represent” every employee in the warehouse.
Instead, the Amazon workers voted “no” by a decisive 2-1 margin, and it quickly became clear that union officials were only willing to respect the workers’ decisions if they voted for unionization.
Even though barely 12% of eligible workers voted in favor of RWDSU, union officials are now arguing that Amazon’s employees can’t be trusted to vote in their own interests. On May 7, at the union’s request, the National Labor Relations Board began hearing arguments for why the election results should be thrown out.
Union officials claim Amazon unfairly influenced the election, although workers were bombarded with pro-union messaging from the national media, rallies outside the facility, and even President Joe Biden.
RWDSU bosses believe the workers were incapable of weighing the two sides of the argument. In fact, they don’t even trust workers to understand how the election was being conducted.
They’re arguing that a U.S. Postal Service mailbox near the facility, installed at Amazon’s request, might have made some workers think the company would see their votes.
That must mean union officials really value anonymity and don’t want workers to have any doubts that they were voting in secret, right?
Wrong. RWDSU bosses actually oppose secret ballot union elections. Instead, they support a coercive process called “card check” unionization, during which union organizers can approach individual employees, asking them to sign cards that can be counted as “votes” in support of unionization.
So, at the exact same time, union officials are arguing that if workers have the option to place a sealed envelope into a USPS mailbox next to their workplace, they may be unduly influenced, but if professional organizers personally pressure them into signing cards that count as “votes” for unionization, that’s perfectly fine.
If one shares the view espoused by pro-Big Labor politicians, journalists, and academics that union membership (and dues payment) is something no reasonable person could turn down, then perhaps these kinds of double standards make sense.
But most people, and even most union members, don’t see things that way.
In a poll of union members, a majority reported that belonging to the union had either no impact or a negative impact on their careers. Majorities also thought union officials needed to be held more accountable to the rank-and-file, that union officials’ salaries were too high, and that union political spending was unreasonable.
If even union members have doubts about the job union officials are doing, why is it so hard for union bosses to believe that workers, like those at Amazon, may have thoughtfully examined the union’s offer and decided they were better off without a union?
Alas, instead of looking inward and contemplating why they failed to persuade workers that giving up a portion of their paychecks was worth it, unions are seeking additional powers to force workers into their ranks.
The so-called “PRO Act” would limit the information workers could hear about the impact of unionization and even allow union officials to overturn workers’ votes against a union through a “card check.” It’s already been passed by the House and is being promoted by Big Labor officials around the country as the “solution” to workers who reject unionization.
Further, the PRO Act would end state “right-to-work” laws that protect workers from being forced to pay dues or fees, so those who voted against a union could still be forced either to pay the union for unwanted representation or be fired.
On top of that, the bill even adds new restrictions on removing a union from a workplace, further complicating an already byzantine process. So, even in instances when a majority of workers wanted to remove a union, they likely wouldn’t even be able to hold a vote.
For union officials, the Amazon vote was not about fairness, democracy, or workers’ rights; it was about power over workers, irrespective of those workers’ actual wishes.
Union officials actually concerned about the rank-and-file would look at why workers decided that bringing in the union wasn’t in their best interests and consider how they could better attract workers’ voluntary support. Instead, the takeaway for Big Labor seems to be that when workers reject them, it is proof that union bosses just need more government-granted power to coerce workers.
Mark Mix is the president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
