The employer can make employees sit through anti-union presentations. The union does not have equivalent access to the employees. There are also borderline illegal practices like saying that unionization might lead the company to shut down the facility.¹
⸻
1. Employers are prohibited from saying that they will fire people who vote for unionization but they are allowed to say that they might shut down a shop that votes for a union. Interestingly, while this is a frequent threat, the instances of an employer ever actually following through are vanishingly small.
> Interestingly, while this is a frequent threat, the instances of an employer ever actually following through are vanishingly small.
The more common occurrence is for the employer to let the union go on strike. Then the employer keeps the shop open by hiring new workers from outside the union and lets the union stay on strike forever. Obviously the effect on the union workers is basically the same.
Sure, if the company is of the sort that can function fine without its workers. This does not really always work out in practice, esp. in today's labor market.
If you start hiring permanent replacements, you're basically killing any chance of a successful negotiation.
That's sort of the point. Amazon can function just fine without these particular employees, the jobs they are doing don't require any special skills or training, and the already high wages make them very attractive to job seekers. For Amazon, having a union in permanent impotent limbo would be a best case scenario.
What a vague way to put it, but of course, sure, there was a unionizing effort. I think an interesting example of how powerful Amazon is is that changed traffic light timing to inhibit the unionizing effort[1]
There's a difference between putting up a flyer telling people their rights, and having them sit through hours of video as part of their actual job. Scale matters.
