“None of [Amazon.com’s] 90,000 workers are unionized”
WaPo, apparently trying to send a message of future independence, has an article today about lobbying by Amazon.com, founded and run by new-WaPo owner Jeff Bezos.
Deep down in the article is an interesting point about Amazon.com and unions (emphasis mine):
– Amazon’s fight with unions. The New York Times recently reported that Amazon has been clashing with labor unions in Germany over wages. “The subtext,” the paper reported, “is Amazon’s opposition to unions in its warehouses as a general principle, because the company fears unions will slow down the kind of behind-the-scenes innovation that has propelled its growth.”
That’s not the Times’s editorializing. That was the explicit view of Dave Clark, Amazon’s vice president of worldwide operations and customer services, who explained to the newspaper that “Amazon views unions as intermediaries that will want to have a say on everything from employee scheduling to changes in processes for handling and packaging orders. Amazon prizes its ability to quickly introduce changes like these into its warehouses to improve the experience of its customers.”
So far, Amazon hasn’t clashed directly with unions in the United States. None of its 90,000 workers are unionized. But the company has come under heavy scrutiny in recent years for its labor practices at its warehouses. A widely read report in the The Morning Call two years ago documented poor conditions at its Pennsylvania facilities, including heat-stressed workers. (The company says it has since installed air conditioning.)
What’s interesting about it is not only what it says about Amazon’s success, but WaPo’s failure as a unionized operation.
The unions are expecting no short-term change under Bezos, but are noting an upcoming contract battle, via Jim Romenesko (underlining added, bold italics in original):
Here’s what Washington Post Guild unit co-chair Freddy Kunkle wrote on the union’s closed Facebook page:
Many of you are wondering what the sale of the Post will mean for the union. Although there are still many questions that will need to be cleared up, it appears that the sale will not affect the Post’s relationship with the Guild.
Filings with the SEC say the new owner – Nash Holdings, LLC, which is presumably Jeff Bezo’s Delaware partnership — has agreed to honor all existing collective bargaining agreements and pension liabilities. The new owner also agreed to maintain all base salaries for at least one year.
Katharine Weymouth, in her FAQ’s, also says that she and the new owner “look forward to working with” the Post’s unions.
Put that all together with assurances from Don Graham and Katharine that there will be no immediate change in management, staff or operations, and it appears as if there is likely to be no change in the Post’s relationship with the Guild.
The only wild card here is that our two-year contract expired on July 26, and the Post, as allowed by the contract, has given notice that the contract’s provisions will be terminated on Aug. 9. So there is no collective bargaining agreement for the new owners to honor. Yet many of the terms also remain in effect as we continue negotiating toward a new two-year contract.
So right now, we intend to stay the course by working toward a new labor agreement and hope, based on all of the above, that the new owners are just as eager to reach a new and fair contract with us.
Very, very interesting.
It made no sense why someone like Bezos, who build Amazon.com by avoiding unions so as to allow quick business innovations, would buy a stodgy, moribund unionized organization like WaPo. For $250 million he could have built a news organization from scratch.
Maybe the lack of an existing collective bargaining agreement at WaPo was part of the calculation. If so, Bezos should expect a fight, as this article from late June reflects, Washington Post Guild: ‘The Post would like to fire you’:
The Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild says a Washington Post proposal for a new agreement with the union “would give managers the power to fire anyone for any reason” and also inserts a “poison pill that would make it even harder for the union to collect dues at the end of the next contract.”
Its proposal says management “reserves the right to terminate an employee for attendance and performance problems” without a written warning and a suspension as is currently required, “in appropriate cases.”
Another proposal, the bulletin says, would “eliminate important layoff provisions.” …
BULLETIN: The Post would like to fire you — and get rid of the union too
How would you like to work in a place where you could be fired for no reason and without warning? Or be let go with two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ pay as a show of thanks for years of service? And where there would be no union to help you?
If the Post has its way, that’s where you’ll soon be….
You need to join the Guild. You need to sign up your friends and prepare for action. You need to join us in fighting for a moral workplace.
Good luck, Jeff, you’ll need it.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.