Amazon CEO Andy jassy broke federal labor law with anti-union remarks

“Judge Brian D. Gee was appointed in May 2022. Prior to his appointment, he served as the Regional Attorney in the West Los Angeles office of the NLRB (Region 31) for 10 years. Judge Gee joined the Agency as a Field Attorney in Region 31 in 1996. During the first 12 years of his career with the Agency, he gained experience as one of the Region’s lead trial attorneys. He was promoted to Supervisory Attorney in March 2008, Deputy Regional Attorney in May 2010, and Regional Attorney in August 2012. A graduate of Vanderbilt University School of Law, Judge Gee earned his Juris Doctorate in 1995. He graduated from Occidental College in 1987, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History.”

Edit: turning to the linked opinion, we can see how flawed the judge’s argument is based on his argument on 8 where his primary support for his position is a case where both the ALJ and the Board were overturned on appeal: Hendrickson USA, LLC , 366 NLRB No. 7 (2018), enforcement denied by the Sixth Circuit in 932 F.3d 465 (2019), in which the Board agreed with the administrative law judge’s (ALJ)finding that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by saying, “the culture will definitely change,” “relationships will suffer,” and “flexibility is replacedby inefficiency.”

This is the most relevant portion of Hendrickson. You can decide whether or not Jassy’s statements are similar to this fact pattern.

In our view, the Board’s opinion on this issue is inconsistent with Tri-Cast , and therefore its application of the law to the facts of this case does not meet the substantial evidence standard. The statements singled out from the PowerPoint slide can only be reasonably understood as elaborating upon and summarizing the company’s position on the ineffectiveness of third-party representation, which was a lawful argument for the company to make. The first statement—"the culture will definitely change"—does not have negative connotations in isolation and can only take meaning from the surrounding statements. The statements that "relationships suffer" and "flexibility is replaced by inefficiency" are certainly negative, but context shows that they are protected predictions of the consequences of unionization. The slides at appendix 64 and 65 together show that the "loss of our direct employee relationship " (emphasis added) directly stems from the fact that the employees "lose the right to represent themselves." The comments at the August 21 meeting likewise tie interference in the employer-employee relationship to the union’s right to intervene: "we don’t want [a] third party to have to intervene, we want to talk directly to our employees." And the August 24 letter similarly emphasizes the company’s belief that "employees are entitled to represent themselves without third party interference ." (emphasis added). Taken together, these remarks show that the only reasonable way to interpret the brief statements at issue is that Hendrickson believes that a union’s formal right under Section 9(c) to intervene in the adjustment of grievances renders untenable the casual, efficient communication of the company’s "open door policy" and "easy-going atmosphere," and the slide at issue "simply explicates" that position "in layman’s terms." Tri-Cast, Inc. , 274 NLRB at 377.

Finally, the Board’s opinion erroneously suggests that Hendrickson had a duty to present both the pros and cons of union representation. The opinion faults the company’s presentation for suggesting that employees would have a more difficult time influencing their working conditions while "ignoring the fact that, although they may not be at the negotiating table, union members most often have a say in developing bargaining proposals concerning their wages and benefits and other working conditions." 366 NLRB No. 7, *9. But Hendrickson had the right to emphasize the negative aspects of the loss of "direct" relationship, as the Board found in the first portion of its opinion, and Supreme Court precedent does not require Hendrickson to provide the counterargument to its own argument. This language in the Board’s opinion is inconsistent with the NLRA’s policy of "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes," Chamber of Commerce , 554 U.S. at 68, 128 S.Ct. 2408, in which both sides may "express themselves on the merits of the dispute in order to influence its outcome," Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy , 425 U.S. at 762, 96 S.Ct. 1817 (citing Gissel , 395 U.S. at 617–18, 89 S.Ct. 1918 ). Therefore, the Board’s conclusion is not supported even by substantial evidence

Most people's ideas aren't novel so they won't be implemented for the same reasons they weren't last time. Occasionally, someone does come up with something new and a good manager should recognize that but the experience for the vast majority of people is that they were ignored.

I worked as an auto parts delivery driver, and one day I delivered some parts to a machine shop. As I started opening the front door, I could hear a blaring high-pitch wining noise coming from the shop area. I got to the office and there were 4 guys just sitting with earplugs in. I asked the what was going on, and they told me that one of the machines had broken but they weren't allowed to turn off the power switch because of union rules. They had to wait until the proper union guy showed up to turn off the switch. And no, this wasn't some super special switch, it was just a 50 amp breaker. I think it's pretty clear they lost some empowerment.

I worked as an aircraft refueler in a climate that during fall would get fairly cold in the morning (20 deg F) and warm in the day (70+ deg F). One of our trucks had sensitive brakes that would often need a quarter-turn on a small screw that controlled airflow once the temperature went up (or down at night). It was trivial to do, but I wasn't allowed to even touch it because of union rules taht specified that only the mechanics union could "perform maintenance on the vehicles." So I routinely had to sit on the ramp for hours in the middle of the day waiting for maintenance to drive their truck out and turn the screw. I once suggested to our manager that we should schedule daily maintenance around noon each day since that is around when it usually stopped working, and union rules had an enumerated list of valid "scheduled maintenance" work that could be done, and that wasn't on the list, so he was powerless to do anything about it. I'm sure it didn't hurt that "unscheduled maintenance" cost us more than scheduled.

I've heard plenty more stories from friends as well. Our local plumbers union was apprently quite something. They had rules around seniority that basically fucked over everyone with less than 10 years experience and made for a sweet life for everyone over. People worked their asses off for the worst jobs with inferior pay on the hope and dream for their turn at the top end of the pyramid some day when they got their turn to sit on top and exploit the people on the bottom.

I'm not anti-union (some situations absolutely need unions to prevent extreme exploitation), but I am anti-blanket-pro-union. Some unions are really trash and should not exist.

So yeah, if you're going to say that he "lied" then I think you need to explain what evidence you have that he knew what he said was not true. If he has any experience with unions, there's a good chance he has specific situations in mind.

Amazon in my area has literally ran media ads (not paraphrasing, direct quotes): "Need a job? Can pass a background check? No interview, start as soon as tomorrow."

Except in the software industry, there's too many stupid people who think they are really a "10x programmer" and fall for the Hank Hill special "SHH I'M PAYING YOU MORE BECAUSE YOU'RE A ROCKSTAR! DON'T TELL YOUR COWORKERS!"

It's like most people took a boot licking course or something lol.