(TV) Amazon.com

["Nick Powell" <nick@powelln.freeserve.co.uk>]

All

Sorry if I'm overstepping the mark here but I thoughtsome of you might be
interested(if you don't already know) of Amazon's attitudes towards  it's
workers and the possibility of them getting unionised.
Please adapt the pro forma letter if you wish to and send it to Amazon.
Apologies if I'm out of order but if I have an opportunity to publicize this
type of thing I find it difficult to resist.
Nick

I am forwarding the following message which was sent to me by a Labour
movement activist. If you want to help put pressure on the company why not
email suggestions@amazon.com which looks a likely address from their
website. You can cut and paste - won't take long.

Dear Amazon.com:

I have been loyal customer of your company since its inception.  In the
last few months alone I have spent more than $300 on your products and
services.

And thus I was very sad to read today in the New York Times that your
company is undermining the attempts of your employees to unionize.  I
believe that all workers have the right to organize, and if you cannot
support this right, then I can no longer support your company.

I refuse to by any products from Amazon.com until your employees have
been allowed to choose a legal bargaining representative---without
intimidation or harassment.  I will urge all of my friends and colleagues to
do the
same.

Sincerely,


Professor Kathy Newman

The New York Times, November 29, 2000, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section C; Page 1; Column 2; Business/Financial Desk LENGTH: 861
words

Amazon.com Is Using the Web to Block Unions' Effort to Organize

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Amazon.com has come out swinging in its fight to stop a new Unionisation
drive, telling employees that unions are a greedy, for-profit business And
advising managers on ways to detect when a group of workers is trying to
back a union.
A section on Amazon's internal Web site gives supervisors antiunion material
to pass on to employees, saying that unions mean strife and possible strikes
and that while unions are certain to charge expensive dues, they cannot
guarantee improved wages or benefits.

The Web site advises managers on warning signs that a union is trying to
organize. Among the signs that Amazon notes are "hushed conversations when
you approach which have not occurred before," and "small group huddles
breaking up in silence on the approach of the supervisor."

Other warning signs, according to the site, are an increase in complaints, a
decrease in quality of work, growing aggressiveness and dawdling in the
lunchroom and restrooms.

Amazon, one of the leaders in electronic retailing, has stepped up its
antiunion activities the last week after two unions and an independent
organizing group announced plans to speed efforts to unionize Amazon during
the holiday e-shopping rush. The organizing drive is the most ambitious one
ever undertaken in the high-technology sector, where the nation's labor
movement has yet to establish a foothold. The Communications Workers of
America has undertaken a campaign to unionize 400 customer-service
representatives in Seattle, where Amazon is based. The United Food and
Commercial Workers Union and the Prewitt Organizing Fund, an independent
organizing group, are seeking to unionize some 5,000 workers at Amazon's
eight distribution centers across the country. The unionization drive has
gained momentum because many workers are upset about layoffs at Amazon last
January and about the sharp drop in the value of their stock options.

One chapter on Amazon's internal Web site, which provides a rare internal
glimpse at how a company is fighting off a union, is headlined, "Reasons a
Union is Not Desirable." "Unions actively foster distrust toward
supervisors," the Web site says. "They also create an uncooperative attitude
among associates by leading them to think they are untouchable' with a
union."

The Web site, which calls the company's workers associates, adds: "Unions
limit associate incentives. Merit increases are contrary to union
philosophy." A union supporter who insisted on anonymity and acknowledged
seeking to embarrass the company over its antiunion campaign made a copy of
the Web site material available to The New York Times. Amazon officials
confirmed that the material came from the company's Web site.

Patty Smith, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the main purpose of the Web site
material was to tell supervisors what they can do to oppose a union and what
actions by managers violate laws barring retaliation against workers who
support unionization. For instance, the Web site said supervisors could tell
workers that the company preferred to deal with them directly, rather than
through an outside organization. It also said supervisors could tell workers
about the benefits they enjoy. As for the don'ts, the Web site warns
supervisors not to threaten workers with firings or reduce income or
discontinue any privileges to any union supporter. Ms. Smith declined to
name the lawyers the company had hired to work on the material. Union
leaders said in interviews yesterday that their organizing drive was going
somewhat worse than they had expected largely because of the unexpected
aggressiveness of Amazon's antiunion efforts. Over the last two weeks,
managers have held a half-dozen "all hands" meetings for customer service
workers in Seattle, where managers have argued how unionising would be bad
for Amazon. Marcus Courtney, co-founder of the Washington Alliance of
Technological Workers, an affiliate of the communications workers' union,
said, "This shows how Amazon, despite its public statements that this is a
decision we let our employees make themselves and we trust them to make the
right decisions, all these meetings and the internal Web site and their
Manuals show that Amazon management is trying to take this basic democratic
decision away from the workers and make it themselves."

Ms. Smith denied that the company was not letting workers make up their own
minds. "We hired intelligent and dedicated employees, and we trust them to
make decisions about what's best for their future," she said. "But obviously
we don't believe a union is best for their future or our customers." In
large, bold letters, the Web site tells supervisors: "A union promotes and
thrives upon problems between supervisors and employees. Front-line
supervisors who deal effectively with associate problems avoid associates
believing they need a union." Duane Stillwell, president of the Prewitt
Organizing Fund, said: "It's unfortunate that this vaunted high-tech company
is just saying the same crude things that factory owners have been saying
for 100 years about unions. They're just scaring people out of wanting to do
the right thing."





--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"