Voice News

CA News 2024


Why the court wants Amazon to share this notice with its US employees

The US National Labor Relations Board judge wants Amazon to share a notice with its employees across the country. The notice concerns Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, ​​who a judge said violated federal labor law by making comments to the media about the company’s unionization efforts.

In a recent ruling, NLRB Judge Brian Gee reportedly cited interviews Jassy gave in 2022 to CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Bloomberg Television and at The New York Times’ DealBook conference. According to a report in CNBC, the interviews coincided with an uptick in unionization campaigns in Amazon’s warehouse and delivery operations.

In his ruling, the judge said the comments “threatened workers that if they chose to unionize, they would have less power and find it harder to get things done quickly.”

Gee reportedly said that the Amazon CEO’s comments that workers without a union would have less power and would be “better off” violated labor law, “because they went beyond simply commenting on the employee-employee relationship.” employer.”

To expand

The judge recommends that Amazon be ordered not to make such comments in the future. Furthermore, the company was asked to post and distribute a notice about the court order to employees across the country.

What exactly did Amazon’s CEO tell the media
Jassy reportedly told CNBC in April 2022 that if employees voted into a union, they might have less power in the workplace and things would become “much slower” and “more bureaucratic.” Similarly, Jassy noted in the Bloomberg interview, “If you see something at stake that you think could be better for your team, you or your customers, you can’t just go to your manager and say, ‘ Let’s change it.’ ”

At the DealBook conference, Jassy said the non-union workplace is not “bureaucratic and it is not slow.”

What Amazon said about the court ruling
Amazon spokesperson Mary Kate Paradis said in a statement that the company disagrees with the NLRB’s ruling and plans to appeal. “The decision poorly reflects the current state of freedom of expression, and we remain optimistic that we can continue to have a reasonable discussion on these issues, with all perspectives given the opportunity to be heard,” Paradis said.