[handmodel]

I honestly am skeptical. AMZN already pays more than other small businesses and even medium/large businesses. It doesn't make money by paying its workers less - it makes money with efficiency and volume.

Alabama is a right-to-work state. My understanding is that it would be completely legal for Amazon to hire new employees the second someone doesn't show up because of a strike, so I'm not sure their leverage.

These workers are probably making between 30k and 50k a year so $500 isn't nothing.

[ineedasername]

No, a union contract supersedes a "right to work", because it's a contract. Yes, an employer can fire you for little/no reason (if it's not discriminatory) but if they sign a contract saying they won't fire you, then their hands are tied.

In the example of something like missing a day of work, the contract will spell out the specifics of advance notice for days off/sick days. If it's completely unannounced, the contract will spell out the steps of a disciplinary process.

Source: I work in a right to work state, used to be a union member, asked this very same question at the time.

[intenex]

If that's true...then why do you think Amazon is so afraid of/against them joining a union if it can't do anything?

[handmodel]

A) If the union has a good chance of increasing wages 400 to 600 per year locally, then that is a great deal for the union organizers, a passable deal for the workers, and a bad deal for Amazon. I didn't say they won't be able to raise wages at all - just maybe not enough to justify the $500 union fees.

B) Not every state is a right-to-work state. So, from a 'worker's of the world unite' perspective then obviously making a union in Alabama will help other places form unions.

I could be very wrong and perhaps the union could get 1 or 2k more per year - but I am skeptical.

[Lammy]

wages ∈ compensation