I know they're not. I am literally arguing that if they're going to sit there and say "nice job you've got there... wouldn't it be too bad if you lost it," and then "invite" you to a "mandatory information session," which you can "freely" choose not to attend, then the union should get equal time at this session.
>then the union should get equal time at this session.
Why? They're not footing the bill. I'd agree with giving the union the option to do this, if they can compensate amazon equal to the hourly wage that the workers are paid, but I doubt labor unions have enough of a bankroll to make this viable.
It's not a threat. It literally has to be mandatory since the decision will have large impacts on the current employees and the company. Employees need to know what they are voting on. It's not as simple as union good, company bad and you're being disingenuous painting it as such.
Yes, they need to know what's being voted on. But that's not the purpose of company-sponsored, mandatory "information" sessions. The purpose is to coerce employees into sitting down and listening to anti-union propaganda, and you know it.
Would you be in favor of the union being able to hold a mandatory information session, also under threat of dismissal? Why or why not?
It's "mandatory" if they want to keep their jobs, but they can "freely" choose to quit. Or, so the party line goes. It's also "mandatory" that you drive on the correct side of the road, but you can "freely" choose not to, and risk arrest, injury, or death.
But do they officially make the claim that they would fire anybody who doesn't attend?
I personally would want to fire anybody who wants to form a union, if I was in the situation. Why should anybody be forced to employ somebody who wants to make trouble in their organization?
The union has access to the employees out of work hours.
Why should the union get compensated time to express their position. If the Union wants to comp Amazon access to their employees and lost productivity then sure maybe, but I don't see that being proposed. It's always Amazon who must "give" something.
Amazon has the same access outside of work hours. They can host events and invite employees just as easily as the union can. The union has zero access during work hours.
Amazon must "give" something because Amazon "has" 99% of the cards.
Not how it works mate. Unions are also private parties, and your desire to see more unionization does not entitle one private organization to the time, money and/or resources of another.
I know that's not how it works. I'm saying that's not how it should work. Amazon should not be able to abuse its employees by forcing them to go to mandatory "information" sessions under threat of dismissal, precisely because the union doesn't have that power. Either both should have it, or neither should. Which would you prefer?
Edit: I notice you've done this exact same thing in another comment subthread here. Are you deliberately overlooking the fact that I'm proposing a change to "how it works?" That means "that's not how it works, mate" is completely irrelevant.
If you’re going to put me on the spot, I come down on Amazon’s private property rights, employer’s prerogative and First Amendment interest in their own warehouse; I also come down on the side of the private sector employees to unionize, and exercise their own rights if that is what they want to do, but not by spending their employer’s resources and time on the effort.
I am a proponent of work/personal separation, and union efforts are a personal effort up until the point they succeed, if they succeed. That isn’t fair to the union but life is tough in the aluminum siding business.
Edit in response to your edit: we can go back and forth, I’m watching the other subthread too. Feel free to consolidate if you like.
But no, Amazon isn't required to pay you for the time you spend talking to your union rep, no.