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.
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.