Space X A Union Buster?

On Friday, June 17, SpaceX fired at least five employees who were involved in crafting a letter to corporate leaders which criticized Space X CEO Elon Musk. That firing likely violated federal labor law.

The National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of workers “to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of [their] mutual aid or protection.” That language has generally been interpreted broadly to protect employees who act in concert, although the Board has wavered over the years in interpreting what constitutes concerted activity. For example, in 2011, during the Obama Administration, the Board ruled that an employee complaining about working conditions in front of other employees was engaged in concerted protected activity. However, in 2019 the Board appointed by President Trump reversed the earlier ruling finding such activity unprotected. The current Board would likely apply the earlier standard and find that the writing of the letter, since it was done by a group and addresses working conditions, is protected activity.

The employees’ letter said:

Employees across the spectra of gender, ethnicity, seniority, and technical roles have collaborated on this letter. We feel it is imperative to maintain honest and open dialogue with each other to effectively reach our company’s primary goals together: making SpaceX a great place to work for all, and making humans a multiplanetary species.

As SpaceX employees we are expected to challenge established processes, rapidly innovate to solve complex problems as a team, and use failures as learning opportunities. . . . But for all our technical achievements, SpaceX fails to apply these principles to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion with equal priority across the company, resulting in a workplace culture that remains firmly rooted in the status quo.

Individuals and groups of employees at SpaceX have spent significant effort beyond their technical scope to make the company a more inclusive space . . . . However, we feel an unequal burden to carry this effort as the company has not applied appropriate urgency and resources to the problem in a manner consistent with our approach to critical path technical projects. To be clear: recent events are not isolated incidents; they are emblematic of a wider culture that underserves many of the people who enable SpaceX’s extraordinary accomplishments. . . .

Elon’s behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent weeks. . . .every Tweet that Elon sends is a de facto public statement by the company. It is critical to make clear to our teams and to our potential talent pool that his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values.

SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change. As a starting point, we are putting forth the following categories of action items, the specifics of which we would like to discuss in person with the executive team within a month:

Publicly address and condemn Elon’s harmful Twitter behavior. 

Hold all leadership equally accountable to making SpaceX a great place to work for everyone. 

Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. 

Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.

We care deeply about SpaceX’s mission to make humanity multiplanetary. But more importantly, we care about each other. The collaboration we need to make life multiplanetary is incompatible with a culture that treats employees as consumable resources. Our unique position requires us to consider how our actions today will shape the experiences of individuals beyond our planet. Is the culture we are fostering now the one which we aim to bring to Mars and beyond?

It is too early to tell whether anyone at Space X will file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. To support a charge they need to show that their cooperation in writing the letter was motivated by concerns about working conditions. They have six months from June 17 to do so.

Published in: on June 18, 2022 at 5:52 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Unions Rising

In 1981, then President Ronald Reagan fired all 11,359 air traffic controllers. That event, though in the public sector, cast a damper on unions across the country. In the 1950’s union density, i.e. the number of persons who were members of or served by union, was about 35%. Today it has fallen to less than 10%. The 2021 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows overall unionization, including both public and private sector, to be10.3%, down from 10.8% a year earlier. Only 6% of private sector employees were represented by unions.

The U.S. union density stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world, where unionization is not denigrated in the way it often is in the United States. For example, union density in Iceland is 90.4%, in Italy it is 34.3%, and in Canada it is 25.9%.

There have been multiple causes of union decline, including decreased manufacturing in the United States, global competition, and labor decisions by a pro employer Labor Board. The biggest cause may be entrenched employer opposition to unions, an attitude showing in the 1981 action by then President Reagan.

Recently, however, there has been a reawakening of unions and unionization. It appears to have begun with the Retail Workers (the “RWDSU” or the “Union”) attempt to organize employees at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama. The Union lost the election with employees voting 2 to 1 against unionization, but the Union promptly filed unfair labor practice and election interference charges with the National Labor Relations Board. The Board ordered a new election.

The second election was held in March and again the Union lost by a vote of 993 to 875, though 2375 ballots were cast. Interestingly 6,153 were eligible to vote. At the moment we have no data as to why so many persons refrained from voting. Many ballots have been challenged, so the final vote cannot be determined until the NLRB holds a hearing to examine the challenged ballots.

Once again the union charged Amazon with unlawful interference with the election so it appears the election could be run again. Among other things, the Union has charged Amazon with suspending an employee whose photograph with evidence of the employee’s support for the Union appeared on union literature. The RWDSU also says a supervisor retaliated against employees for wearing pro-union buttons and expressing support for the Union, one going so far to tell a pro-union employee not to speak to her because “she’s with the devil.” The Union also alleges that Amazon threatened to close the warehouse if the employees voted for the Union, all of which actions are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act.

Amazon has also used captive audience meetings, where employees on work time are obligated to attend meetings in which Amazon spoke to them about why they should not join the Union.

In the meantime, one Amazon warehouse on Staten Island has been unionized by a clear vote of the employees. The employees were organized around a union created in house for a specific warehouse. They cleverly solicited employees to support the union by setting up an operation just outside the Amazon property.

Amazon’s tactics are not new or unusual. They are quite common in union campaigns, although the current General Counsel of the NLRB is seeking to restrict the acts of employers to a far greater extent than her predecessors of recent years.

Not so long ago, the idea of organizing a union in any Amazon facility would have sounded like a pipe dream. Now, however, one warehouse stands as a symbol of success so Amazon may no longer be seen as impenetrable.

In the meantime, Starbucks stores are being unionized one by one at amazing speed.

There is an old adage among labor lawyers: “Show me a strong union and I will show you bad management.” Although Starbucks has long been viewed as a good employer, the union drives have shown another side of Starbucks. The adage may simple be universally true.

Published in: on May 22, 2022 at 4:26 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,
« Older Entries