Alabama Vote Is the Latest in a Long String of Labor Defeats in the South

In spite of all the publicity, the union campaign at an Amazon warehouse was always an uphill battle.

The Amazon warehouse in Bessemer.Elijah Nouvelage/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The decision by workers at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, not to unionize comes as a defeat for organized laborā€”but not a surprise. We’ve been here before. 

Of the more than 2,500 ballots counted by the National Labor Relations Board in the first major union election in Amazon’s history, 70 percent were cast by workers who voted not to join the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union. Amazon’s victory is the latest in a long line of defeats for unions in the South.

In 2017, the United Auto Workers lost its effort to organize a Nissan plant in Canton, Mississippi. Like in Bessemer, the workers at that plant were overwhelmingly Black, and union supporters framed the election as part of the broader struggle for civil rights.

In 2019, the UAW lost again at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, following an anti-union campaign by the company. Five years before, the union had been defeated at the same factory, despite Volkswagen’s unusual move to remain neutral the first time around. 

Unions have fared better in smaller elections in the Deep South. Mississippi Public Broadcasting reported that workers have backed unionization in 70 percent of elections in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi since 2012ā€”but generally at workplaces with fewer than 100 employees.

During the lead-up to the Nissan election in Mississippi, civil rights veteran Frank Figgers told the Guardian, ā€œIā€™ve never seen a labor campaign of this size.” Bessemer ended up being far bigger. Following endorsements from celebrities, athletes, and progressive politicians, President Joe Biden took the rare step of effectively backing the unionization effort in late February. By late March, the union battle had been featured in more than 53,000 articles to unionization. It still wasn’t enough. 

Stringing together these defeats is the reality that companies like Amazon and Volkswagen are providing jobs with benefits in economically depressed areas. Compared to unionized shops, the pay and working conditions may not be particularly good. But Amazon’s $15.30 starting wage in Bessemer is still higher than the local averages in areas like retail and food service. 

At the start of the election, Bloomberg interviewed Eric Jones, a 51-year-old who’d started at Amazon in August after working as a cook. His pay had gone up by $2 an hour, but, perhaps more important, he no longer had to pay to see a doctor and had more flexible hours. He commuted two hours each way to get to the warehouse.

On top of those economic realities, Amazon fought unionization at every turn. It forced employees to attend anti-union meetings on company time, hired union-busting consultants, sent out barrages of texts urging workers to vote no, and launched a website called doitwithoutdues.com. 

Some of its tactics may prove to have been illegal, but much of it was allowed under the United States’ employer-friendly labor law. For union advocates, the loss is yet another reason for Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a sweeping set of labor reforms that would ban things like the meetings Amazon forced employees to attend. But the bill stands little chance of becoming law as long as the Senate filibuster remains in place. 

The defeats in recent years in the South are hardly new, either. After World War II, the Congress of Industrial Organizations launched Operation Dixie, its drive to organize workers in the region. In 1988, Barbara Griffith documented the failure of that effort in The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO.

Griffith wrote that without “a clear demonstration of the advantages of union membershipā€”one that did not exist in the Southā€”workers proved reluctant to risk the present for the unknown benefits of an uncertain future.” Nearly eight decades later, it’s a challenge that organizers are still trying to overcome.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate