{"id":126508,"date":"2021-04-18T15:17:52","date_gmt":"2021-04-18T15:17:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/radiofree.asia\/?guid=81ed0d3194ffcf38929220887968aad0"},"modified":"2021-04-18T15:17:52","modified_gmt":"2021-04-18T15:17:52","slug":"democrat-opposed-to-the-pro-act-was-showered-with-cash-from-amazon-executives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/04\/18\/democrat-opposed-to-the-pro-act-was-showered-with-cash-from-amazon-executives\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrat Opposed to the PRO Act Was Showered With Cash From Amazon Executives"},"content":{"rendered":"\"Sen.<\/a>

Tactics used by Amazon to defeat the union organizing drive at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse have highlighted the need for Democrats to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). The legislation is a sweeping proposal that would implement the strongest protections for workers since 1935, when collective bargaining itself was first given legal protection in the United States.<\/p>\n

If signed into law, the PRO Act would impose tougher restrictions on management during union election campaigns. The legislation would stop companies from forcing workers to hear anti-union propaganda at so-called captive audience meetings. It would ban managers from influencing the size of the bargaining unit sought by union organizers, and would prohibit stall tactics designed to allow managers to wage fearmongering campaigns to scare workers out of voting for union representation. Amazon employed<\/a> all of these tactics<\/a> in the run-up to the union certification vote at Bessemer, and was also accused<\/a> by organizers with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU) of engaging in tactics that are already illegal under current law. The PRO Act would drastically increase the consequences<\/a> for companies found guilty of committing unfair labor practices during organizing drives. <\/p>\n

But while the struggle in Bessemer showcased how the PRO Act would drastically benefit workers in the U.S., the struggle to pass the legislation itself highlights the power of Amazon, which has grown in recent years to become the second-largest<\/a> employer and the second-largest<\/a> spender on lobbying in the U.S. The PRO Act is supported by President Biden. It has passed the House. But currently, it only has the support of 46 out of 50 Democrats in the equally-divided Senate. Of the four Democrats resisting calls to cosponsor the PRO Act, two faced election campaigns last year: Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) and Mark Warner (D-Virginia). They both received significant campaign donations from individuals employed by Amazon. Kelly received $139,270<\/a>, and Warner received $44,896<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While Kelly received more money from individuals employed by the firm, the money<\/a> given to Warner is particularly illuminating. It came almost exclusively from the top echelons of Amazon: prominent executives such as Jay Carney and David Clark, two men who earned notoriety on social media in recent weeks for attacking pro-RWDSU lawmakers. Clark, in particular, was the subject of ridicule for claiming<\/a> that Amazon was \u201cthe Bernie Sanders of employers\u201d because it pays workers a minimum of $15\/hour. In reality, Amazon’s market power pushes down wages in warehouses throughout the logistics industry, and only four other companies have more employees on food stamps, according to a Bloomberg<\/em> analysis<\/a> published in December.<\/p>\n

The deluge of money from Amazon executives like Clark came after Warner supported Virginia officials flooding Amazon with subsidies in exchange for the company placing its second headquarters (HQ2) in northern Virginia. Amazon decided on moving part of its HQ2 to Crystal City, Virginia, after a lengthy process that involved local jurisdictions publicly competing with one another to offer the company publicly funded giveaways (Carney was described by CNBC<\/em> as the \u201carchitect<\/a>\u201d of the plan). The contest started in September 2017, and ended more than a year later in November 2018, with Amazon choosing locations in Crystal City, a suburb of Washington, D.C., and Long Island City, New York, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Queens.<\/p>\n

The company withdrew its plans to move part of its HQ2 to Queens, however, after a backlash<\/a> from local officials. Progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were outraged at the likelihood of longtime residents being displaced by well-paid techies coming from outside of the community to take jobs — in plans fueled by billions in subsidies to boost the net revenue of an incredibly profitable company run by Jeff Bezos, the world’s wealthiest man. But while both U.S. senators from New York met the outcome of the HQ2 competition with silence<\/a>, the same couldn’t be said for their counterparts from Virginia, who were elated. Warner was particularly vocal, releasing a statement<\/a> immediately after the announcement saying that he was \u201creally excited\u201d about the Crystal City plans. Later that morning, he appeared<\/a> at a Yahoo Finance<\/em> summit where he fist-pumped when the publication’s editor-in-chief, Andy Serwer, brought up the HQ2 news.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis process is probably the most unique kind of economic development, where the whole county is chasing it,\u201d Warner said, hinting that the HQ2 announcement would likely be followed by news from Virginia Tech University, a publicly run institution, about the establishment of a new campus in northern Virginia, which would be built specifically to complement the Amazon facility. Warner then conceded, when asked by Serwer, that he wasn’t aware how much these Amazon developments would cost the public. \u201cI’ve not actually gone through all the particulars of the announcement,\u201d he said. \u201cI’m sure Amazon extracted a good deal for themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n