Amazon Launches Massive Anti-Union Campaign at Bessemer Alabama Warehouse

In early February 2021, Amazon launched one of the most aggressive and expensive anti-union campaigns in recent U.S. labor history, spending millions of dollars on consultants, lawyers, and captive-audience meetings to defeat a unionization effort at its Bessemer, Alabama warehouse (BHM1). The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) had filed for a union election representing approximately 5,800 workers, and Amazon responded with overwhelming force: mandatory weekly anti-union meetings, a sophisticated website spreading disinformation, anti-union texts sent every 30 minutes, anti-union messages in bathroom stalls and hallways, and the controversial installation of a USPS mailbox in the warehouse parking lot that the NLRB would later rule constituted illegal election interference. Amazon hired approximately a dozen attorneys from elite anti-union law firms Morgan Lewis and Constangy Brooks, likely paying several million dollars in legal fees alone, and deployed union-busting consultants to flood the warehouse with anti-union propaganda. The campaign demonstrated Amazon’s willingness to deploy unlimited resources to prevent workers from organizing, even in a Deep South state with weak labor traditions where union success seemed unlikely.

Background: The Bessemer Organizing Drive

The Bessemer warehouse, known as BHM1, opened in March 2020 during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers at the facility quickly became frustrated with:

• Grueling productivity quotas requiring workers to process hundreds of items per hour
• Limited bathroom breaks, with workers reporting they sometimes urinated in bottles to avoid time off task
• Intensive electronic surveillance tracking workers’ movements and productivity constantly
• Allegedly inadequate COVID-19 safety measures during a deadly pandemic
• Starting wages of $15/hour that workers felt were inadequate for the physically demanding work
• High injury rates typical of Amazon warehouses

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) began organizing workers in summer 2020, and by November had gathered enough authorization cards to petition the NLRB for a union election. The NLRB initially scheduled an in-person election, but due to COVID-19 concerns, ultimately ordered a mail ballot election with ballots sent to workers in early February 2021.

The DoItWithoutDues.com Website

On December 31, 2020, Amazon launched a slick, professionally designed website at DoItWithoutDues.com filled with anti-union messaging disguised as providing workers with “facts” about unionization. The website made misleading claims, including:

The Dues Deception: The site’s name and primary messaging focused on union dues, warning workers they would pay approximately $500 per year in dues if they unionized. This was particularly misleading because Alabama is a “Right to Work” state where workers cannot be required to pay union dues even if they benefit from union representation. Amazon’s messaging falsely implied workers would be forced to pay dues, exploiting worker confusion about labor law.

Threat of Job Loss: The website suggested unionization could lead to the facility closing, stating unions couldn’t guarantee job security and implying Amazon might shut down the warehouse if workers organized.

Claims of Unnecessary Union: Amazon argued workers didn’t need a union because the company already provided competitive wages ($15/hour minimum), health benefits, and career advancement opportunities—claims many workers disputed based on their actual experiences with brutal working conditions and limited advancement.

The website represented a sophisticated disinformation campaign, using professional design and misleading claims to discourage workers from supporting the union.

Captive-Audience Meetings: Mandatory Anti-Union Propaganda

Amazon’s most powerful tool was mandatory “captive-audience meetings” where workers were required to attend anti-union presentations during their paid shifts. Beginning in late January and continuing weekly until ballots were mailed in early February, Amazon subjected workers to approximately 30-minute PowerPoint presentations discouraging unionization.

Meeting Content and Coercion:

• Workers had no choice but to attend—refusing would be treated as insubordination
• Amazon representatives presented anti-union arguments and answered questions in a controlled environment where workers might fear retaliation for expressing pro-union views
• Workers testified that managers said the facility “could shut down” if workers voted for the union—a thinly veiled threat prohibited under labor law
• The meetings created an intimidating atmosphere where Amazon’s opposition to the union was unmistakably clear

Legal Status: Captive-audience meetings occupy a gray area in labor law. While employers have free speech rights to express views on unionization, mandatory meetings where workers face implicit coercion arguably interfere with workers’ free choice. In 2022, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a memo arguing captive-audience meetings should be illegal, but as of the Bessemer campaign, they remained a common and legal union-busting tactic.

Constant Anti-Union Messaging: Texts, Signs, and Bathroom Stalls

Amazon saturated the workplace with anti-union propaganda:

Text Messages: Workers reported receiving anti-union text messages every 30 minutes during the campaign period—a relentless barrage of messaging that made it impossible to avoid Amazon’s anti-union pressure. The texts repeated claims about union dues, questioned the union’s ability to deliver improvements, and urged workers to vote no.

Physical Signage: Amazon posted anti-union signs throughout the facility:

• In hallways workers passed through constantly
• In bathroom stalls where workers had moments of privacy
• At time clocks where workers punched in and out
• Near break areas and cafeterias

The omnipresent messaging created an environment where workers could not escape Amazon’s anti-union campaign, even in spaces that should have offered brief respite from work pressure.

The Mailbox Controversy

Perhaps Amazon’s most controversial tactic was arranging for the U.S. Postal Service to install a mailbox in the warehouse parking lot. Because the NLRB had ordered a mail ballot election, workers would vote by returning ballots through the mail. Amazon claimed it requested the mailbox to make voting “convenient” for workers.

Why This Was Problematic:

• The mailbox was installed in January 2021 at Amazon’s specific request to USPS
• It was located in the warehouse parking lot under Amazon’s surveillance cameras
• The mailbox was inside a tent in Amazon’s controlled property
• Workers testified they felt their votes were being monitored because the mailbox was on Amazon property rather than at a neutral location
• The placement created the impression that Amazon, rather than the independent NLRB, was conducting the election

The NLRB would later rule this mailbox installation constituted illegal election interference that created a coercive atmosphere undermining workers’ free choice. But during the actual election, the mailbox stood as a daily reminder of Amazon’s presence and power over the voting process.

Legal Representation and Consultant Spending

Amazon hired elite union-busting legal and consulting firms:

Morgan Lewis: A major corporate law firm with extensive union avoidance practice. The firm’s attorneys specialize in defeating union campaigns and charge hourly rates of several hundred dollars or more.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete: Another major union avoidance firm with expertise in defeating organizing campaigns.

Labor researchers estimate Amazon likely paid several million dollars in legal fees alone to these firms during the Bessemer campaign. This doesn’t include spending on consultants, the DoItWithoutDues.com website, signage, or the thousands of hours Amazon managers spent in captive-audience meetings and anti-union activities.

The massive spending demonstrated Amazon’s calculation that investing millions to prevent unionization was worthwhile compared to the potential costs of recognizing a union and negotiating a contract that might improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Worker Experiences of the Campaign

Workers who supported the union described feeling overwhelmed and intimidated by Amazon’s campaign:

Constant Pressure: The combination of mandatory meetings, constant text messages, and omnipresent signage created an atmosphere where Amazon’s opposition was impossible to ignore. Workers who might have been curious about the union faced unrelenting messaging that unionization would be dangerous or futile.

Fear of Retaliation: Even though firing workers for union support is illegal, workers testified they feared supporting the union openly because Amazon’s aggressive campaign signaled the company would not tolerate organizing. Some workers reported pro-union coworkers being pulled into meetings with managers—interactions that felt like intimidation even if managers didn’t explicitly threaten them.

Confusion About Rights: Many workers were unclear about their legal rights regarding union organizing, and Amazon’s messaging exploited this confusion. Workers weren’t sure whether they could legally be required to pay union dues (they couldn’t, in Alabama’s Right to Work state), or whether Amazon could legally close the facility if they unionized (probably not, but difficult to prove).

Isolation of Union Supporters: The intensity of Amazon’s campaign made it difficult for union supporters to communicate with coworkers. Workers who wanted to organize had to overcome not just Amazon’s opposition, but the constant anti-union messaging their coworkers were receiving.

Public Relations and Political Dimensions

Amazon’s campaign extended beyond the warehouse:

Political Outreach: Alabama is a conservative state where unions have limited political support. Amazon’s messaging aligned with conservative skepticism toward organized labor, potentially resonating with workers’ political identities.

Media Strategy: Amazon granted media access to its facilities and presented its case publicly, attempting to shape coverage of the campaign. The company emphasized its $15 minimum wage and benefits, attempting to blunt criticism that workers needed a union to improve conditions.

National Attention: Despite Amazon’s efforts, the Bessemer campaign attracted enormous national media attention. Labor advocates, progressive politicians, and celebrities expressed support for the unionization effort, creating public pressure on Amazon. However, this national attention also potentially created a backlash, with some Alabama workers resenting outside involvement in what they viewed as a local decision.

The Scale of the Campaign

The Bessemer anti-union campaign was remarkable for its intensity and cost:

• Duration: Months of sustained pressure from late 2020 through April 2021
• Resources: Millions of dollars spent on lawyers, consultants, website development, messaging, and manager time
• Pervasiveness: Workers could not escape anti-union messaging whether in meetings, on their phones, in bathrooms, or walking through the facility
• Legal gray areas: Amazon pushed legal boundaries with tactics like the mailbox installation that the NLRB would later rule illegal

Significance: Union Busting at Industrial Scale

The Bessemer campaign demonstrated how wealthy corporations can deploy overwhelming resources to defeat union campaigns even when workers have legitimate grievances. Amazon’s spending vastly outpaced the RWDSU’s resources, creating a fundamentally unequal contest where corporate power could flood the workplace with professional propaganda while workers organizing for the union had to communicate through informal networks and limited union resources.

The campaign revealed the limitations of existing labor law in protecting workers’ free choice. Even though workers have a legal right to organize, Amazon’s aggressive tactics—mandatory meetings, constant messaging, psychological pressure—created an environment where exercising that right became extremely difficult. The mailbox installation showed Amazon willing to risk NLRB sanctions in pursuit of victory, calculating that illegal tactics might succeed in defeating the union even if later overturned.

The Bessemer campaign would ultimately succeed in defeating the union vote in April 2021, though the NLRB would later order a new election due to Amazon’s illegal conduct. The campaign established a template for aggressive union suppression that Amazon would deploy in future organizing efforts, while also galvanizing labor advocates’ determination to reform labor law to prevent such overwhelming employer interference in workers’ organizing rights.