Amazon Defeats Bessemer Union Vote 1,798 to 738 After Intensive Anti-Union Campaign

On April 9, 2021, vote counting concluded in the historic union election at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama warehouse (BHM1), with workers decisively rejecting unionization by a margin of 1,798 votes against to 738 votes in favor—a crushing defeat for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) after months of intensive organizing. The outcome followed Amazon’s aggressive multi-million dollar anti-union campaign featuring mandatory captive-audience meetings, constant anti-union text messages, bathroom stall propaganda, and the controversial installation of a USPS mailbox in the warehouse parking lot. The defeat stunned labor advocates who had viewed the Bessemer campaign as a potential breakthrough for unionizing Amazon’s warehouse workforce, and it demonstrated the overwhelming effectiveness of corporate union-busting tactics even when workers faced grueling conditions and had legitimate grievances. However, the RWDSU immediately filed objections alleging Amazon had illegally interfered with the election, setting the stage for a NLRB investigation that would later vindicate these claims and order a new election.

The Vote Count and Margin

The National Labor Relations Board conducted the vote count from April 8-9, 2021, tabulating mail ballots that workers had returned during the voting period. Out of approximately 5,800 eligible voters at the BHM1 facility:

• Against union: 1,798 votes (70.9% of votes cast)
• For union: 738 votes (29.1% of votes cast)
• Total votes cast: Approximately 2,536 (roughly 44% turnout)
• Challenged ballots: 505 ballots challenged, primarily by Amazon

The more than 2-to-1 margin against unionization represented a decisive defeat that significantly exceeded what Amazon needed to win. Even if every challenged ballot had been counted for the union, the outcome would not have changed. The low turnout suggested many workers chose not to participate, possibly due to intimidation, confusion, or belief that the election was futile given Amazon’s overwhelming campaign.

Amazon’s Victory Statement

After the vote count, Amazon issued a triumphant statement: “We’re not surprised by this outcome because it’s been clear that our team did not want a union. It’s easy to predict the endgame when you start with the wrong assumptions. We’re glad that our employees were able to have their voices heard. Our employees have always had the choice of whether or not to join a union, but they’ve overwhelmingly chosen to have a direct relationship with their managers and Amazon.”

The statement’s framing was revealing:

• Amazon claimed workers “did not want a union” without acknowledging its multi-million dollar campaign to ensure that outcome
• The reference to “wrong assumptions” appeared to criticize union organizers and labor advocates who had believed workers might vote to organize
• Amazon emphasized “direct relationship with their managers,” reinforcing its opposition to collective representation
• The company ignored allegations it had illegally interfered with workers’ free choice

Union Response and Objections Filed

RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum responded to the defeat by immediately challenging the election’s legitimacy: “Amazon has left no stone unturned in its efforts to gaslight its own employees. We won’t let Amazon’s lies, deception and illegal activities go unchallenged. Amazon workers deserve to have a voice at work, which only a union can provide.”

The RWDSU filed 23 objections to the election with the NLRB, alleging:

• Amazon illegally pressured the U.S. Postal Service to install a mailbox in the warehouse parking lot, creating the impression Amazon was monitoring the vote
• The mailbox was positioned under Amazon’s surveillance cameras
• Amazon engaged in illegal surveillance of worker organizing activities
• Amazon unlawfully threatened workers that the facility might close if they unionized
• Mandatory captive-audience meetings created a coercive atmosphere
• Amazon’s anti-union campaign exceeded legal bounds and interfered with workers’ free choice

The union argued that Amazon’s tactics had made a free and fair election impossible, and requested the NLRB order a new election under conditions that would allow workers to make an uncoerced choice.

Why Did Workers Vote No?

The decisive defeat raised difficult questions about why workers facing harsh conditions voted against unionization:

1. Amazon’s Overwhelming Campaign Amazon’s multi-million dollar campaign created an environment where workers were constantly exposed to anti-union messaging. The combination of mandatory meetings, hourly text messages, omnipresent signage, and management pressure made it extremely difficult for workers to resist Amazon’s messaging or hear pro-union arguments.

2. Fear of Retaliation and Job Loss Workers testified that Amazon managers had suggested the facility might close if workers unionized. Even though such threats are illegal, they are difficult to prove and can be highly effective. Many workers may have feared that voting for the union, even in a secret ballot, could somehow lead to losing their jobs—either through facility closure or through Amazon identifying and retaliating against union supporters.

3. Skepticism About Union Effectiveness Amazon’s messaging that unions couldn’t guarantee improvements may have resonated with workers, particularly in Alabama where union membership is low and many workers have no experience with collective bargaining. Workers may have doubted the union could deliver on promises to improve conditions, especially given Amazon’s enormous power and resources.

4. Confusion About Union Dues Amazon’s DoItWithoutDues.com website and constant messaging about union dues may have convinced workers they would be forced to pay approximately $500/year in dues. This was misleading because Alabama is a Right to Work state where workers cannot be required to pay dues, but many workers may not have understood this legal distinction.

5. Starting Wage Messaging Amazon’s emphasis on its $15/hour starting wage—roughly double Alabama’s $7.25 minimum wage—may have convinced some workers they were already well-compensated despite brutal working conditions. Workers without comparison points may not have realized that $15/hour was inadequate compensation for the physical demands and productivity pressure of Amazon warehouse work.

6. Anti-Union Cultural Factors Alabama is a conservative state with weak labor traditions and low union membership (approximately 5-6% of workers). Cultural skepticism toward unions and association of union organizing with liberal politics may have influenced some workers to oppose unionization based on political or cultural identity rather than workplace conditions.

7. Isolation and Turnover Amazon’s high turnover rates and the isolating nature of warehouse work made it difficult for union supporters to build solidarity. Workers might not know many coworkers well, making it hard to organize collectively or trust that others would support the union.

Labor Advocates’ Reactions: Disappointment and Determination

The defeat devastated labor advocates who had invested enormous hope in the Bessemer campaign as a potential breakthrough for unionizing Amazon’s warehouse workforce:

National Labor Leaders: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stated: “Today’s disappointing vote shows how the deck is stacked against working people when they’re exercising their constitutional right to organize their workplace.” Labor leaders emphasized that the defeat reflected broken labor law rather than workers’ genuine preferences.

Progressive Politicians: Senator Bernie Sanders, who had visited Bessemer to support the union drive, condemned Amazon’s tactics and called for labor law reform to prevent corporations from overwhelming worker organizing with unlimited resources.

Labor Researchers: Academics studying union elections noted that Amazon’s campaign exemplified how existing labor law allows employers to dominate the information environment during organizing campaigns, making free choice nearly impossible when corporations deploy unlimited resources for union suppression.

Renewed Focus on Labor Law Reform: The defeat energized calls for passage of the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize Act), which would strengthen workers’ organizing rights, limit mandatory captive-audience meetings, impose penalties for illegal union-busting, and establish card-check recognition to bypass NLRB elections entirely.

Amazon Workers’ Perspectives

Post-election interviews with Bessemer workers revealed complex views:

Union Supporters: Workers who had supported the union expressed frustration and disappointment but not surprise. They described feeling overwhelmed by Amazon’s campaign and isolated from coworkers. Some reported coworkers had been afraid to support the union openly, making it difficult to build solidarity.

Union Opponents: Some workers who voted against the union genuinely believed they were better off with direct relationships with management, feared union dues or bureaucracy, or felt Amazon’s wages and benefits were adequate. Others may have opposed the union but were unwilling to say so publicly, making it difficult to assess authentic sentiment.

Non-Voters: Workers who didn’t vote cited confusion about the process, belief that the outcome was predetermined, or fear that their ballots weren’t truly secret despite assurances.

Significance: Corporate Power Over Worker Organizing

The Bessemer defeat demonstrated the overwhelming advantage corporations possess in union elections under current labor law:

Resource Asymmetry: Amazon spent millions on lawyers, consultants, and propaganda while the union operated on a limited budget with volunteer organizers. This resource imbalance allowed Amazon to dominate the information environment and overwhelm workers with constant anti-union messaging.

Captive-Audience Advantage: Amazon’s ability to hold mandatory meetings on company time gave it direct access to workers that unions could not match. Workers who might have wanted to learn about the union had no equivalent opportunity to hear pro-union arguments in a structured setting.

Legal Gray Areas: Many of Amazon’s tactics, while aggressive and arguably coercive, were technically legal under existing labor law. Even tactics that were illegal (like the mailbox installation) occurred during the election and influenced the outcome before any NLRB ruling could remedy the interference.

Fear as Union-Busting Tool: Amazon’s campaign created an atmosphere of fear—fear of job loss, fear of facility closure, fear of retaliation—that made it extremely difficult for workers to exercise their legal right to organize even when they faced harsh conditions.

Foreshadowing: The Fight Would Continue

Despite the decisive defeat, the RWDSU’s objections would prove prescient. In August 2021, an NLRB hearing officer would recommend a new election, finding that Amazon’s mailbox installation and other tactics had illegally interfered with workers’ free choice. The NLRB would order a second election in November 2021, which would take place in early 2022.

Meanwhile, across the country at Amazon’s Staten Island JFK8 facility, a former worker named Christian Smalls—fired by Amazon in March 2020 for organizing a COVID safety protest—was building an independent union effort that would succeed where Bessemer had failed, winning a historic union election in April 2022.

The Bessemer defeat was crushing, but it was not the end of the story. It instead revealed both the enormous obstacles workers faced in organizing against Amazon’s power, and the determination of workers and labor advocates to continue fighting despite overwhelming corporate opposition.