Introduction
It is important to note that organizational conflicts are common, and they can range from minor workplace disputes to large movements and strikes. Any conflict resolution requires some form of negotiation, which might benefit both sides or causes mutual dissatisfaction. The given analysis will primarily focus on the recent case of the Amazon Labor Union. Amazon, the largest retailer in the US, is a well-known company, which focuses on efficiency above all else, and the latter includes working conditions for warehouse workers.
Continuous mistreatment of workers for the sake of efficiency led to highly controversial and even unethical practices of exploitation. Some reports even suggest that warehouse workers were not given enough time to go to the bathroom (Kelly, 2021). A reduction in pay, cuts in benefits, highly stressful work schedules, and intentional high worker turnover were all implemented to increase efficiency (Kelly, 2021). Thus, the unbearable work conditions made warehouse workers eager to seek a solution, which was forming a union.
Another important piece of background information about the Amazon Labor Union is the process of unionization itself. One should be aware that the United States is among the few developed nations where there is a strong anti-union force in many large business sectors. Union busting is a practice where any thoughts and plans to form a union are fought aggressively against by the company, even by hiring specialists (Durrenberger & Doukas, 2017). Therefore, Amazon, which invested a substantial sum of money in union busting, failed to suppress the formation of the Amazon Labor Union.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Strategies
Amazon Labor Union is an outcome of two major conflict management approaches, which were used in two different phases of the conflict. There are five major methods of conflict management, which include avoidance, competition, accommodation, compromise, and collaboration (Patterson et al., 2011). The first one was used under the leadership of Jeff Bezos, where the technique can only be described as avoidance.
The company ignored any considerations or possibilities to address the workers’ complaints about the efficiency-driven work environment and pace. The second method was the competing style, and it is used to advocate for one’s needs over the needs of another party (Apipalakul & Kummoon, 2017). Such an aggressive style of conflict management was manifested in continuous attempts of union busting to prevent the workers from unionizing.
Therefore, the form of a dialogue between employees and management can be defined as hostile, where warehouse workers spoke from the heart while the company attempted to avoid and suppress their voices (Patterson et al., 2011). There was no mutually shared meaning developed during the conversations so far because it is an ongoing process due to differences in power.
However, it is stated that Amazon Labor Union will force Amazon to “reassess its labor relations strategy” (Levy & Palmer, 2022, para. 1). In other words, the third conflict management method will likely be observed during the negotiations between the union and the company to resolve differences, which is compromise. It is expected that some form of shared meaning will be developed during the conversations as a result since workers’ concerns will be factored in Amazon’s prioritizations of its strategy.
Before the formation of the union, Amazon was not as open to negotiations as the workers, which is why the union was formed. The company used an approach where it incentivized high employee turnover in order to avoid the accumulation of resentment and dissatisfaction among the warehouse workers (Kelly, 2021). The hidden agenda was present on the side of the company since it wanted efficiency above all else, which meant that harsh working conditions were intentional.
Employees also developed a hidden agenda after several failed attempts to improve their work conditions, which morphed into unionization. Thus, it is safe to state that there was no sense of mutual purpose in the negotiations, and it was communicated through worker strikes and union busting from the other. It is reported that “Amazon has been using anti-union consultants for nearly two decades, defeating efforts to unionize in Britain in 2004 and Virginia in 2016, and releasing an anti-union training video in 2018” (Tiku et al., 2022, para. 18). A wide range of union busting techniques were examples of communicating the competing conflict management style, such as company anti-union training or bathroom brochures.
Under such a competition-based conflict management approach utilized by Amazon, no sage environment was created. The main reason is the fact that such a strategy requires the sides to advocate for their own interests and needs only by imposing them on the opposing party. It is stated that a mutually beneficial dialogue requires the use of two levers, which include looking and safety (Patterson et al., 2011).
Amazon did not look at the problem and used an avoidance strategy by increasing worker turnover, which indicates the failure to use the first lever. Next, after the problem could not be ignored, the company failed to ensure a ‘safe’ environment for the dialogue, which prevented the free flow of meaning (Patterson et al., 2011). The result was the fact that no side truly mastered their crucial conversations (Patterson et al., 2011).
The emotions were not eliminated or reduced from the conversation, which was reflected in worker strikes and union busting. Both sides were driven by hostile emotions towards each other’s demands. There was no environment of real, open, and honest communication. Thus, no serious attempt was made to understand the other party’s true feelings.
Resolution Impacts
The method of decision-making that was utilized to reach an agreeable resolution to the conflict was a command. It is reported that “workers at a New York warehouse voted 55% in favor of joining the Amazon Labor Union” (Sherman, 2022, para. 2). Although one might confuse the labor union voting with the voting decision-making method, it is important to understand that command took place in reality.
It is stated that “either outside forces place demands on us (demands that leave us no wiggle room), or we turn decisions over to others and then follow their lead” (Patterson et al., 2011, p. 155). The side of the workers won in the voting process, which forced the company to recognize the union through the legislative processes. In other words, Amazon was commanded to accept the warehouse workers’ desire and demand for unionization.
The resolution impacts the company on three major organizational systems or levels. Firstly, the New York branch or department of Amazon will be forced to compromise and collaborate with the local warehouse workers represented by the Amazon Labor Union. Secondly, the functional changes will be manifested as a result, where the company’s strategy of efficiency will require reevaluation of its priorities. Thirdly, unionization will impact the company’s outcomes in other regions because other departments, branches, and warehouses will likely demand unionization as well.
The command decision-making was made by the law in favor of the labor union, which meant that the company had to comply with and recognize the Amazon Labor Union. Since both Amazon and workers did not have full authority to impose their demands on each other, a third-party decision-maker was invited as an enforcer. In the given case, command decision-making catalyzes a full reversal of the power held by each side.
During the avoidance and competing phases of the conflict, Amazon held most of the power to force the workers to operate as efficiently as possible. The latter meant that their working conditions were harsh and even unacceptable. After the union was recognized, the workers could negotiate on an equal level, which translated into better work conditions. It should be noted that the mere emergence of a union in the US is a massive victory for the employees since it will initiate the cascade of more union formations across multiple regions. It can even spill over to different companies, sectors, and industries.
Although Amazon Labor Union’s case is about command decision-making on a legal basis, a vote should also be addressed due to union voting. An agreeable resolution to the conflict between Amazon and warehouse workers had some elements of voting because the company had a fixed approach toward unionization.
Therefore, the flexibility of decision-making was only left to workers primarily, where the voting process determined the course of action. Under such circumstances, “members of the team realize they may not get their first choice, but frankly, they don’t want to waste time talking the issue to death” (Patterson et al., 2011, p. 155). Despite massive efforts on Amazon’s side to conduct union-busting measures, workers persevered under such pressure and voted in favor of the Amazon Labor Union.
Feedback
Three relevant theories supporting conflict resolution practices include the dual concern model, conflict resolution curve, and strategy of conflict. The latter is based on game theory and was developed by Thomas Crombie Schelling, where it is stated collaboration never lasts due to constant shifts in interests (Pruitt, 2018). Amazon Labor Union’s case clearly exemplifies the given theoretical framework because both sides were acting rationally to seek their own interests. As soon as the company pushed workers beyond the tolerable point, accommodation from the workers shifted into a command.
The second important and relevant theory is the conflict resolution curve or CRC. It is stated that CRC “separates conflict styles into two separate domains: domain of competing entities and domain of accommodating entities” (Das, 2018, p. 1). The given concept is also applicable to the selected case, where workers accommodated Amazon’s interests before the unionization. However, the unionization resolution led to a transition or reversal, where the company became the accommodating entity and workers became the competing one.
The third critical theory is the dual concern model, from which avoidance, competition, accommodation, compromise, and collaboration conflict styles are derived. The initiative will result in improved organizational alignment because the voices and concerns of the workers will be finally heard and addressed by the company. Amazon will be forced to align its interests with the needs of employees, making proper reprioritization changes in the efficiency-based strategy.
Instruments
Three feedback instruments used in the assessment and evaluation phases of the initiative include employee retention rate, union-busting spending, and union voting count. For the avoidance phase of the conflict, it is stated that Amazon’s management had “an unusually high rate of turnover among its hourly associates — around 150% a year, even before the pandemic” (Brancaccio et al., 2021, para. 1). In other words, when the feedback tool on employee retention or turnover rate is applied to Amazon, it becomes clear that removing warehouse workers at a faster pace was suitable for avoidance. The latter prevented employees from becoming united and dissatisfied to the extent that they were willing to take action.
The second feedback tool is union-busting spending, which is used to evaluate the company’s feedback during the competing phase. It is reported that Amazon was “spending up to $100,000 per month on anti-union consultants” (DeGeurin, 2022, para. 1). In other words, substantial sums of money were being spent on union busting in Staten Island. The instrument provides a direct evaluation to observe the degree of competing style implemented by Amazon. The third feedback instrument is the union voting count, which was 55% in New York (Sherman, 2022). Assessing the competing stage with the use of this tool reveals that the company’s efforts failed to prevent the unionization and formation of the Amazon Labor Union.
Each of these feedback instruments used in the assessment and evaluation phases of the initiative will be interpreted) as a value-added activity since they reflect the extent of each side during two conflict management styles. Both union-busting spending and employee turnover rate can be interpreted to see value added to the avoidance and competing conflict as well as negotiation efforts.
However, the voting count of workers adds value towards a better understanding of discontent and unwillingness to accommodate among employees. All of these elements put together enable both sides to reach an agreement, which is the formation of the Amazon Labor Union. Although the agreement was forced by the law, the strategy of competing and avoiding was chosen by Amazon. It is possible that unionization would not take place if the company compromised its efficiency in favor of workers before they wanted to form a union.
Therefore, conflict resolution methods for Amazon can be divided into two types. These are ways of resolving legal conflicts with recourse to legal mechanisms, such as a trade union, and alternative ways of resolving legal conflicts, such as negotiating and presenting workers’ demands. The subjective side of the conflict is directly related to certain psychological processes of self-regulation. There is a formation of the motives of the parties, their motives, needs, interests, and attitudes. In addition, there is the formation of goals and the adoption of strong-willed conflict decisions, and the development of a sequence of actions, a system of arguments, and arguments.
It should be noted that the subjective side can either be completely legal in nature or partially have legal aspects. The objective side of Amazon’s conflict is expressed in the relationship of the parties. It represents oppositely directed, meaningful actions of the parties to the conflict, expressed in active struggle and causing certain damage. The objective side of the conflict involves various behavioral forms of confrontation. These are legally significant actions, legally neutral ones, or a combination of both.
References
Apipalakul, C., & Kummoon, D. (2017). The effects of organizational climate to conflict management amongst organizational health personnel.Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1216–1222.
Brancaccio, D., Garretson, M., Conlon, R., & Shin, D. (2021). Is Amazon’s high turnover a huge red flag or the secret to its dominance?Marketplace.
Das, T. K. (2018). Conflict resolution curve: Concept and reality. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1, 1-5.
DeGeurin, M. (2022). Amazon reportedly considered spending $20,000 a week on consultants in failed Staten Island union busting.Gizmodo.
Durrenberger, P., & Doukas, D. (2017). Class in the USA.Dialectical Anthropology, 42(1), 1-13.
Kelly, J. (2021). A hard-hitting investigative report into Amazon shows that workers’ needs were neglected in favor of getting goods delivered quickly.Forbes.
Levy, A., & Palmer, A. (2022). Amazon workers just voted to join a union — here’s what happens next. CNBC.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2011). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. McGraw Hill Professional.
Pruitt, D. G. (2018). Tom Schelling’s contributions to conflict theory and research. Negotiation Journal, 34(3), 283–290.
Sherman, N. (2022). Amazon workers win battle to form first US union. BBC News.
Tiku, N., Albergotti, R., Jaffe, G., & Lerman, R. (2022). From Amazon to Apple, tech giants turn to old-school union-busting.Washington Post.