Ikea locked workers into a room and forced them to watch "scaremongering" anti-union powerpoints

Unfortunately, the BBS can’t fix the whole of Amurica…


Companies cannot Threaten, intimidate, promise or spy (TIPS) on unionization efforts. Doing so leads to legitimate NLRB complaints, lawsuits and fines (along with potentially having the NLRB run the election). But, that said, under dRumph - all that gets tossed and ignored.

edit to correct spelling


‘Videoing is not allowed at this venue’
‘Love the game, totally addicting.’

I had one at my 2nd job interview at Best Buy. Also had to argue for ten cents so my pay would match my last job at Sears, which they told me at the first interview that they’d match. During the interview, another applicant bonded with our interviewer over what a genius Tony Robbins was. These were all signs.

1 Like

I work in this store, there were no anti union meetings. No one was locked in a room to watch any anti union PowerPoint
I’m all for a union in my store but it needs to represent all my coworkers not just one department.

The UFCW is a pretty broadbased union along the industrial model instead of the craft model, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Do you mean because it was a certain group (good-flow employees) who wanted to be part of the UFCW as opposed to everyone? Wouldn’t that normally be the first step to a broader representation on the shop floor?

And maybe when you got hired they weren’t doing that, and they started doing it after you were, because there was a unionization drive? That tends to be when these tactics are employed, when employees actively start trying to bring in union representation.

[ETA: edited for clarity]


I’ve been in the store for 8 years and and I have worked along side the goods flow team for years. The union is just throwing a temper tantrum because they lost the vote.

Could it be that they lost the vote due to management opposing it and using strong arm tactics (which is what they’re alleging)? If you personally weren’t part of the vote, are you sure that those voting for the union weren’t strong armed? It’s not like there isn’t precedence for that.

Also, were YOU asked to vote? You noted above, you’re generally in favor of unions.


I was not part of the vote as I was not not in the goods flow department. There were no strong arm tactics. There was information from the union posted in Co worker areas that didn’t get taken down. Members of this union were also calling coworkers at home harassing them to vote yes even though they were not part of the goods flow team.

I got 3 phone calls in one night before I told them I would report them to the police for harassment.

Okay. Thanks for letting us know your experiences with this situation.

[ETA] Although I do have a follow up question, in this case, now that I’m thinking about it… you said that you were pro-union, but that you didn’t want them calling you to get you to vote, which that’s fair enough, work is work and home is home, right?

But I guess I’m confused here - was this vote only for the good flow team, or was it a store wide vote (all non-management positions)? I guess I found it unclear from both the article and your comments? So, just for clarification, were you included in the proposed vote or not? If not, what reason would they have to call you?


An interesting banner ad accompanied this post for me:


The vote was for just goods flow but the union was calling people outside the department.

I am pro union but calling repeatedly trying to bully me for support is not the way to do it.

I really don’t know why they would call or in a few cases send union members to coworkers’s homes to gain support even though they were not in that department.

Okay. Thanks for your clarification.


They really should use video instead of a slide presentation. I know who would be a great presenter!

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.