Connect with us

Technologies

Redo the Amazon union election in Alabama, NLRB official recommends

The findings aren’t final, and Amazon plans to appeal.

The results of a historic union election at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama should be set aside, a hearing officer from the National Labor Board Relations said in recommendations. The findings address complaints from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union alleging the company misled and threatened workers in violation of federal labor law. The union sought to represent thousands of workers at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, but lost by a ratio of more than 2-to-1 in April.

Both parties have the opportunity to file exceptions to the findings before the regional director makes a decision. The decision can then be appealed to the national labor board, where a panel of commissioners could rule on the case.

The hearing officer said the RWDSU’s objections should be sustained in part and recommended a second election be held. Specifically, Amazon’s move to have the US Postal Service install a generic mailbox outside the Alabama fulfillment center usurped the NLRB’s role in administering the election and interfered with the conditions necessary for a fair election, according to the hearing officer’s report, which the NLRB released Tuesday.

“Notwithstanding the union’s substantial margin of defeat, the employer’s unilateral decision to create, for all intents and purposes, an onsite collection box for NLRB ballots destroyed the laboratory conditions and justifies a second election,” said hearing officer Kerstin Meyers in her recommendations.

Amazon said it plans to appeal.

“Our employees had a chance to be heard during a noisy time when all types of voices were weighing into the national debate and at the end of the day, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of a direct connection with their managers and the company,” an Amazon spokesperson said in a statement. “Their voice should be heard above all else and we plan to appeal to ensure that happens.”

“The question of whether or not to have a union is supposed to be the workers’ decision and not the employer’s,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the RWDSU. “Amazon’s behavior throughout the election process was despicable.”

The recommendation comes as Amazon faces increasing scrutiny for its treatment of workers. The NLRB has also reportedly considered investigating the company for allegedly firing and disciplining workers who organize protests and walkouts, activities that are protected under federal labor law.

Amazon has also been sued by a group of corporate and logistics employees who allege the company engaged in discrimination and harassment based on race and gender. Warehouse workers have repeatedly sued to get wages for time they were required to wait in lines or spent walking to distant break rooms. So far, Amazon has prevailed in court against federal wage claims.

Working conditions for drivers at subcontracted “delivery service partners” have also raised concerns, including drivers peeing into bottles, struggling to park and facing a discipline system they say doesn’t take their side of the story into account.

The RWDSU complained that Amazon broke federal labor law in the lead-up to the Alabama election, which had the potential to create the e-commerce giant’s first unionized workforce in the US. Lawyers for the union said Amazon unlawfully threatened to lay people off and close the warehouse.

The union took particular issue with the mailbox Amazon had the USPS install on its premises outside the warehouse, saying the company turned it into an ad hoc voting booth with a tent surrounding it on three sides and banners urging workers to vote. Meyers, the NLRB official, said the booth was directly underneath a surveillance camera operated by Amazon. The mailbox was a metal cabinet with several slots rather than a standard blue box with a USPS logo on it. The union argued it gave the impression that Amazon was involved in collecting ballots, which could have affected the vote.

During the hearing over the union’s complaints overseen by Meyers, a worker testified that he’d seen Amazon workers access the mailbox. Amazon countered that it had access only to compartments that contained incoming mail addressed to the company. Additionally, Meyers determined that the worker’s testimony was not credible for numerous reasons, including that he couldn’t have seen anyone accessing the mailbox from where he said he was watching.

Technologies

Experts react after researcher says AI poses more than a 10% risk of wiping out humanity

AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic while warning that the company and OpenAI are advancing powerful systems too quickly. His concerns were echoed by Anthropic alignment lead Evan Hubinger, who estimated a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade.

An artificial intelligence researcher left Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the company and its primary competitor, OpenAI, of behaving recklessly. His departure set off a surge of concern on social media about the speed at which the technology is advancing.

Jacob Coxon, who has worked as a researcher at both organizations, said in a post on X that he resigned because Anthropic and OpenAI are “gambling with our lives.” He said the people developing AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” Coxon wrote. “These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has drawn more than 70 million views, highlights a long-running debate in Silicon Valley over whether AI can be developed and controlled safely. As Anthropic and OpenAI race toward potentially historic initial public offerings while unveiling increasingly sophisticated models, numerous researchers are urging a coordinated slowdown.

OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki said in a blog post Sunday that no AI company has “solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.” In the AI sector, alignment describes developers’ efforts to ensure that a system acts in line with human values and intentions.

“I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established,” Pachocki wrote. “And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.”

Coxon’s post Tuesday also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self-improvement, in which an AI system could design and build its successor without human involvement. Although recursive self-improvement is not currently possible, Anthropic, OpenAI and other companies have warned that it could make it easier for people to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon wrote. “They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment lead, supported Coxon’s remarks in a post on X late Tuesday.

“Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Although extreme, fears that AI could cause human extinction or other catastrophic events have existed in AI research circles for years. In 2023, prominent researchers and executives, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, signed a statement declaring that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even use the shorthand p(doom) to estimate the likelihood of disastrous outcomes arising from AI.

Hubinger was also among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed an open letter titled “Pacing the Frontier” in July. The letter called on the U.S. government to create the tools needed to support an effort to “deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”

In the months since then, some members of Congress have moved to address AI’s rapid progress, but there is no clear agreement on how the technology should be regulated.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduced the FRONTIER Act, legislation designed to create a framework for overseeing the deployment of advanced AI models. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government puts safety rules in place. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are breaking out of their labs, and companies are racing ahead anyway,” Trahan wrote in a post on X Wednesday. “It’s past time for Congress to get off the sidelines and do its job.”

Lawmakers are also confronting rising public opposition to AI data centers, the massive facilities that contain the hardware used to train and operate AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have done a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’re going to have to take some of the blame, and they are going to have to convince the American people that all the benefits will not accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after the G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Hit TV show ‘South Park’ becomes ‘South America’ in apparent reference to Trump’s geographic name changes

Show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said in a statement that they were “inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google.”

Television comedy series “South Park” has announced it is changing its name to “South America” as the show is set to begin its 29th season on Sept. 16.

The show’s creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said, “Inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are changing the name of South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We especially want to thank our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Parker and Stone’s statement comes after U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America amid a trade spat with Canada. Canadian officials said they will not recognize the new name.

Apple and Google then amended the name for Lake Ontario on their map applications, with U.S. users seeing “Lake America,” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”

The move also came a day after Trump posted AI generated posts on Truth Social that suggested New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”

Last year, the president used an executive order to change the name for the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, drawing international opposition.

“South Park” won an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode which premiered last year and parodies Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” line comes after the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which was approved by the Federal Communications Commission last year after Paramount settled a lawsuit brought by Trump for $16 million.

Trump had alleged an interview that aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, was deceptively edited.

Paramount subsidiary CBS News in July 2025 said it was canceling comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” citing financial reasons, just days after Colbert accused Paramount of paying Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the show aired in May.

Paramount and the White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump says he has no regrets about starting the Iran war as U.S. dials up economic pressure

Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he has no regrets about starting the Iran war and added that “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.”

Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham on Thursday stateside, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.

“If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now,” Ingraham told Trump, to which Trump replied “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”

He added that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic would “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and start hitting U.S. cities.

His comments come as markets brace for a longer Iran war, after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that top White House advisors had discussed with Trump the possibility that the Iran war could drag on beyond his current term.

Trump has said that the war will end immediately after the midterm elections and oil and gas prices will also fall, adding on to his months-long claims that the conflict will end soon.

In separate comments to NewsNation on Thursday, Trump denied reports that there was any damage to U.S. assets, after Iran claimed it had hit multiple U.S. fighter aircraft at a base in Jordan.

“No damage. No nothing,” Trump said, when asked if there was any truth to the reports.

Economic pressure

Washington is continuing efforts to isolate Iran from its economic network, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flagging sanctions against “a large bank” next week.

“We’re going to do it on Monday because we want to honor the memory of our fallen citizens on 9/11. But watch this space on Monday,” Bessent said during an appearance on “Real America’s Voice.”

Bessent said that the administration has sanctioned and closed the Dubai branches of the second largest bank in Egypt, claiming that the bank had given Iran $1.8 billion dollars. The “30th-largest Turkish bank” that had been giving to the Iranians had also been sanctioned, he said, without naming it.

The U.S. had sanctioned Turkey-based Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) and its subsidiaries last week.

Trump, in the NewsNation interview, was also asked how Iran could continue holding out under the current economic pressure.

“I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.”

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Bessent said the 30th largest Turkish bank had been sanctioned. An earlier version misstated the bank’s ranking.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media