To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
"Amazon wants to reap the benefits of drivers' labor without having to take on any of the responsibility for their well-being—and those days are over," said Teamsters president Sean O'Brien.
Weeks after the National Labor Relations Board ruled that retail giant Amazon is a joint employer of its delivery drivers and is legally obligated to bargain with their union, the board on Wednesday issued a formal complaint, saying the company "failed and refused" to negotiate with the Teamsters to secure a contract for the workers.
The company acted illegally, says the complaint, when it terminated its contract with Battle-Tested Strategies, a contractor that employs the drivers, after they unionized.
The complaint also accuses Amazon of making "unlawful threats and promises," holding anti-union captive audience meetings, discouraging union activities by delaying employee start times and increasing workplace inspections, and refusing to share information with the union.
Amazon has until October 15 to respond to the complaint, or the NLRB will prosecute the company before an administrative law judge in March 2025.
"Amazon wants to reap the benefits of drivers' labor without having to take on any of the responsibility for their well-being—and those days are over," said Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien. "This decision brings us one step closer to getting Amazon workers the pay, working conditions, and contracts they deserve. Amazon has no choice but to meet us at the negotiating table."
In August the NLRB concluded an investigation and found that although Amazon employs the drivers through a contractor, it exerts sufficient control over the workers to be considered their employer under federal labor law.
"Amazon can no longer hide behind its DSP [Delivery Service Partner] program to skirt responsibility for its driver workforce," said Bryant Cline, an Amazon driver and member of the Teamsters Local 396 union in Palmdale, California, which 84 drivers voted to join last year. "Today's decision by the labor board makes official what we've long known to be true—DSP drivers are Amazon employees, and we have a fundamental right to organize, unionize, and demand fair treatment and a contract from our multibillion-dollar employer."
Also on Wednesday, more than 100 delivery workers at a warehouse in San Francisco voted to join their local Teamsters union.
"The Amazon Teamsters movement grows bigger and stronger every day and will not be stopped," said the union. "Amazon workers: this is our moment."
"This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
The National Labor Relations Board was prevented on Tuesday from moving forward with an unfair labor practices case against the social services tech company Findhelp, after a Trump-appointed judge granted the Texas-based firm's request for a temporary injunction.
In the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruledin favor of Findhelp's claim that administrative law judges at the NLRB have unconstitutional protections from being dismissed by the White House.
The argument has been used by other large companies including billionaire Elon Musk's aerospace firm SpaceX and a subsidiary of the fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, which have both also obtained preliminary injunctions from Trump appointees in Texas, shielding them from labor rights cases.
In the SpaceX case, the NLRB argued that "granting an injunction would encourage any employer or labor union unhappy with scrutiny of their labor practices to seek preliminary injunctions against NLRB proceedings."
Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe's have also joined the corporate effort to strip the NLRB of its ability to carry out its duties as a federal agency tasked with protecting workers from unfair labor practices. The companies have claimed that the agency's structure, which was established by the New Deal's National Labor Relations Act nearly a century ago, violates the president's "removal powers" under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
"Prior to the New Deal, judges claimed things like overtime and child labor rules were unconstitutional," said journalist Ryan Grim.
Lawyers for the NLRB argued in the Findhelp case that the company is not entitled to relief from a court until the president tries to remove the administrative law judge assigned to Findhelp's case, but Pittman said he was "unpersuaded by the NLRB's arguments."
Pittman cited a precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in 2022 that removal protections for the Securities and Exchange Commission's judges were unconstitutional.
This month, two federal judges—one appointed by former President Barack Obama and one by President Joe Biden—have rejected other corporate challenges claiming the NLRB is unconstitutionally structured, teeing up a potential U.S. Supreme Court case to settle the matter in the future.
Tuesday's ruling comes 18 months after the Office and Professional Employees International Union filed a complaint with the NLRB, saying Findhelp had illegally fired and coerced workers who were involved in organizing their workplace. The employees had voted 95-52 in favor of joining the union.
With Pittman's injunction in place, an NLRB administrative hearing on whether Findhelp unlawfully fired organizers and surveilled employees will not move forward.
"The NLRB protects Americans' right to unionize, fight unjust firings, and collectively bargain for higher wages," said the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Without it, employers can ignore labor laws and deprive workers of their rights. This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
"Despite wielding absolute control over the drivers' terms and conditions of employment," said the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, "Amazon maintained that it did not employ the workers."
A decision by the National Labor Relations Board on Thursday marked "the beginning of the end for Amazon's favorite legal loophole," said one grassroots labor group, as the board ruled that Amazon is a joint employer of its drivers—making it legally required to recognize and bargain with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union that represents dozens of the delivery workers.
The NLRB concluded its investigation that began more than a year ago, when 84 Amazon workers at the company's Palmdale, California warehouse joined the Teamsters Local 396 union, negotiating a contract with Amazon's Delivery Service Partner (DSP), a subcontractor which Amazon claimed was the drivers' employer.
"Despite wielding absolute control over the drivers' terms and conditions of employment," said the Teamsters in a statement on Thursday, "Amazon maintained that it did not employ the workers and refused to recognize or negotiate with the Teamsters."
Through its investigation, the NLRB found Amazon had unlawfully refused to recognize the workers' decision to unionize, threatened employees with job loss, held illegal captive audience meetings where managers spread anti-union misinformation, and intimidated workers.
The NLRB is expected to prosecute Amazon "before an NLRB judge for its serious and callous violations of workers' rights."
The ruling comes less than a year after the NLRB finalized its joint-employer rule, establishing that two or more entities can be considered joint employers of a group of employees if they both have employment relationship with the workers and help to determine their terms and conditions of employment.
That ruling and the decision announced on Thursday, said the Teamsters, "shatters [the] myth" that Amazon is not the Palmdale workers' employer even as it "exercises widespread control over drivers' labor and working conditions."
One driver called the decision a "groundbreaking ruling."
"Amazon is our joint employer," he said in a video posted to social media. "Why? Because the whole world knows who our true employer is... We wear their colors, drive their vans, and yet, we're not their employees? How does that make sense?"
With the ruling, said Athena, a grassroots coalition of Amazon workers, the NLRB has told the company that "it can't game the system anymore when its comes to drivers."
"Lots of Amazon's wealth was build by gaming tax laws, employment laws, public subsidies, lax privacy laws, unenforced antitrust laws, etc.—we all let it go on too long, but not anymore," said the group.