Amazon is facing new labor turbulence after more than 150 delivery drivers in New York were told their jobs were gone, prompting a fast-moving dispute over whether the cuts violate federal labor law. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents the workers at Amazon’s DBK4 delivery station in Queens, argues the company is retaliating against unionized drivers who joined a high-profile strike and is demanding immediate reinstatement.
What happened at Amazon’s DBK4 station
Drivers at the DBK4 facility organized with the Teamsters after months of pressure over pay, safety, and scheduling. The group later participated in a widespread labor action that included thousands of Amazon workers across the U.S. Now, the union says more than 150 of those drivers have been swept up in sudden layoffs, triggering pickets outside the Queens site and a new front in Amazon’s long-running clash with organized labor.
Teamsters officials say the timing and scope of the job cuts make them a textbook case of unlawful retaliation for protected activity. Under the National Labor Relations Act, workers have the right to organize and strike; punishing employees for exercising those rights can constitute an unfair labor practice.
Union alleges unlawful retaliation
The union’s Amazon division contends the layoffs target drivers who were visible in organizing and strike actions. Teamsters leaders have vowed legal action, saying they will seek reinstatement and back pay. “These drivers stood up for fair wages and safer routes,” a spokesperson said, arguing that the mass offboarding sends a chilling message to any Amazon worker considering collective action.
The union characterization aligns with a broader pattern it has alleged at the company: that frontline workers who push for change face subtle or sweeping consequences. Labor advocates note that even when employment is routed through subcontractors, the law can still hold a prime company responsible if it exerts sufficient control over key terms and conditions.
Amazon points to contractor model
Amazon counters that it did not fire anyone. Instead, the company says a contract ended with a delivery service partner, Cornucopia, which directly employed the drivers. Amazon relies on a nationwide network of third-party firms to staff its blue-van fleet, a structure designed to add capacity and flexibility while distancing the tech giant from day-to-day employment decisions.
The Teamsters call that distinction a shell game. They argue drivers wear Amazon uniforms, follow Amazon safety and routing protocols, and live by metrics set by Amazon software—evidence, the union says, that the company is the true employer in everything but name. That dispute over control is likely to be central if the case reaches federal regulators.
Joint-employer precedent raises stakes
The legal battlefield isn’t blank. The National Labor Relations Board has previously found that Amazon can be considered a joint employer alongside its subcontractors when it holds meaningful sway over working conditions. That determination strengthened unions’ ability to hold Amazon to account for the conduct of delivery partners.
Amazon has pushed back hard in court and before regulators, even challenging the NLRB’s authority. An appeals court recently rejected that constitutional argument, preserving the agency’s role in policing labor disputes. While joint-employer standards have seesawed with changing regulations and court decisions, the core question—who truly controls the work—remains pivotal in cases like DBK4.
Safety and pay remain flashpoints
Beyond legal definitions, the fight is fueled by persistent concerns over conditions on the ground. A report from the Strategic Organizing Center found Amazon warehouse workers suffered serious injuries at a rate nearly 80 percent higher than peers in comparable facilities. Delivery drivers frequently cite intense productivity targets, tight route windows, and pressure tied to algorithmic monitoring.
Those metrics form the backbone of Amazon’s vaunted logistics machine, but they also set the stage for labor friction. The union says DBK4 drivers pressed for safer routes, more humane quotas, and a fair contract—demands commonly heard in other Amazon facilities. Company officials, for their part, highlight investments in safety tech, training, and pay increases, and argue the DSP model enables small businesses to grow while serving customers quickly.
What to watch next
The next steps are likely to unfold at the NLRB, where the union can file unfair labor practice charges, and potentially in federal court. Remedies in similar cases have included reinstatement, back pay, and notices affirming workers’ rights. If regulators find Amazon a joint employer in this instance, the ruling could ripple across its delivery network, shaping how the company manages partners and how drivers organize.
For now, the standoff underscores a broader tension in modern logistics: the use of subcontracting to achieve scale and speed, and the growing insistence from workers and regulators that accountability must follow control. Whether the DBK4 layoffs stand—or become a landmark in Amazon’s labor battles—will hinge on that balance.