Amazon is confronting fresh labor problems after more than 150 delivery drivers in New York were told that their jobs were gone, resulting in a fast-moving dispute over whether the cuts run afoul of federal labor law.
The union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents the workers at Amazon’s DBK4 delivery station in Queens, claims the company is retaliating against unionized drivers who participated in a high-profile strike, and is calling for their immediate reinstatement.
What took place at Amazon’s DBK4 station
Drivers at the DBK4 facility had organized with the Teamsters following months of complaints about pay, safety and scheduling. The group would later be part of a large labor action involving thousands of Amazon workers across the United States. Now, the union says — and state data confirms — that more than 150 of those drivers have become victims of sudden layoffs, leading to picket lines outside Amazon’s Queens site and a new front in its long-standing battle with organized labor.
Teamsters officials say the timing and extent of the job losses make them a textbook example of illegal reprisal for protected activity. Workers have the right to organize and strike under the National Labor Relations Act, and retaliating against them for doing so can be deemed an unfair labor practice.
Union alleges unlawful retaliation
The union’s Amazon division claims the layoffs are aimed at drivers who were prominent in organizing and strike actions. Teamsters leaders have promised to sue, saying they will demand reinstatement and back pay. “These drivers bravely spoke out about the need for Uber to address their demands for basic workplace protections, like masks, gloves, and cleaning supplies,” a spokesman said, adding: “By choosing to offboard drivers en masse, Amazon is sending a chilling message to all those who feel that speaking out can protect contract workers during this crisis.”
The union description dovetails with a wider narrative it has claimed about the company: that rank-and-file workers who agitate for changes at the company will find themselves facing subtle or substantial retribution. Labor advocates also point out that even when work is shifted through subcontractors, the law can allow a prime company to be held accountable if it has enough control over important terms and conditions.
Amazon citing contractor model
Amazon, however, says that it did not dismiss anyone. Rather, the company says a contract expired with a delivery service partner, Cornucopia, that had directly employed the drivers. To hire workers to staff its blue vans, Amazon uses a sprawling network of third-party companies around the country whose large workforces enable the tech giant to scale up and down and limit its involvement in drivers’ employment decisions.
The Teamsters call that differentiation a shell game. Drivers wear Amazon uniforms, follow Amazon safety and routing protocols and are governed by Amazon-set metrics, union officials say — proof, the union says, that while a company may not share a formal title, it still functions as the boss in all but name. That control dispute could be central if the case goes to federal regulators.
Joint-employer precedent raises stakes
The legal battlefield isn’t blank. The National Labor Relations Board has in the past ruled that Amazon can be considered a joint employer with its subcontractors if the company has a significant level of control over working conditions. That decision bolstered unions’ ability to hold Amazon accountable for the conduct of its delivery partners.
Amazon has vigorously contested in court and before regulators, even questioning the NLRB’s legitimacy. A constitutional appeal was rejected recently by an appeals court, preserving the agency’s role in policing labor disputes. For all the back-swinging on joint-employer standards in the ebb and flow of regulations and court decisions, the underlying question — who is really in control of the work — is central in cases like DBK4.
Safety and pay are still flashpoints
Behind legal definitions, the battle is motivated by ongoing fears of conditions on the ground. A report by the Strategic Organizing Center found that workers in Amazon warehouses suffered serious injuries at a rate nearly 80 percent higher than those at peers in similar facilities. Drivers often complain about punishing productivity goals, narrow windows for routes and pressure related to algorithmic monitoring.
Those metrics are what underlie Amazon’s revered logistics machine, but they also help, at a historic moment of labor protest, generate labor friction. The union says DBK4 drivers were pushing for safer routes, more humane quotas and a fair contract — demands that are familiar to workers at other Amazon facilities. Company officials, for their part, point to the investments in safety tech, training and pay raises, and say the DSP model allows small businesses to expand while delivering rapidly to customers.
What to watch next
Mefferd says the next steps for the union will probably be at the NLRB, where the union can file charges of unfair labor practice, and, potentially, in federal court. Remedies in the identical cases have included reinstatement, back pay and notices affirming workers’ rights. If regulators determine that Amazon is a joint employer in this case, the decision could have implications across its delivery network and how the company manages partners and how drivers organize.
For now, the standoff illuminates a larger tension in modern logistics: the disbursement of scale and speed through subcontracting, and the increasing insistence from workers and regulators alike that responsibility should flow with control. Whether the DBK4 layoffs will stand — or whether they will become a milestone in Amazon’s labor battles — will depend on that balance.