Alabama Amazon workers reject a unionization effort in after the corporation wins a messaging battle

 

Andi Rice

Amazon claimed victory in a historic unionization battle in its Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse, after a majority of plant workers voted not to organize with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU). The vote was the first of its size against Amazon; the corporation fought unionization efforts viciously, employing what labor activists deemed to be intimidation tactics and subversive messaging in the lead-up to the February and March vote. [Vox / Jason Del Rey] Perhaps the biggest surprise is that the unionization push happened in Bessemer. Alabama is a right-to-work state, famous for a history of anti-labor sentiment. And Amazon pays its workers double the state’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. [WSJ / Roque Ruiz and David Marino-Nachison] But workers grew weary of how they were treated. Lunch is a strict 30 minutes. Coming back late can result in docked pay or firings. It’s a grueling job, one that keeps employers on their feet for the majority of a 10-hour shift. Trips to the bathroom are monitored. Critics also say Amazon failed to accommodate workers' needs during the pandemic. [AP / Joseph Pisani] After some warehouse workers reached out to the RWDSU in the summer of 2020, citing draconian productivity standards and a desire to be given more workplace autonomy, the union quickly organized. Several months later, according to the union, more than half of the Bessemer warehouse workers had signed cards affirming a union vote. [Guardian / Michael Sainato] Alabama is a decidedly anti-union state, home to the only non-unionized Mercedes-Benz factory in the world. But Bessemer has a history of labor organizing. It’s a predominantly Black town, and many saw the vote not only as a labor rights struggle but also as one rooted in civil rights. [NPR / Alina Selyukh] Amazon drew ire for the messaging it used in the runup to voting: “Do it without dues.” Workers ran into that slogan in bathroom stalls, at mandatory meetings, and in text messages. Because Alabama is a right-to-work state, union members don’t need to pay dues to take part in benefits. The company also pushed the United States Postal Service to install a special post box inside the warehouse to collect ballots, which labor leaders called an intimidation tactic and a violation of National Labor Relations Board laws. [NYT / Karen Weise and Michael Corkery] RWDSU president Stuart Applebaum announced the union would be challenging the results, calling Amazon's actions "egregious and blatantly illegal"; a challenge could result in a new election. The NLRB could also overturn the vote, giving workers access to a union whose help they just rejected. [CNBC / Annie Palmer]

 

He describes himself as an 'experienced buffalo wings eater' - a man so sports mad he built a sports bar in his basement he calls HelmetHeads, and part-bought his local hockey team. His co-workers describe him as an unassuming and friendly boss, whose easygoing demeanor is belied by high professional expectations. To the rest of the world, he is now only one thing: the soon-to-be CEO of Amazon. When Jeff Bezos announced he was retiring, he announced Andy Jassy was replacing him, Amazon observers were not surprised. Bezos, 57, described his replacement as an Amazon stalwart; business insiders said his appointment was all-but secured when Bezos's other deputy, Jeff Wilke, who ran Amazon's retail business, announced in August that he was retiring. Jassy's current role is head of AWS, which he has helped build from the ground up since 2003, and now generates over $40 billion in annual revenue, and is responsible for over 60 per cent of Amazon's operating profits, though its sales are just 13 per cent of the total.

Why the Amazon Deal Collapsed: A Tech Giant Stumbles in N.Y.

Amazon had promised to create more than 25,000 jobs on a new campus in Queens. On Thursday, it abruptly announced that it was canceling the deal.CreditBenjamin Norman for The New York Times

NY TIMES

A senior executive from Amazon, one of the world’s biggest companies, found himself last weekend in a showdown with a suburban state senator.

The executive, Brian Huseman, was trying to find out whether the New York state senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, would keep an obscure state board from blocking Amazon’s ambitious plans to expand in New York City.

It was the second phone call in two days between Mr. Huseman and Ms. Stewart-Cousins, who had just risen to power as Democratic majority leader, and once again, she tried to explain to him the politics of Albany.

Ms. Stewart-Cousins said in an interview that she told Mr. Huseman, “We just need to move on,” indicating that Amazon had to let the approval process run its course.

It was not the response that Amazon wanted.

For Amazon, long accustomed to highly deferential treatment from localities across the country, the phone call was a further indignity after weeks of relentless criticism from lawmakers, unions and progressive activists that the company feared was staining its reputation.

On Thursday, Amazon abruptly announced that it was canceling the deal, under which the company had promised to create more than 25,000 jobs on a new campus in Long Island City, Queens, in return for nearly $3 billion in government incentives.

An examination of the deal’s collapse showed that Amazon badly misjudged how it would be received in New York, apparently because the company has rarely ventured into such a raucous political arena as it has pursued a breakneck expansion in recent years.

This account was pieced together from dozens of interviews this week with government officials, Amazon representatives, lobbyists and others. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to relay closed-door deliberations.

The company’s retreat capped several days of intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering between government officials and Amazon executives, including efforts by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to woo unions and Mayor Bill de Blasio to try to reach Jeff Bezos, the company’s chief executive.

On Monday, Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio, bitter rivals who had put aside their differences to mount a bid for an Amazon site, met in Albany to discuss how to pacify unions that had voiced strong objections to the company.

Mr. de Blasio then called a top executive in the company, seeking assurances that the deal was still on. The executive did not indicate that it was in trouble

On Wednesday, a senior Amazon executive in charge of real estate, John Schoettler, arrived from Seattle for a meeting convened by Mr. Cuomo in his Manhattan offices between Amazon and unions. By the end, the unions and the executives seemed to be making progress toward a resolution.

That night, the company decided internally to pull the plug.

The choice blindsided Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio.

“Out of nowhere, they took their ball and went home,” Mr. de Blasio said on Thursday night.

He learned of the decision in a phone call from Jay Carney, an Amazon vice president. Even as the deal was in peril, Mr. Carney, who oversees the company’s press and government relations, never went to New York to meet with officials, three people with knowledge of the meetings said.

Amazon can deliver toothpaste in traffic-snarled Manhattan on the same day an order is placed. But when it came to navigating the politics of New York, the company appeared out of step, a giant stumbling onto a political stage that — despite its data-driven success — it never fully understood.

“Amazon underestimated the power of a vocal minority and miscalculated how much it needed to engage with those audiences to make HQ2 a success,” Joseph Parilla, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said, referring to the second headquarters search.

The company, in particular, failed to develop a robust strategy to address the growing influence of the progressive left in New York, led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Queens, who was elected in November and was a fervent skeptic of the deal.

The political winds changed so swiftly that local lawmakers in Queens who had signed a letter in 2017 trying to woo Amazon refashioned themselves as champions of the opposition in recent months.

Corey Johnson, the speaker of the City Council, refused repeatedly to even meet with Amazon representatives despite at least three requests. Mr. Johnson held hearings instead of the private meetings Amazon requested. Amazon met with 35 of the 51 council members, and more had been scheduled for this week. Mr. Johnson’s staff did meet with the company.

A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment for this article. But two people involved in internal discussions at Amazon said the company’s concerns were not primarily that the deal would fail to receive government approval. Executives were confident it would cross the finish line.

The company instead felt that, with little sign that the opposition was dissipating, it was staring down a decades-long commitment to a political climate in which everything the company did would be scrutinized.

“Amazon had to think about what a long-term relationship with New York City would look like, and based on the experiences with local and state politicians to date, concluded it would be difficult at best,” one of the people said.

Amazon executives involved in the negotiations said they were frustrated that the economic benefits of the project — a winning argument with many business leaders and some community members, failed to sway some officials.

“What we were hearing from people — small business owners, educators, community leaders — was completely different than what we were getting from the local elected officials,” said one of the people involved with the Amazon side.

Those feelings, and Amazon’s eventual retreat, were foreshadowed by testimony from Mr. Huseman last month at the City Council: “We were invited to come to New York,” he said, adding pointedly, “and we want to invest in a community that wants us.”

Instead, the company saw how its plans for Queens had become such a flash point that they turned into an issue in the Feb. 26 special election for public advocate, a citywide position with a big megaphone. Company officials worried that the debate over the project could drag on and become ensnared in the 2021 mayoral election, and beyond.

“In most places, people are just doing cartwheels and somersaults when Amazon comes in,” said Alex Pearlstein, vice president at Market Street Services, which helps cities attract employers. “New York just didn’t need them as bad as most places do.”

Amazon grew in Seattle for almost two decades with little civic engagement. Initially, most of its buildings were built by an outside developer. Neither Mr. Bezos, nor any Amazon executive, attended the groundbreaking ceremony for its headquarters that the mayor and governor threw.

By about 2015, as Amazon was developing its own buildings, and with roughly 25,000 employees in Washington State, it started engaging more, albeit slowly.

A top real estate executive chaired the local Chamber of Commerce, and it began forging relationships with two local nonprofits, one that works with homeless families and another job training program for the restaurant industry.

Yet even as housing costs soared in the booming city, Amazon did not take public positions in debates over how to alleviate the affordability crunch. It largely saw its role as creating high-paying jobs, and the city’s job to accommodate them.

So last year, when Amazon said it might halt its growth locally if the city approved a tax on large employers to fund homeless services and low-income housing, it sent a shock throughout Seattle. The city was not accustomed to the company playing hardball, let alone commenting on politics.

The trouble in New York City began last year with a hostile City Council hearing in December, and then another last month.

The company endured hours of attacks on its plans to come to New York, and on its business practices — particularly its stance against unions — in general. Protesters heckled. Council members forced an Amazon official to declare the company’s anti-union stance on the record.

The moment resonated for executives: Amazon was not accustomed to being forced to respond publicly on its policies and operations.

A turning point came on Feb. 4, when Ms. Stewart-Cousins, the new Democratic leader in the State Senate, selected Mr. Gianaris, the state senator and one of Amazon’s most vocal opponents, to the board with the power to block the deal. It was clear the opposition would not go away soon.

Mr. Cuomo could refuse to appoint Mr. Gianaris, of Queens. But the company wanted to know: What would happen then?

So on Feb. 8 and then again on Feb. 9, Amazon’s representatives spoke on the phone with Ms. Stewart-Cousins.

She told the company’s representatives that Mr. Cuomo was planning to reject Mr. Gianaris. But she could not say precisely what would happen next, the people said. Who would be named in his place?

Amazon wanted certainty that the next person selected would not be a roadblock: The fate of its campus could not hang on the whims of an unnamed state senator on a board — the Public Authorities Control Board — that few could name.

She did not offer any guarantees, but thought the Senate and the company would be able to work together.

“Obviously, the Legislature would have a role to play,” she said in an interview.

The next time she heard from Mr. Huseman was Thursday, just as Amazon announced that the deal was dead.

Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters

NY TIMES

Amazon on Thursday canceled its plans to build an expansive corporate campus in New York City after facing an unexpectedly fierce backlash from lawmakers, progressive activists and union leaders, who contended that a tech giant did not deserve nearly $3 billion in government incentives.

The decision was an abrupt turnabout by Amazon after a much-publicized search for a second headquarters, which had ended with its announcement in November that it would open two new sites — one in Queens, with more than 25,000 jobs, and another in Virginia.

Amazon’s retreat was a blow to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, damaging their effort to further diversify the city’s economy by making it an inviting location for the technology industry.

The agreement to lure Amazon to Long Island City, Queens, had stirred intense debate in New York about the use of public subsidies to entice wealthy companies, the rising cost of living in gentrifying neighborhoods, and the city’s very identity.“A number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward,” Amazon said in a statement.

The company made its decision late Wednesday, after growing increasingly concerned that the backlash in New York showed no sign of abating and was tarnishing its image beyond the city, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions inside the company.

In recent days, Mr. de Blasio had tried to reach Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, according to one official. But Mr. Bezos did not speak with him, nor with Mr. Cuomo.

The company’s decision was at least a short-term win for insurgent progressive politicians led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose upset victory last year occurred in the western corner of Queens where Amazon had planned its site.

Who's Responsible For Amazon Quitting Queens?

BY CHRISTOPHER ROBBINS IN NEWS ON FEB 15, 2019 3:11 PM

GOTHAMIST

Who would dare stop Amazon from creating 25,000 to 40,000 high-paying jobs in Long Island City? Who would be stupid enough to chase away billions of dollars in tax revenue for transportation and education and affordable housing? Listening to the chorus of journalists, editorial boards, and pro-Amazon politicians, this is everyone’s fault but Amazon’s.

NY1 political anchor Errol Louis described it as “another case where so-called progressive politicians allowed middle-class jobs, and dreams, and hopes, to die.”

“The New York State Senate has done tremendous damage,” Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement. “They should be held accountable for this lost economic opportunity.”

The New York Times’ editorial board, after calling the deal a “bad bargain” in November, now scolded the opposition for “returning” 25,000 jobs. “The job-killers won,” shrieked the Daily News.

So who is to blame for Amazon’s departure? Who had power, and how did they wield it?

Blame Senator Michael Gianaris And Those Loose Cannon Senate Democrats

“This is the man who delivered the death blow to Amazon deal,” the New York Post blared above a photo of Gianaris, who represents Long Island City in the State Senate, and had led the political opposition to the company’s campus.

The Post reports that Gianaris rejected three invitations from Amazon to meet one-on-one, and that his appointment by Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to the Public Authorities Control Board, which would need to approve the current deal for it to move forward, “put the deal over the cliff.”

Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the Democratic leader in the State Senate, selected State Senator Michael Gianaris, one of Amazon’s most vocal opponents, for a board with the power to block the deal.CreditHans Pennink/Associated Press

But Gianaris hadn’t even taken his seat on the PACB, because Stewart-Cousins's recommendation still faced one more obstacle: Governor Cuomo’s approval. If Cuomo wanted to send a signal to Amazon that he was still in control, why not state that he would veto Gianaris and ask Stewart-Cousins for another name? (Gianaris's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The governor’s office declined to comment on the record for this article.)

Perhaps Cuomo didn’t want to offend Gianaris, the powerful senator who is largely credited with the organizing strategy that swept the Senate Republicans out of office in 2018, and who he will need to pass his ambitious 2019 legislative agenda. But Gianaris was just one noisy speedbump. At some point, the Amazon plan was going to have to pass the state legislature, either in a vote to raise the monetary cap and the duration of the Excelsior Jobs Program to meet Amazon's targets, or to approve the $505 million capital grant from the state, or both.

Progressive Activists Killed The Amazon Deal

They rallied, they canvassed, they tweeted, they got AOC to tweet, they dropped banners during raucous City Council meetings, egged on by City Council Speaker Corey Johnson (who never officially opposed the deal) and Queens Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer (who did oppose it but apparently also took private meetings with the company). They pointed to Amazon’s anti-labor stance, its relationship with ICE, its track record in Seattle, where it crushed the city’s effort to tax large employers in order to address its homelessness epidemic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SILIVE:

A group of workers at Amazon’s new Bloomfield fulfillment center have joined together with hopes of forming a union.

Employees who are seeking to form a union at the new facility cited warehouse issues, including safety concerns, inadequate pay, and 12-hour shifts as their reasons.

“Ever since they opened, management has forced everyone at the warehouse to work 12-hour shifts for five or six days a week,” said Rashad Long, who works as a picker at the new Amazon facility at a recent press conference.

She said during the new-hire orientation, management promised workers that the company would provide a shuttle service and ride shares to help workers get to and from the warehouse.

“That has not happened. Instead, we all need to rely on an overcrowded MTA select bus service. It takes me four hours every day to get to and from work,” she said.

She also cited “health and safety” issues at the facility.

“Product bins are over-stuffed, and our breaks are few and far between. The third and fourth floors are so hot that I sweat through my whole shift, even when it’s freezing cold outside,” said Long.

Employees are working with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) to launch a union.

AMAZON: ‘FALSE ALLEGATIONS'

However, Amazon said all the allegations are “false.”

“Amazon offers market-leading pay -- associates at our Staten Island facility make $17-$23 an hour -- and a great benefits package, including healthcare, pre-paid education through Career Choice, and up to 20 weeks parental leave,” said Rachael Lighty, an Amazon spokeswoman.

“We are also proud of our focus on safety, employee engagement, and open door communication culture. We firmly believe this direct connection is the most effective way to understand and respond to the needs of our workforce. We encourage anyone to compare our compensation, benefits, and workplace to other retailers, and to come take a tour and see for yourself through our public fulfillment center tours.”

She said it’s not true that employees are forced to work 12-hour shifts. “Our standard schedules are four days per week, 10 hours per day. ...We have a variety of flexible shift options and during the peak holiday season, we offer overtime for employees. ...” Lighty said.

The spokeswoman also combatted other allegations, including the promised shuttle service. “Amazon’s Staten Island fulfillment center offers associates multiple transportation options, including both public transportation and a rideshare service through 511NY RideShare," she said.

Of the alleged unsafe condition, Lightly said: "... All fulfillment centers are built with climate control; this includes our Staten Island facility. The site monitors temperature on every floor throughout the building, every single day. We keep our fulfillment center at 73 degrees F at this time of year

====================================================================

How much of a dent did all this activism make in the court of public opinion? Polls showed consistent, overwhelming support for Amazon coming to Queens.

The Memorandum of Understanding between Amazon, the state, and the city was short on specifics: the company pledged to chip in $5 million, along with another $10 million from the city and the state, to fund “workforce development initiatives” over a ten year period, targeting students and “non-traditional demographics including NYCHA residents.” Amazon agreed to fund “semi-annual” job fairs at the Queensbridge Houses for three years. The rest was still up for negotiation. Amazon told the city that half of those 25,000 jobs wouldn’t be tech related.

No matter what, Amazon was still on track to get as much as $3 billion in tax incentives and grants from the city and state, which for a trillion-dollar company run by a man who makes $11.5 million an hour, looks somewhat unseemly. So maybe...

It Was Those $3 Billion In Subsidies!

Despite the sticker shock, the Amazon deal itself featured few discretionary incentives aside from the $505 million the state planned on giving the company in a capital grant. Amazon was poised to get as much as $1.7 billion from the city for two tax benefits that any company could have applied for (the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) property tax breaks for new development and per-employee tax rebates under the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program [REAP]).

The state’s Excelsior Jobs Program tax breaks are tied to actual job creation, but any corporate applicant can receive them. Assuming the Amazon deal would have spurred an equal number of jobs from other companies and retailers in their orbit, the total subsidy amount per job worked out to around $55,000, which is par for the course across the country.

In their editorial, the Times warns of the consequences of spurning Amazon “if New York gets a reputation for the smugness of its politicians and their hostility to business.”

Hostility to business? A 2015 study by the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research showed that New York was second in the nation to New Mexico (and above Louisiana) in corporate incentives. Just last week, the Citizens Budget Commission reported that New York gave corporations roughly $10 billion in economic incentives in 2018 alone, with very little real oversight.

Maybe Amazon’s Decision Was Amazon’s Decision?

Of course, Amazon could have avoided much of the state legislative intrigue, and silenced critiques of backroom dealing if they had gone through the city’s public land use review process to build their new campus, like any other developer.

But Mayor Bill de Blasio, who pushed for the deal, albeit tepidly, told Brian Lehrer on Friday morning that the company refused to consider it.

“If I had said, ‘Hey Amazon, you’re going to have to wait a year-and-a-half for the full land use process,’ I guarantee—guarantee—they would have said, ‘Sorry, we’re going to Virginia, we’re going to Dallas, we’re going somewhere else,” and then all of you Brian, respectfully, would have said, ‘How on Earth did you lose 25,000 to 40,000 jobs,’ so, there’s a lack of integrity in this debate, people should come to grips with it."

The mayor added that he was blindsided by Amazon’s about-face.

“To get a call after, you know, months of attempting to build a productive partnership on behalf of this city, to get a call out of the blue saying ‘see you,’ you know, ‘we're taking our ball and we’re going home,’” de Blasio said. “It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

Greg LeRoy, the executive director of Good Jobs First, a government watchdog group that tracks state and local job subsidies, says that this kind of negotiating tactic is a hallmark of corporations plying the “tax break industrial complex.”

“An essential working part of it is to degrade and demean public officials. It’s to get them to internalize, you Hartford, you New York, you Chicago, are not worth very much. We have lots of other choices. You’ve got lots of problems. If you don’t pay us a lot of money to offset the things we don't like about you, you’re disposable.”

LeRoy added that Amazon initially had “a very strong business case for them to come to New York, and I think they really wanted to come, and then I think they really ran into a buzzsaw.”

“Their arrogance about the way they approached the deal made it much harder for them than it had to be," LeRoy said. "If they had not preempted the City Council, if they had not expected those huge as-of-right incentives from the city, if they had not wired the thing for Cuomo to just run over the City Council, and actually talked to people in the neighborhoods, things might have played out very differently."

New York’s Amazon Deal Is a Bad Bargain

The city has what the company wants, talent. Why pay them $1.5 billion to come?


By The Editorial Board


The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Long Island City in Queens is home to new apartment towers, low-rise manufacturing and the country’s largest public housing complex.CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

NY TIMES

Throughout its 14-month search for a second headquarters — which has concluded with the dual selection of Long Island City, Queens, and Arlington, Va. — Amazon talked of its need for things like transportation, housing and a business-friendly environment.

But did Amazon really select New York City for its transportation system? The subways are a shambles. The company couldn’t have chosen New York for its affordable housing because, as in Seattle, there isn’t any. As for outdoor recreation, our beaches and parks are jammed, our soccer fields overrun. There’s a lot more green space elsewhere. Cost of living? Hardly a selling point, unless you are seeking to increase your operating expenses. And no, Amazon didn’t choose New York because it has real bagels — although it couldn’t hurt.

Amazon wants to develop a four-million-square-foot campus by the East River because of the talent that resides in New York. Lots of it. According to the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, New York has more than 320,000 tech workers in the labor pool, the most in the nation. (Washington is second.) That talent commands high salaries, great benefits and won’t move to Pittsburgh or Austin or any other of the perfectly nice cities that tried to woo the online giant.

Which raises the question: If New York has what Amazon wants, why is it paying the company so much to make the move? Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who offered to replace his given name with the company’s to land the deal, are doing a victory dance.

“New York can proudly say that we have attracted one of the largest, most competitive economic development investments in U.S. history,” Amazon Cuomo said. They seem to have done so by overpaying.

Landlords and real estate developers can rejoice at the prospect of soaring property values and rents, and restaurateurs, craft brewers and kombucha makers will see new customers among the 25,000 jobholders with an average salary of $150,000 that Amazon promises to hire over 10 years.

But the plan calls for the state to dispense $1.525 billion to the company, including $1.2 billion from its Excelsior program, which will reimburse Amazon $48,000 for every job. Another state agency, Empire State Development, will offer $325 million to the Amazonians tied to real estate projects. As for the city, Amazon can apply for tax credits that could be worth north of $1 billion from programs known as ICAP and REAP that reward companies for job creation generally, and outside Manhattan specifically. (And the campus is in a federal redevelopment area that qualifies for corporate tax breaks, letting the company’s major stockholder, the world's richest man, keep more of his wealth.)

Oh, and Amazon wants a helipad for its chief executive, Jeff Bezos. No problem.

Cities that lost out to New York offered far more in financial incentives. But the Commonwealth of Virginia is spending a piddling $22,000 per job in the initial phase of development in Arlington, and payments will max out at $750 million if Amazon creates 37,850 jobs. The state is also throwing in $295 million in transportation improvements, including a bridge to nearby Reagan National Airport so Mr. Bezos can remain close to his copter. That’s still less than half of what New Yorkers will be paying out.

Jeff Bezos, is richer, by far, than anyone in the modern world.CreditCreditDavid Ryder/Getty Images

The prospect of handing Long Island City over to a company recently valued at $1 trillion seems distorted to some Queens politicians. They sense gentrification by fiat — another neighborhood sacrificed to the tech elite.

I welcome the jobs if it means Amazon investment in L.I.C. infrastructure, without us having to pay a ransom for them to be here,” said the neighborhood’s state senator, Michael Gianaris.

That is, rather than the state and the city paying off Amazon, Amazon should be required to invest in the subways, schools and affordable housing. It should also be required to include job guarantees for lower-income residents of Long Island City, not just flimsy promises of job training.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Queensbridge Houses, the nation’s largest public housing complex, is home to a mostly black and Hispanic population with a median household income well below the federal poverty level.CreditCreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Here, where livings are eked out on meager paychecks, or social service assistance, with nearly 60 percent of its households relying on food stamps, the new neighbor will be one of the world’s most profitable high-tech companies, bringing what could be a work force of 25,000 people making salaries upward of $100,000.

The stark contrast amplifies some of the social and economic tensions coursing through American society — a widening income gap, a lack of access to high-paying jobs for many minorities and a technology sector struggling to diversify.

The planned location for the new headquarters is still unclear, as is whether Amazon will deliver any benefits to the roughly 6,000 people who live in the Queensbridge Houses and other disadvantaged parts of the neighborhood.

Jimmy Van Bramer,  the city councilman whose district includes the Queensbridge Houses. questioned the city and state’s eager courting of Amazon at a time when the housing complex is still in need of funding for basic repairs.

“If we are helping a headquarters with 25,000 employees move in, a stone’s throw from the largest housing development in the United States of America, we need more than lip service for the people of Queensbridge,” he said. “Before we throw corporate welfare at the richest man in the world, we should think about the crisis in Nycha, and address the needs of the community, including training Queensbridge residents for tech jobs — or they will be looking through the glass from the outside.”

April Simpson, the president of Queensbridge Tenants Association.CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times


The planned location for the new headquarters is still unclear, as is whether Amazon will deliver any benefits to the roughly 6,000 people who live in the Queensbridge Houses and other disadvantaged parts of the neighborhood.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing has been carved in stone yet. The agreement is a memorandum of understanding, not a binding contract. No final deal should be pushed through without public input or approval. The mayor and governor would benefit from soliciting ideas from New Yorkers themselves, both those who live in Long Island City, and the other taxpayers footing the bill for the generous subsidies about to be given to the company.

It’s distressing that a mayor and governor who can’t come together for the sake of the subways or public housing somehow managed to find common ground by doing an end run around the City Council and steamrollering the land-use process. [Bold print by Esco.]

We won’t know for 10 years whether the promised 25,000 jobs will materialize. We do know that for decades states and cities have paid ransoms in the tens of billions of dollars to attract or “keep” jobs only to find themselves at the losing end of the proposition when companies moved on after the taxpayer freebies ended. During the Great Recession, it became commonplace for the auto industry to abandon one community after another despite lining its pockets with government money. Job promises were left in the dust of bankruptcy. Even in better times, economists have made a convincing case that these job development payout schemes aren’t worth it.

New York City has long played this incentives game to encourage companies to bring jobs here or expand. (The New York Times Company has been a beneficiary.)

But the requirements of job creation and retention now favor big cities such as New York. Throughout the world, such cities have become economic powerhouses because of their ability to concentrate the resources that global corporations increasingly need. The days when companies such as General Electric, IBM, AT&T and Mastercard fled the city for boring suburban campuses, where innovation goes to sleep, are over. Building infrastructure for Amazon’s future benefit may be too generous a bargain for it to strike when there’s a compelling need for housing and schools and transportation for all New Yorkers right now.

Mr. Bezos has owned a home here for years. He knows what our city has to offer; and as the web’s biggest retailer, he knows what he’s getting in setting up shop in Long Island City: a discount. So welcome, Jeff. Hope you enjoy your helipad.

Labor neutrality is a sane demand: Amazon should commit to letting workers organize without interference, but union advocates shouldn't silence them entirely

DAILY NEWS

The advent of Amazon to New York City has brought focus upon that company’s attitude toward labor and the relevance of the rule of law. It was President Lincoln who first told us that capital could not exist without labor. FDR tried to make this a genuine reality by establishing a mechanism through which labor rights could be made a reality in the Great Depression.

But the National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor-management relations in the private sector, has proved ineffective and inadequate in its protection of workers against anti-union tactics which frequently border upon coercion or threats but sometimes escape prohibition through the law’s vagueness.

This, along with the law’s slow-moving nature, imperils effective union recruitment drives aimed at workers fearful of retaliation for union activity. Delay in the law means that justice delayed is justice denied, workers fearing that they cannot realize the opportunity for collective bargaining in the foreseeable future.

One answer to this can be the negotiation of so-called neutrality agreements which promote a kind of code of conduct for labor and management.

City Council Speaker, Corey Johnson, questions Amazon representatives during a hearing last month. (Emil Cohen for New York City Council)

One of its most significant features is provision of union organizer access to employer property during non-working time — a feature generally unavailable by virtue of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ maiden opinion a quarter of a century ago.

A second feature is allowing for the expedited handling of union petitions to obtain recognition and bargaining. This could involve an agreement not to appeal the New York City regional director’s decision to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington; that would save time and avoid the anti-union Trump NLRB. (Unions would prefer a so-called “card-check” providing for recognition without an election, something rarely agreeable to private sector employers.)

But the third and most controversial area relates to employer and union speech, particularly employer “captive audiences,” through which an anti-union message is given by management on company pay time and property, emphasizing employer dominance. A well-crafted neutrality approach would prohibit these tactics and it could require both sides not to disparage one another. That would provide more fairness, balance, less acrimony and a better atmosphere for the subsequent negotiations about wages, hours and working conditions.

It’s a reasonable request for the city and state to make, given that Amazon’s plans to set up shop are at least partially made possible by the taxpayers.

But there are two cautionary notes. Employers should not be gagged. Supervisors should be allowed to speak respectfully without subtle threats about job losses or closures. And a second flag for local authorities is that, while they can and should nudge the parties to negotiate, an ordinance or legal instrument providing for any or all of these features would likely be deemed unconstitutional through the doctrine of preemption, which makes national labor law supreme.


If they agree to neutralit y— genuine neutrality — Amazon, the unions and New York City can set a good example for the nation. Sensible discourse and fairness would be the beneficiaries as well as the potential to reduce inequality between the “haves” and “have-nots,” a problem that plagues our society.


Gould, the Charles A. Beardsley Emeritus Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, was chairman of the NLRB in the Clinton administration. He is author of “Labored Relations: Law, Politics, and the NLRB — A Memoir.”