SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Jeff Bezos Must Address Concerns of Amazon Workers During COVID-19
WASHINGTON
The multinational U.S.-based company Amazon must ensure its workers across the globe receive adequate health and safety protection during the COVID-19 pandemic, Amnesty International said, as hundreds of U.S. Amazon workers prepare to call in sick on Friday in protest over labour issues.
Worker organizations report that hundreds of Amazon warehouse workers in the U.S. have already stayed home from work this week, citing concerns including a lack of health protection at warehouses.
Amnesty International also called on the e-commerce giant to protect the rights of workers who speak out, amid allegations that staff have been fired after voicing safety concerns.
"We stand in solidarity with Amazon workers who are speaking up for their rights. Amazon warehouse and delivery workers are risking their lives in the midst of a pandemic to deliver essential goods to all of us," said Joe Westby, Researcher at Amnesty International.
"Amazon is one of the world's wealthiest companies and its profits are surging as a result of this crisis. It is repugnant that the company's workforce feel their safety is not being taken seriously. Jeff Bezos needs to step up and address the legitimate and vital concerns raised by Amazon staff - profits should never be put above people.
"It's outrageous that Amazon is set to end its policy to give workers the option to take unlimited unpaid leave, which was just instituted in March. With reports of new COVID-19 cases emerging at warehouses in Indiana and New Jersey, employees face an impossible choice of potentially putting their health at serious risk by going to work or having to leave the company.
"Allegations that staff have been fired for speaking out are deeply disturbing. No Amazon worker should face reprisals for speaking out about safety concerns. Amazon must ensure that workers can report concerns about health and safety risks without fear of retaliation."
Background
Amnesty International wrote to the U.S.-based company Amazon requesting information about what steps it is taking to ensure it respects labour rights during the COVID-19 crisis but did not receive a response.
Companies have a responsibility to respect all human rights wherever they operate in the world, including protecting their workers and providing safe working conditions. They must adhere to health and safety standards and properly implement national health advice in order to minimize workplace exposure to the virus.
Under international laws and standards, employers must put arrangements in place that allow workers to report on health and safety risks. Workers' safety concerns must be listened to and addressed through social dialogue. There must not be retaliation against the workers for raising concerns or lodging a complaint related to health and safety.
Workers are entitled to remove themselves from a work situation that can reasonably be considered as posing a serious risk to their health. Until adequate measures are adopted and an imminent danger to life and health is addressed, employers cannot oblige workers to work in such conditions.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept over the world, people have increasingly turned to online commerce, and Amazon has experienced a surge of orders in most global markets. However, there have been strikes or walk-outs in France, Italy and in several locations in the USA over concerns about COVID-19 protocols and labour issues.
More on COVID-19 and international human rights.
People can support Amnesty International USA's work here.
This release is available at: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/jeff-bezos-must-address-concerns-of-amazon-workers-during-covid-19/
Follow Amnesty International USA on Twitter.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
'Effort to Stifle and Intimidate': Trump DOJ Subpoenas News Outlets Over Iran War Coverage
"The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering," said the newspaper's publisher.
May 12, 2026
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. "Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories," the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, "Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said 'treason.'"
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media's Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane's crew. The previous month, Trump floated "charges for treason" against journalists he accused of circulating "false information" about the Iran war.
Don't like the press coverage of your disastrous war with Iran?Just sic DOJ on the press.www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, said in a statement that "the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering."
"We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting," said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to "a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran," the newspaper reported Monday.
"Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day," the Journal added. "Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28."
CNN reported Monday that "in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months."
"But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being," CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of "cowardice" for not speaking out against the Trump administration's brazen assault on press freedom.
"The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything," Stedman wrote. "Grow a fucking spine!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Temporarily Extends Abortion Pill Access, But 'Care Is Still Under Attack Every Day'
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
May 11, 2026
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Tennessee Voters Sue Over Gerrymandering, Supreme Court Clears Way for New Alabama Map
"Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions," quipped one law professor following the ruling on Alabama's redistricting.
May 11, 2026
The US Supreme Court's right-wing majority Monday opened the door for Alabama to eliminate a majority-Black congressional district before this year's midterm elections in a decision that came as Tennessee voters sued to stop their state's racially rigged redistricting.
The nation's high court issued a 6-3 order with no explanation allowing Alabama officials to revert to a congressional map which, despite the state population being roughly 26% African American, has just one majority-Black district out of seven. The order came just a week before Alabama's primary election and less than three years after the same court ordered the state to create a second majority-Black district.
In that case, Allen v. Milligan, two right-wing members—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—joined their liberal colleagues who sided with Black voters in defense of the Voting Rights Act.
SCOTUS, which ordered Alabama to create a second Black opportunity district just 3 years ago, has lifted that order a week before the primary. The Purcell principle says courts shouldn't permit chaos too close to an election—it's now an open question whether there will even be a primary on schedule.
[image or embed]
— Joyce White Vance (@joycewhitevance.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:32 PM
Monday's ruling follows last month's Louisiana v. Callais decision, in which the justices ruled 6-3, also along ideological lines, that Louisiana's congressional map is “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
The decision ironically voided the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps in court.
Dissenting in Monday's decision, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the high court previously found that "Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters."
"That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais," she added.
Earlier on Monday, the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three Black voters, the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Equity Alliance seeking to block the state's racially rigged congressional map approved last week by the state Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee despite tremendous opposition from African American Tennesseans and their allies.
The lawsuit argues that the new map violates the Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Black voters in Memphis and retaliates against them for exercising their First Amendment right to political expression and association.
As the ACLU of Tennessee explained:
Tennessee has had a Memphis-based congressional district for the better part of a century. The challenged map dismantles that district, which is the state’s only majority-Black congressional district. It divides Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts that stretch from Memphis hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, diluting Black Memphians’ votes and stripping those communities of any meaningful voice in Congress...
A white-controlled supermajority of the Tennessee General Assembly enacted the new map targeting Black Memphians over mere days in a special legislative session that had been called after the candidate-qualifying deadline had already run.
"Black voters in Memphis did exactly what the Constitution empowers every American to do, which is to choose their representative,” ACLU of Tennessee executive director Miriar Nemeth said in a statement. “The Legislature’s response was an effort to ensure that those votes never carry the same weight again. The law has a name for this, and it’s not redistricting, it is textbook First Amendment retaliation. And it is, at its heart, racism.”
The Tennessee branch of the NAACP, state Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and voters have also sued to challenge the redistricting.
The current partisan redistricting war began when President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, who fear losing control of Congress after November's midterms, pushed Texas to enact a mid-decade redistricting. California retaliated with its own voter-approved redraw, and numerous red and blue states have followed suit or announced plans to at least consider doing so.
On Monday, Virginia's Democratic attorney general and party legislative leaders asked the US Supreme Court to block a state high court ruling against a voter-approved redistricting that favors Democrats.
Last week, Roberts dismissed the increasingly prevalent public perception that Supreme Court justices are "political actors."
Chief Justice Roberts bemoans the public's view of the Justices as political actors ...and then offers no explanation at all as the Court sprints to vacate a finding of INTENTIONAL discrimination, interfering with an impending election to let Alabama Rs sneak in a touch more partisan gerrymander.
[image or embed]
— Justin Levitt (@justinlevitt.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:21 PM
Following Monday's ruling, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said sardonically on Bluesky, "Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular