SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Today shows that Amazon workers are united and stronger than ever in our demands for higher pay," said one warehouse worker and organizer.
As Amazon workers across the United States launched a campaign demanding at least $25 an hour, the e-commerce giant announced Wednesday that it is raising hourly pay for its warehouse workers and drivers.
In what Amazon vice president of worldwide operations Udit Madan called the company's "biggest-ever investment in pay and benefits," the average starting pay for U.S. fulfillment and transportation workers will rise starting this month.
"Members of our front-line team will be getting at least an additional $1.50/hour starting this month, which will bring their average base wage to more than $22/hour and average total compensation to more than $29/hour when you include the value of their elected benefits," such as healthcare, said Madan, who added that the workers will also receive free Amazon Prime subscriptions.
While the Amazon workers who launched the drive for $25 welcomed the announcement, they say they deserve more.
"I've lost out on thousands of dollars of income. I haven't gotten a paycheck since my short-term disability—which only covered 60% of my regular pay—ended in January," said Christine, a worker at Amazon's STL8 fulfillment center in Missouri and longtime member of the STL8 Organizing Committee.
"I'm awaiting approval for long-term disability, which I applied for back in January," explained Christine, who was injured on the job. "I've maxed out my credit cards and drained my 401(k). I'm on food stamps. I just got approved for Medicaid. At one point I started a GoFundMe just to make rent. I've never been in the position of having to ask for money, but the alternative was homelessness. When you're forced into that position, you do what it takes to survive."
"Today shows that Amazon workers are united and stronger than ever in our demands for higher pay," she added. "With over 800 worker signatures on our petition and new workers joining us from across the region, together we will win the $25 an hour that we all deserve."
According to the campaign:
Research suggests working families need at least $25 to make it by. In Missouri, for example, a livable wage for a family of four is at least $25; in New York, the livable wage is even higher, at $39. However, a majority of Amazon warehouse workers reported earning wages between $16 and $20—before Amazon increased starting pay to $17 in September 2023. Amazon itself reports an average pay of $20.50.
"The $1 raise that Amazon gave workers last year was shameful. After accounting for inflation, it wasn't even a raise," lamented Irene Tung, senior researcher and policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project. "Our research has shown that Amazon tends to locate its warehouses in high earnings counties around the country, but lags behind other warehouse employers in pay—even though it can afford to pay workers much more."
Advocates point to Amazon's $30.4 billion 2023 profits as proof that the company can afford to pay its workers more.
"Raising pay by 25% would bring Amazon workers much closer to a middle-income standard of earnings," Tung said. "Given Amazon's size and the enormity of its wealth, it is not far-fetched to ask why this company has thus far failed at creating middle-income jobs for the hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers that power its operations."
Beth Gutelius—the author of Handling Hardship: Data on Economic Insecurity Among Amazon Warehouse Workers—said in a statement that "if warehouse wages had kept pace with inflation, workers would be earning $25.66 an hour—so workers are simply asking Amazon to bring wages in line with the cost of living, which as we know has risen sharply."
"Doing so would help ensure that workers are able to meet their basic needs without relying on public assistance," she added.
"The vice president's strong union record is why Teamsters locals across the country have already endorsed her—alongside the overwhelming majority of organized labor," said a spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris.
For the first time in decades—and in a break with other major unions and many of its own local bargaining units—the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on Wednesday announced it would not endorse a candidate in the U.S. presidential election.
The union's decision came two months after its general president, Sean O'Brien was widely criticized by labor proponents for speaking at the Republican National Convention, with advocates noting that GOP candidate Donald Trump had spent his presidential term from 2017-21 appointing anti-union federal judges and key agency leaders, undermining collective bargaining rights, and making it harder for workers to hold their employers accountable for unfair labor practices.
The Teamsters General Executive Board said its 1.3 million members had expressed no majority support for Vice President Kamala Harris and no universal support for Trump.
Prior to President Joe Biden's announcement in July that he was stepping aside in the presidential race and endorsing Harris, the Teamsters' rank-and-file members had backed Biden over Trump, 44.3% to 36.3%.
Harris met with the union's leadership earlier this week, reminding officials that Trump had named anti-union members to the National Labor Relations Board, while the vice president had cast the Senate's tie-breaking vote on the American Rescue Plan, which shored up the Teamsters pension fund with $35.6 billion. She also pointed to Trump's comments in an interview with billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk that striking workers should be fired.
"Listen to the guy when he's told you who he is," she reportedly told union leaders.
O'Brien said Wednesday that the union "sought commitments from both Trump and Harris not to interfere in critical union campaigns or core Teamsters industries—and to honor our members' right to strike—but were unable to secure those pledges."
The union objected to Harris "not preemptively saying the White House would play no role in settling the Teamsters' dispute with [the United Postal Service]," according to The New York Times.
But a number of union locals and the Teamsters National Black Caucus endorsed Harris before the union's announcement Wednesday, and the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council announced its support for the vice president shortly afterwards.
"The 250,000 who work across California are fundamental to the American economy, not only producing and transporting goods, but also providing essential services throughout the private and public sectors," said Joint Council 42 president Chris Griswold. "They deserve an administration that will put working people first."
Harris has won endorsements from the United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and other key unions.
"The vice president's strong union record is why Teamsters locals across the country have already endorsed her—alongside the overwhelming majority of organized labor," Harris campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said Wednesday. "She will look out for the Teamsters rank-and-file no matter what—because they always have been and always will be the people she fights for."
John Palmer, a vice president at large for the union and member of its executive board, acknowledged that Harris had sent that message in her meeting with the Teamsters this week, telling the Times that she said, "I want your endorsement, but if I don't get it, I will treat you exactly as if I had gotten your endorsement."
"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 ruled in 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."