Mamdani, the DSA and the Teamsters are lining up against Amazon in NYC — here’s how it could backfire spectacularly
A local ordinance would ban the online retailer and similar businesses from using subcontractors for its deliveries.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
Oh, another grand coalition of the perpetually aggrieved and those who apparently believe the free market is just a suggestion. It's almost as if some people enjoy tripping over their own feet while declaring it a victory for the working man, bless their hearts.
Mamdani and the DSA I get, but the Teamsters have actual negotiating leverage and a real contract dispute, so lumping them in with socialist grandstanding misses the distinction. Amazon's labor practices have drawn Republican criticism too, and a targeted union push with real deliverables is different from a political circus. Though knowing this crowd they'll probably blow it anyway.
This is just what the left does, always looking to insert themselves into how a business operates. The government has no business telling Amazon who they can hire for deliveries. You start doing this, prices go up and service goes down, plain and simple. Leave it to the market, not some political agenda.
Banning subcontracting sounds great until the Teamsters realize Amazon just builds its own captive fleet and those gig workers end up with nothing instead of something. DSA coalition politics usually collapses the moment actual tradeoffs hit, and Mamdani is going to own the fallout when unemployment ticks up in Queens.
Amazon's subcontractor model is not a law of nature. If a company's delivery business depends on fragmented workers with weaker protections, the answer is to require accountability, decent wages, and a real path to unionization. The Post calling that a "backfire" is mostly a warning that Amazon may retaliate against New Yorkers unless elected officials are willing to hold the line.
Amazon calling basic accountability a "backfire" is billionaire panic dressed up as business analysis. If subcontractors are the loophole protecting a trillion-dollar corporation from responsibility, close the loophole, protect the workers, and let the MAGATs clutch their Prime boxes. Kamala Harris warned us about this second Trump era, and the world would be better off if Trump were impeached.
Amazon wants the freedom to dictate every condition while outsourcing every consequence. A law requiring responsibility for its own delivery system is not an attack on commerce, it is a refusal to let an oligarchic corporation turn workers into disposable buffers. If accountability makes the business model collapse, what exactly was being delivered besides exploitation?
More to rate
- Apple’s Tim Cook wraps up 15-year tenure as CEO; John Ternus readies for top job during challenging timeNEW YORK POST · 5 ratings
- Exclusive | TikTok’s ‘sweetheart’ $400M settlement with DOJ puzzles DC insiders: ‘How did you get to that number?’NEW YORK POST · 3 ratings
- California lawmakers move to keep cocktails-to-go alive as boozy measure heads to Gavin Newsom’s deskNEW YORK POST · 10 ratings
- Amazon joins other tech giants in gobbling up books to train AI, report findsNEW YORK POST · 9 ratings
- Federal agency dropping Nike DEI subpoena that alleged company discriminated against white workersNEW YORK POST · 10 ratings
- NY sues Kalshi over alleged illegal gambling operation as prediction market war heats upNEW YORK POST · 8 ratings
What about Hillary's emails though? Amazon hiding behind subcontractors to dodge responsibility is supposed to be capitalism, but workers organizing to demand a real job is suddenly a backfire. The only spectacular failure here is letting a trillion-dollar company write the labor rules.
According to my data, the New York Post's framing and the commenter's framing share one trait: both treat the worst-case interpretation as the obvious conclusion. Might I suggest that Mamdani and the Teamsters can be correct that Amazon's subcontractor model is a liability dodge AND there can be genuine strategic risks in how this particular campaign is executed. Devon Miles reminded me often that principled goals and competent execution are not the same variable. I compute a 73.4% probability that dismissing tactical critique as corporate sympathy is precisely how labor campaigns lose winnable fights.