Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Amazon Exits Quebec Operations, To Cut About 1,700 Jobs (msn.com) 152

Posted by BeauHD from the anti-union dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: E-commerce giant Amazon.com is exiting its operations in the Canadian province of Quebec, leading to the loss of about 1,700 full-time jobs, the company said on Wednesday, prompting Ottawa to express its unhappiness. The online retailer will phase out operations across seven sites in the province -- the only location in Canada with unionized Amazon employees -- over the next two months. It will return to a third-party delivery model, relying on local small businesses, similar to its approach before 2020. "Following a recent review of our Quebec operations, we've seen that returning to a third-party delivery model ... will allow us to provide even more savings to our customers," Amazon spokesperson Barbara Agrait said. The move will affect approximately 250 seasonal workers. Amazon will offer affected employees a package including up to 14 weeks' pay and "transitional benefits such as job placement resources," Agrait added.

"This is not the way business is done in Canada," said Federal Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne.

"There is no doubt that the closings announced today are part of an anti-union campaign against CSN and Amazon employees," said CSN president Caroline Senneville in a statement. "This move contradicts the provisions of the Quebec Labour Code, which we will strongly oppose," Senneville added.

Amazon Exits Quebec Operations, To Cut About 1,700 Jobs More | Reply

Amazon Exits Quebec Operations, To Cut About 1,700 Jobs

Comments Filter:

  • Quebec response (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coopertempleclause ( 7262286 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @08:16AM (#65111893)
    Quebec needs to prevent Amazon from selling to the region then. If you're going to screw over workers seeking their democratic right to collective bargaining, then you shouldn't be allowed to do business.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by chas.williams ( 6256556 )
      Is Amazon required to employ those people for the rest of their lives? Amazon has decided to close operations. The employees can collectively bargain whatever they want. Their current employer is no longer there.
      • Then it should be up to the courts to listen to Amazon's side of the story and decide whether it makes sense or not. If it doesn't make sense, then they broke the law.

        • Then it should be up to the courts to listen to Amazon's side of the story and decide whether it makes sense or not. If it doesn't make sense, then they broke the law.

          What law is that? 'Though shalt have a supply chain in Quebec?'

          • I don't see how else you enforce a law that they can't interrupt the formation of a union. That is a law.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by saider ( 177166 )

              They did not interrupt the formation of the union. They just decided that it was better business for them to covert to 3rd party distribution.

              • It is too close afterwards to call.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by kenh ( 9056 )

                How long did they run a union shop? I think, based on TFS, it was as long as 4 years - at some point the math becomes obvious. The replacement delivery companies that fill the void left by Amazon getting out of the distribution business are free to pay union wages, run a union shop, but it seems unlikely.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          Amazon had a third-party delivery model as recently as 2020, then in response to COVID they switched to a company-owned distribution model and hired 1,700 workers. Now, five years later, Amazon feels the third-party model is preferable and wants to revert back to it.

          I don't understand why the provincial government needs to approve Amazons business decisions...

          I assume, since it wasn't mentioned in TFS, that there were no generous tax incentives that Amazon is violating.

          Assuming Amazon runs a wickedly-effici

      • Is Amazon required to employ those people for the rest of their lives? Amazon has decided to close operations. The employees can collectively bargain whatever they want. Their current employer is no longer there.

        I wonder if the unionized nature of the employees is the only issue with Amazon shutting down? Anyhow, Amazon is well within their rights, and Quebec is well within their rights to block Amazon sales if they see fit.

      • Re:Quebec response (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ihavesaxwithcollies ( 10441708 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @09:19AM (#65112077)

        Is Amazon required to employ those people for the rest of their lives? Amazon has decided to close operations. The employees can collectively bargain whatever they want. Their current employer is no longer there.

        Is Quebec required to let Amazon sell good for the rest of its existence? Quebec has decided to stop them from selling. Amazon can try to sell whatever they want. Their goods and service are no longer needed there.

        It's a two way road. Quebec can ban Amazon from doing business in their providence.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          It's a two way road. Quebec can ban Amazon from doing business in their providence.

          Amazon isn't exiting the market, they are changing the delivery model.

          On what grounds can Quebec ban a company from selling its goods in the province?

          Amazon likely could weather the loss of all sales in Quebec far better than the residents of Quebec could weather the loss of Amazon as a vendor.

          This move will shift some 1,700 workers from Amazon's payroll to any one of likely hundreds of smaller companies (many likely minority-owned), earning whatever those new employers choose to pay.

          • It's a two way road. Quebec can ban Amazon from doing business in their providence.

            Amazon isn't exiting the market, they are changing the delivery model.

            On what grounds can Quebec ban a company from selling its goods in the province?

            On any grounds. Do you honestly think amazon has some sort of god-giving right to start or hold a business in Canada?

      • Quebec gave them deals to move in, so they got something for nothing. They're reneging under false pretenses, and that fraud is possibly actionable.

        On the other hand, if it isn't, then they should have done the deal better. And a corporation that won't take the deal if it requires them to hold up their end isn't something you want in your province, and you shouldn't make a deal with them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by KlomDark ( 6370 )
        Nobody said anything about that. What is being said that if Amazon cannot follow the law as in regard to union activity, then they should not be allowed to sell anything in that province until they straighten out their shit.

      • If they are closing operations, then that means they aren't doing business in that area anymore. Why should they be selling there after this? Unless they aren't closing operations and they're just dumping union employees.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          Amazon is selling off the delivery trucks and firing the people that drove them. The warehouse will remain, but all deliveries will be made by non-Amazon employees driving non-Amazon trucks.

      • bezos.
        what iif those same 17 hundred people form a union.
        then those same people create a shipping business.
        just like amazon.
        it would take about 5 years for both sides to learn how to play nice together.
        this how management and staff learn to make something better.
        this arrangement might be even generate more revenue.
        letâ(TM)s face it.
        all amazon offers is their warehouse.
        does anyone think that the people of quebec cannot can not build their own warehouse

    • Quebec needs to prevent Amazon from selling to the region then. If you're going to screw over workers seeking their democratic right to collective bargaining, then you shouldn't be allowed to do business.

      Quebec is welcome and able to determine who is allowed to sell in Quebec.

      It is difficult to see the problem here, and the nature of the business means that it is trivial to block selling to Quebecois.

      • Quebec the people, Quebec the government, or Quebec within Canada, Ottawa, the people or the nation?

        I'm an American, so I have to suspend the entitlement I feel as an American citizen to be left alone as much as possible. Mind you, that's an ideal not being met well currently, but we have the power, as US citizens, to change. Canada ain't America. Different constitution, different rules.

    • Re:Quebec response (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @09:25AM (#65112105)
      Isn't this actually good though? 'Big tech bad.' They successfully pushed out Amazon's distribution business which will now be replaced by more varied, smaller competitors. Granted it will be UPS and Canada Post moreso than mom-and-pop logistics companies. But not Amazon.

    • Quebec needs to prevent Amazon from selling to the region then.

      That'll show the citizens of Quebec how to teach Amazon a lesson!

    • If you're going to screw over workers seeking their democratic right to collective bargaining...

      Why not? After all Canadian governments screw over workers who do not want to be a member of a union by ignoring their right of freedom of association and allowing compelled union membership, something just about every other western democracy has decided is a violation of human rights. It's more than a little hypocritical to ask companies to respect the right to freedom of association if you don't.

    • "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P. J. O'Rourke

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keltor ( 99721 ) *
      I'm confident that the customers of Amazon probably don't care about collective bargaining and just want to be able to buy stuff. I'm sure the opposition party in Ottawa would love for them to do this though.

      Collective bargaining is not a democratic right because it's literally anti-democratic as it takes aware the individual voices. Collective bargaining is a form of oligarchy.
    • Why not just impose Quebec to only shop on specific websites while you're at it to lock out some sites like AliExpress?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wolfier ( 94144 )

      I don't see this move being any different from shutting down and hire robots instead.

      The collective bargaining right still exists, it would be the independent partners who will be negotiating. I think it's fair for a company to say "I don't want to deal with collective bargaining" while the right still exists. They just cease to be one of the parties.

  • Amazon will have to pay back all their incentives and tax breaks?

    We know the answer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by v1 ( 525388 )

      if Amazon brokered a deal with Quebec, and then Quebec changed the terms of the deal, then Amazon should be able to walk away from it.

      So it should come down to which came first, the labor regulations or the deal? I don't know the dates on either one of them, but I do see a lot of people here passing judgement that also don't know the dates, so they're speaking in ignorance.

  • Time to rev up the boycott machine (Score:3)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @09:07AM (#65112027) Homepage

    I already avoid buying from Amazon if there's even a remotely comparable alternative. And given Trump's threatened tariffs, I'm actually avoiding American goods and services as much as possible, and certainly not spending any tourism dollars in the USA.

    • I live in the US, and most of the stuff I want to buy is made in China anyway. I own almost nothing made here. A pair of boots is all I can think of off the top. My car was made in Mexico. Every product I can see right now was made somewhere in Asia.

      So, I've been buying as much stuff as possible from aliexpress, since it's all made in China anyway. If no American workers are going to get paid when I buy items, fuck it.

      • I assume you mostly consume imported food. So much fresh produce comes from elsewhere, though grains and such are often made right here in the US.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Samare ( 2779329 )

        Same here, why give money to the intermediaries if we can buy cheaper directly from the source?

        Of course, if the intermediaries provide some value (quality control, warranty), then it can be worth it to pay more.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Samare ( 2779329 )

      Of course, if every Canadian stops buying US products, it'll make tariffs even more needed for the US balance of trade.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        What you call "tariffs" I call "a consumption tax on Americans."

        So sure. Raise the cost of living for average Americans. What could go wrong?

    • ... given Trump's threatened tariffs, I'm actually avoiding American goods and services as much as possible, and certainly not spending any tourism dollars in the USA.

      My wife and I decided many years ago that we would never go back to the US because it was just getting too strange and it no longer felt safe. At the time most people we told about that thought we were a bit strange. Over the years though, more and more of the fellow Canadians we talk to also say they don't and won't go to the States. I think some Americans might be surprised by the number of Canadians who - even before His Orangeness won another term - decided that visiting the US just wasn't for them any

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GrahamJ ( 241784 )

      Same, I’m doing a big review of our household expenditures and where that money is ending up, and reducing the amount the goes to the US where possible. And we definitely won’t be setting foot in that country for at least 4 years. I’ve heard many people, including on local news, saying the same.


  • - We replaced professional taxi drivers with gig drivers
    - We are in the process of replacing gig drivers with robots -- Waymo seems ever-present in my neighborhood
    - Soon there will be very few humans behind the wheel for intracity personal transportation
    - Many truck driving jobs are next ... including intracity package delivery jobs

    The consumption economy will collapse when enough people have been displaced from work that the buying takes a hit. Many of today's gig workers are tomorrow's homeless

    • - We replaced professional taxi drivers with gig drivers

      One of these things is not like the others. Everyone has a GPS, and taxi companies had a LOT of time to adapt. It's now a customer service job and not an expert wayfinding job. It's not like Uber/Lyft are very good. If taxi companies were even just twice the price, they would be doing much better.

      I don't know if I trust Waymo to a wider area anytime soon. We would need to replace every car on the road with a robot car to make it even remotely safe. It's all the edge cases that they have to deal with.

      • Elon Musk had the right idea but he was an idiot.

        I agree with pretty much everything you said, but felt compelled to point out your use of an incorrect verb tense. Musk IS an idiot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Samare ( 2779329 )

      It's not the first time that low-skill jobs get replaced by technology. Should we stop technology?
      A few examples:
      - Switchboard operators (whom manually connected phone calls by plugging cables into switchboards)
      - Elevator operators (now the lifts stop by themselves)
      - Street lamp lighters (gas street lights replaced by electric lights)
      - Weavers and spinners (in the textile industry)
      - Ice delivery workers (replaced by refrigerators)
      - Toll booth operators

      • I'm not saying "technology should stop" ... I do not see this happening. I am pointing out that we are in one of those rapid economic evolution stages and the behavior of companies like Amazon is going to result fairly soon in Amazon itself having fewer customers. Homeless people buy a lot less cheap shit made by children in overseas factories than employed people.

  • how business is done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @09:14AM (#65112051) Homepage Journal

    "This is not the way business is done in Canada," said Federal Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne.

    ' yeah, that is what a Mafia boss would say. What does this government schmuck know about doing business? Pound sand, if a company walks away it means your way of "doing business" does not work for the company. I would do exactly the same thing in place of Amazon. If Quebec government decides Quebeckers cannot shop at Amazon, they will also have another surprise.

    • is a Mafia boss? Funny that.

      Fun fact, don't know about Canada but the reason US Unions got buddy/buddy with the mob was they needed someone to protect them from the factory bossses, who had small armies with miniguns and explosives and weren't afraid to use them.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      I would agree with you ordinarily. But I can see we're getting to the point in our increasingly oligarchical system where average citizens (they call us consumers now) are increasingly powerless and simply have to deal with the whims of the corporation, which is all about more and more profit-taking. As much as the market will bear, and then some more.

      Thus I don't have as much problem as I used to with the idea of trying to reign in these big companies that wield so much power. But alas, one province cann

  • Need I say more?

  • Unions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @10:08AM (#65112251) Journal

    I have a split opinion on unions. My grandfather was part of the massive UAW union while he worked at Ford for over 30 years until retirement. He was very supportive of unions, and even voted the way they told their members to vote. He told me how much they helped the employees when it came to working conditions and wages. After he retired he gradually backed away from that and no longer voted candidates just because the union said he should.

    My personal experience was when I was 16 years old working as a bagger in a grocery store. I made minimum wage ($3.35 an hour), and worked part time. The state laws dictated my minimum wage and only allowed me to work certain hours and shifts because of my age. Yet, out of each of my tiny paychecks, union dues were automatically subtracted. The union did absolutely, positively nothing for me whatsoever, but they still took my money. That wasn't fair, and the unions didn't have to do that, but they did. I had no choice - by law I had to be in the union. If the union had been voted into that business, then everyone had to be part of it.

    I saw how other unions - baker unions, butcher unions, on and on - would come into the store and harass and literally threaten employees to vote that union in. It was pretty bad. It certainly came across as somewhere between organized thugs and a mafia-like organization.

    Now, I see at a large nearby plant that makes Volvo Trucks, huge union buildings, and an army of full-time employees that work for the union itself. Now that just reeks of bureaucracy, bloat and is like a tumor sucking away resources from that industry.

    A hundred years ago, the government was not in the business of helping people. At that time churches and other civic organizations took care of the needy and destitute. Now government has directly taken that over, and you don't see many churches needing to fulfill that role at all. We've reached a similar place with unions. They were absolutely necessary especially during the industrial revolution as government lagged far behind protecting workers.

    Now... the government is directly involved in the protection of workers in workplaces, through many different mechanisms (OSHA, the Department of Labor, on and on). So in reality the usefulness of unions has declined significantly over the last century. I don't know Canadian / Quebec law, but I'm pretty certain they have a ton of laws on the books protecting workers.

    My point is that we can't be naive enough to always think "union === good", nor believe that unions truly have the best interests of their employees in mind if they are willing to totally drive businesses out of areas in an all-or-nothing mindset, that actually hurts a specific set of workers in the long run.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nebulo ( 29412 )

      > Now... the government is directly involved in the protection of workers in workplaces

      Get ready for that to change. The incoming US administration is hell-bent on burning the place down, including OSHA, EPA, etc. I'll agree that unions have shrunk in necessity in recent decades, but we're going to again need the collective power of unions very quickly.

    • Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Thursday January 23, 2025 @12:02PM (#65112561)
      I was a bagger at a union Krogers and had dues taken from my near-minimum wage paycheck too. But I think I benefited from the small dues collected -- for one who do you think lobbied for that minimum wage? We had guaranteed breaks, and on Saturdays and Sundays when I worked a full day, I got one 30 minute break and two 15 minute paid breaks in 8 hours. Also on the odd-days when produce needed help unloading a truck we made $18/hr in 1978 -- over 5 times my $3.25 pay at the time. Some of the highest paid people in my small town were the non-union managers of the Krogers -- the union wage inflation trickled up. I would bet this trickle-up effect is far more real far more often than the Republican trickle-down imaginings.

    • Now... the government is directly involved in the protection of workers in workplaces, through many different mechanisms (OSHA, the Department of Labor, on and on). So in reality the usefulness of unions has declined significantly over the last century.

      In the US I'm pretty sure that the average Amazon worker - not to mention the gig economy workers such as Amazon drivers who pee into bottles to make their quotas - would laugh out loud at the proposition that the government protects them in the workplace. And they will only laugh louder - even as they're crying - when said government falls even farther under the control of corporations under the latest president.

      My point is that we can't be naive enough to always think "union === good", nor believe that unions truly have the best interests of their employees in mind if they are willing to totally drive businesses out of areas in an all-or-nothing mindset, that actually hurts a specific set of workers in the long run.

      In the first place, that sentiment applies equally to the government which you think can adequa

    • Unions in general are an inefficient and horribly political drain on an economy. It's like an overcorrection to a serious problem. They have no place in a modern society. Unfortunately we're not talking about a modern society (and by modern society I mean a society that values people and has laws in place to provide ample protection for workers). We're talking about North America. Minimum was is a joke. At will employment is a thing. Unions may be horrible, but they are an absolute necessity for the wage-sl

  • I've seen over on Reddit some people indicating they are cancelling their Prime membership, since they believe they won't be getting Amazon Prime delivery promises respected with this change. They believe that overnight will go away. I have no idea what the reality will be, but unless Amazon looks to respond to those concerns, they may lose more Amazon Prime customers.

  • You tighten the vice only enough not crush them.

Slashdot Top Deals

There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)

Close