Connect with us

Business

Amazon Union Push Falls Short at North Carolina Warehouse

Published

on

Amazon Union Push Falls Short at North Carolina Warehouse

Amazon workers voted overwhelmingly against a bid to unionize their North Carolina warehouse, the National Labor Relations Board said on Saturday, the latest setback in labor organizing efforts at the e-commerce giant.

Workers at the RDU1 fulfillment center in Garner, outside of Raleigh, voted 2,447 to 829 against unionizing with Carolina Amazonians United for Solidarity and Empowerment, or CAUSE, an upstart union founded by warehouse workers in 2022.

Organizers at the warehouse, which employs more than 4,000 people, sought starting wages of $30 an hour. The current pay range is about $18 to $24, Amazon said. The union also demanded longer lunch breaks and increased vacation time.

In a statement, leaders of CAUSE said the election outcome was the result of Amazon’s “relentless and illegal efforts to intimidate us.” They did not say whether they would challenge the outcome, but vowed to keep trying to organize.

Eileen Hards, a spokeswoman for Amazon, wrote: “We’re glad that our team in Garner was able to have their voices heard, and that they chose to keep a direct relationship with Amazon.”

Advertisement

Leading up to the election, the worker-led union filed charges with the labor relations board accusing Amazon of interfering with employees’ protected union activity. The company gave preferential treatment to workers who did not support the union, according to the charges filed by CAUSE. Amazon also unfairly fired the co-founder of the union one week before workers filed for a union election in December, CAUSE said in a filing.

Amazon denied any election interference. Employees have the choice of whether to join a union, and the company talks “openly, candidly and respectfully” about unionization, Ms. Hards said before the vote. She said the CAUSE co-founder had been fired for “repeated misconduct that included making derogatory and racist comments to his co-workers.”

Addressing demands voiced by the union, Ms. Hards said the company already offered safe workplaces, competitive pay, industry-leading benefits and consistent scheduling. The CAUSE union, she added, “has no experience representing workers or their interests.”

On top of what they characterized as resistance from the company, organizers at the warehouse faced an environment in the South that has historically been hostile to unions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership in North Carolina last year was 2.4 percent, the lowest rate in the country and far below the national average of 9.9 percent.

Amazon has aggressively fended off union campaigns and stalled the bargaining process in multiple segments of its business, including warehouses, delivery operations and grocery stores.

Advertisement

In 2022, workers at a Staten Island warehouse in New York voted to form Amazon’s first union in the United States; it is now affiliated with the Teamsters union. Amazon has challenged the election outcome in court, and has refused to recognize the union or bargain with it. Delivery drivers, who work for third-party package delivery companies serving Amazon, have also mounted campaigns with the Teamsters.

The Trump administration’s moves at the labor relations board since the inauguration — including the replacement of the general counsel appointed in the Biden administration, who was considered friendly to labor — could further embolden employers to clamp down on organizing and refuse to bargain, labor law experts said.

Workers at a Philadelphia location of Whole Foods Market voted in January to affiliate with the United Food and Commercial Workers union, establishing the first union beachhead at the Amazon-owned grocery chain. In a filing with the labor board challenging the election, the company cited President Trump’s firing of a Democratic board member, which stripped the board of a quorum necessary to issue decisions.

In January, Amazon said that it was closing its warehouse and logistics operations in the Canadian province of Quebec, where unions had gained a foothold among some Amazon workers, and that it would lay off 1,700 employees.

The North Carolina election is not the first unsuccessful union bid among Amazon warehouse workers. In 2021, workers at a warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., voted against unionizing, but labor officials later ruled that Amazon had illegally influenced the election. Workers voted a second time in 2022, but the outcome was too close to call, prompting a labor judge to order a third election. That vote has yet to be held, and Amazon has denied wrongdoing.

Advertisement

“Ultimately, the biggest thing that we’re fighting for is dignity,” Italo Medelius-Marsano, a member of the CAUSE organizing committee who works at the RDU1 ship dock, said before the vote. “We’re making sure Amazon knows that we are human beings,” he said, citing the movement’s catch phrase: “I am not a robot.”

Business

Skechers investors say they were forced to take a bad deal when the company went private

Published

on

Skechers investors say they were forced to take a bad deal when the company went private

Skechers investors are suing company executives and Skechers owner 3G Capital over what they say was an unfair sale price in an acquisition earlier this year.

3G Capital took the Manhattan Beach-based sneaker company private in a $9.4-billion deal that closed in September and reflected a share price of $63 per share.

In a class action complaint filed this month in Delaware Chancery Court, hedge funds and other large Skechers investors accused the company and 3G Capital of arranging a non-independent deal that shortchanged minority shareholders.

The deal undervalued the company as its shares were taking a beating because of a volatile federal tariff policy, the complaint said. The deal also benefited Skechers President Michael Greenberg and other controlling shareholders, according to the plaintiffs.

Advertisement

Plaintiffs seeking a higher share price were unable to reach an early settlement with Skechers after the company made an offer that was slightly higher than the original price, Bloomberg reported this week.

According to court documents, 3G Capital had offered a price of $73 per share in March this year, but lowered its offer after Trump’s tariff “liberation day” on April 2.

Investors are now pressing ahead with the case, according to Bloomberg.

Skechers said it would not comment on pending legal matters.

Skechers was one of many footwear and apparel companies that sounded the alarm when Trump passed steep import taxes on countries including China and Vietnam, where many Skechers products are made.

Advertisement

The company’s stock price fell 23% in early April after the tariffs were announced. Shares bounced back up 30% after the 3G Capital deal was announced.

Around the time of the acquisition, 3G Capital and Skechers said the purchase price represented a 30% premium to the company’s 15-day volume-weighted average stock price.

After the deal closed, about 60 investment pools managed by various firms filed to challenge the price of $1.3 billion worth of shares.

Plaintiffs in the case say Chief Executive Robert Greenberg, along with his son Michael, the company’s president, worked closely with 3G Capital to tailor an acquisition deal that worked for them amid tariff chaos.

“The merger was carefully structured to allow the Greenberg stockholders to monetize a substantial amount of their personal Skechers’ holdings,” the court complaint said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: What the Jobs Report Tells Us About the Economy

Published

on

Video: What the Jobs Report Tells Us About the Economy

new video loaded: What the Jobs Report Tells Us About the Economy

What does the September jobs report, delayed by six weeks because of the government shutdown, say about the economy? Lydia DePillis, our economics reporter, describes how the report, which was better than expected, comes at a moment of deep uncertainty.

By Lydia DePillis, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart, Gabriel Blanco and Jacqueline Gu

November 21, 2025

Continue Reading

Business

Consumers are spending $22 more a month on average for streaming services. Why do prices keep rising?

Published

on

Consumers are spending  more a month on average for streaming services. Why do prices keep rising?

Six years ago, when San José author Katie Keridan joined Disney+, the cost was $6.99 a month, giving her family access to hundreds of movies like “The Lion King” and thousands of TV episodes, including Star Wars series “The Mandalorian,” with no commercials.

But since then, the price of an ad-free streaming plan has ballooned to $18.99 a month. That was the last straw for 42-year-old Keridan, whose husband canceled Disney+ last month.

“It was getting to where every year, it was going up, and in this economy, every dollar matters, and so we really had to sit down and take a hard look at how many streaming services are we paying for,” Keridan said. “What’s the return on enjoyment that we’re getting as a family from the streaming services? And how do we factor that into a budget to make sure that all of our bills are paid at the end of a month?”

It’s a conversation more people who subscribe to streaming services are having amid an uncertain economy.

Once sold at discounted rates, many platforms have raised prices at a clip consumers say frustrates them. The entertainment companies, under pressure from investors to bolster profits, have justified upping the cost of their plans to help pay for the premium content they provide. But some viewers aren’t buying it.

Advertisement

Customers are paying $22 more for subscription video streaming services than they were a year ago, according to consulting firm Deloitte. As of October, U.S. households on average shelled out $70 a month, compared with $48 a year ago, Deloitte said.

About 70% of consumers surveyed last month said they were frustrated the entertainment services that they subscribe to are raising prices and about a third said they have cut back on subscriptions in the last three months due to financial concerns, according to Deloitte.

“There’s a frustration, just in terms of both apathy, but also from a perspective that they just don’t think it’s worth the monthly subscription cost because of just fatigue,” said Rohith Nandagiri, managing director at Deloitte Consulting LLP.

Disney+ has raised prices on its streaming service nearly every year since it launched in 2019 at $6.99 a month. The company bumped prices on ad-free plans by $1 in 2021, followed by $3 increases in 2022 and 2023, a $2 price raise in 2024 and, most recently, a $3 increase this year to $18.99 a month.

Disney isn’t the only streamer to raise prices. Other companies, including Netflix, HBO Max and Apple TV also hiked prices on many of their subscription plans this year.

Advertisement

Some analysts say streamers are charging more because many services are adding live sports, the rights to which can cost millions of dollars. Streaming services for years have also given consumers access to big budget TV shows and original movies, and as production costs rise, they expect viewers to pay more, too.

But some consumers like Keridan have a different perspective. As much as some streaming platforms are adding new content like live sports, they are also choosing not to renew some big budget shows like “Star Wars: The Acolyte.” Keridan, a Marvel and Star Wars fan, said she mainly watched Disney+ for movies such as “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and shows like “The Mandalorian.” Now she’s going back to watching some programs ad-free on Blu-Ray discs.

While Keridan cut Disney+, her family still subscribes to YouTube Premium and Paramount+. She said she uses YouTube Premium for workout videos instead of paying for a gym membership. Her family enjoys watching Star Trek programs on Paramount+, like the third season of “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds,” Keridan said.

Other consumers are choosing to keep their streaming subscriptions but look for cost savings through cheaper plans with ads, or by bundling services.

“Consumers are more willing today than ever to withstand advertising and for the sake of being able to get content for a lower subscription rate,” said Brent Magid, CEO and president of Minneapolis-based media consulting firm Magid. “We’ve seen that number increase just as people’s budgets have gotten tighter.”

Advertisement

Keridan said she’s already cutting other types of spending in her household in addition to quitting Disney+. The amount of money her family spends on groceries has gone up, and in order to save cash, they’ve cut back on traveling for the year. Typically, Keridan says, they would go on two or three vacations annually, but this year, they will only go to Disneyland in Anaheim.

But even the Happiest Place on Earth hasn’t escaped price hikes.

“Just as the streaming fees have risen, park fees have risen,” Keridan said. “And so it just seems every price of anything is rising these days, and they’re now directly in competition with each other. We can’t keep them all, so we have to make hard cuts.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending