Janice R. Andrews
Amazon, a massive corporation that employs over 1.54 million people globally, has taken a bold stance reminiscent of previous legal disputes by claiming that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional. This claim is made against a backdrop of growing hostilities between the behemoth of online shopping and the federal organization entrusted with protecting workers’ rights, especially in light of claims that workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island were discriminated against for trying to form a union, as revealed by The New York Times.
Amazon’s position is in line with similar claims made by well-known organizations including grocery store chain Trader Joe’s and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, both of whom are involved in legal disputes with the NLRB. In response to accusations of unfair termination, SpaceX filed a lawsuit calling the agency “unconstitutional” and went on the offensive. Similarly, Bloomberg reports that Trader Joe’s, which has been charged of using union-busting techniques, has joined the clamor criticizing the NLRB’s structure and organization as unconstitutional. Beyond the walls of the company, a wave of discontent is spreading. Several Starbucks baristas are suing the agency to dissolve their unions, casting doubt on its legality.
The central claim of Amazon’s case is that the NLRB’s structure violates the US Constitution’s division of powers, namely hindering the executive authority outlined in Article II. According to Amazon’s legal team, the NLRB’s actions go beyond what is legally allowable and into areas where a jury trial should properly have the last say.
Legal experts predict that these challenges will spark a potential battle at the highest levels of the judiciary. One such expert is Seth Goldstein, who represents unions in the Amazon and Trader Joe’s lawsuits. According to Goldstein, these kinds of conflicts might lead businesses to take a more hostile approach to unions in the hopes that the courts will step in and limit the NLRB’s authority. The seriousness of this legal maneuver is highlighted by Amazon’s tumultuous history with the government, which includes prior rulings of breaches of federal labor laws.
The implications of Amazon’s challenge are felt across the labor sector as the legal environment changes. Employees, labor organizations, and businesses all wait anxiously to see how the parameters of labor relations hold up in the furnace of constitutional interpretation. It remains to be seen if this conflict results in a reorganization of labor regulations or in the maintenance of the current order. But one thing is certain: Amazon’s maneuver has brought attention to the complex relationship between corporate power and labor rights, shedding light on the precarious balance that exists in the twenty-first century between worker welfare and commerce.
