RetroFedNew York Is Closing In on Amazon’s Shady Delivery System
submitted by
Buck Burkeswoodjacobin.com/2026/04/nyc-amazon-delivery-subcont…
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsAppANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
Thumbnail looks like Eric Andre
Ranch it up
Wouldn’t this apply to far more companies that just Amazon? At one end there are curiour services that would seem to fall into much of this same definition. At the other end are Uber Eats/Doordash that could also fall into this definition.
I didn’t see any call outs to those others being included. Is the inclusion intentional or unintentional?
It will apply to more companies than just Amazon but the way it’s written seems to leave out most of the Courier and DoorDash type businesses.
Here’s the proposed legislation: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7879110&GUID=BDDD32F1-1178-492D-80F2-205845356FD2&Options=&Search=
Here’s the text that I’m basing my comment on:
“Last-mile facility. The term “last-mile facility” means a warehouse, storage facility, or other location that receives goods as part of a delivery supply chain, and from which such goods are delivered either to their final destination to consumers in the city, or to locations in the city designated for the transfer of goods to sustainable modes of transport, as defined by the department of transportation, for final delivery to consumers, or both. The term does not include retail businesses where the majority of the premises are used for the purposes of the on-site sale of goods to consumers, or businesses that prepare meals for immediate consumption as their primary business. "
First, thank you for the direct link to the proposed legislation. That answers many questions!
I read through most of the proposal and I think you found the most important piece: the definition of the “last-mile facility”.
I agree with your reading that things that would be excluded include:
You’re seeing a magazine article about the ordinance, not the text of the ordinance itself. Who are you asking the intent or lack thereof be ascribed to, Jacobin or the city councilperson who wrote it?
Anyway, it’s remarkably hard to find an actual link to the thing itself instead of commentary about it, but this has a reasonable amount of specifics. Apparently it’s based on deliveries that come from “last-mile delivery facilities” (think “warehouses"), not ones that come from retail stores, so (in theory) it isn’t specifically targeting Amazon but it is too narrow to include things like Doordash.
I suppose it might be the case that in practice it only targets Amazon because Amazon is the only mail-order company doing the thing the bill covers (operating its own warehouses that deliver directly to customers using their own employeed/contracted workers, as opposed to having the warehouse feed retail stores or using a truly separate and non-controlled carrier like USPS or FedEx for delivery to customers).
I have no idea if Jacobin has some weird ulterior motive for not mentioning some other company (that I can’t personally think of) that the bill would also cover.
I’m asking anyone that knows or could speculate with more information than I have, which is just the article.
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today found the link to the proposed legislation. I’m copying their provided link here in case you’re interested in it too:
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7879110&GUID=BDDD32F1-1178-492D-80F2-205845356FD2&Options=&Search=
With the legislation it is looking like other large retailers would get included in this such as Walmart or Target deliveries depending on where the deliveries are sourced from. If the delivery is originating from a retail store (where retail is the primary use of the building) then it looks like it would be excluded. If the delivery is originating from a warehouse, it looks like these other companies would be included in being bound by the law.
This would appear to create a loophole for the large companies. If deliveries are first sent to a Target, Walmart, or Whole Foods retail store, then the delivery driver would pick up the order there for delivery to the customer they might be able to skirt this law.
I don’t think it is necessarily malicious exception on Jacobin’s part, but their known bias opposing big business suggests their focus (and their belief of the focus of their readers) is aimed at the big boys, not the small fries.
They would also have to be employing/contracting the delivery drivers, as opposed to just mailing the things using USPS or an established parcel delivery company. (I mean, this bill can’t possibly be intending to prohibit Target from using UPS or FedEx, right?)
I agree. However, I have no idea how Walmart or Target employs/contracts their delivery folks. Its news stories like this that OP posted that I like to learn about because, while I’ve been aware of Amazon’s practices in this area, I really have no idea how far that extends to other companies.
This is a small part of my question about unintended consequences or collateral damage. Lots of wording in the proposed legislation matches UPS/Fedex. This further means that small urban courier companies might also be scooped up in this law unintentionally.
Progress does not need to be absolute to be good
I think you’re misinterpreting my question. I’m not casting judgment, I’m looking for insight as to their goals and understanding of the ramifications of the path they are choosing.
This is a problem solving “first principles” question, namely: “What specific problem are they trying to solve?”
Amazon presumably is bigger
Uh…sure that is factual but doesn’t address where my question is going. Are they intending on fixing all of the delivery employers? Only the big ones? Only the ones with a subcontracting company relationship? What specific problem are they trying to fix? Further, if they are working toward passing this broad law only against Amazon, have they thought though the consequences of what other companies or business models might be wrapped up in it because of the wording of the law?
Of those other companies, was it intentional that they’d get wrapped up in this law, or are those other companies large and small simply collateral damage to those orgs?
Fuck if I know
We need a law requiring Journalist to link to legislation in their articles.
Also, keee-rist this took forever to find. I ended up having to go to the NYC Council website, then to the scheduled meeting for 4/9 to find the proposed legislation as it wouldn’t come up any other way.
Here’s the link: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7879110&GUID=BDDD32F1-1178-492D-80F2-205845356FD2&Options=&Search=
I am onboard with that law. You mention a law or policy or anything that the government publically has a link to then you have to put the link at the foot of the article or not be allowed to publish it.
While it’s a good idea, I’m not sure that additional licensing requirements and legal red tape are necessarily the best way to go about it.