3 ms·
I’m having a hard time seeing that work for them. Amazon’s tactics here fundamentally depend on there being an effectively inexhaustible pool of talent elsewher
by ashtonkem 5y ago
I’m having a hard time seeing that work for them. Amazon’s tactics here fundamentally depend on there being an effectively inexhaustible pool of talent elsewhere that can be used to threaten any given store that considers unionizing, combined with the plausible threat of moving to get non union labor. Close up shop, hire non-union labor elsewhere, etc.
That might have been true of Walmart stores, which are relatively small and cheap to build, but I do not think it’s true for Amazon. The cost of relocating a warehouse is high, the number of places they can put a replacement warehouse is low, and the risk of another unionization push is non-trivial. Especially since Amazon is already beginning to hit head count issues; treating people as disposable drones doesn’t work when you need so many workers in a hot job market. They are probably making their unionization problems worse due to the way they view and treat their warehouse workers.
To be clear, I think they’ll try. What we’re seeing from Amazon is a real inability to react and innovate to new labor markets. I just don’t think it’ll work out as well for them as it did for say, Walmart.
- JustLurking2022 5y agoThere are large warehouses regularly available all along I-95 in New Jersey. They also may not need as huge of a footprint as you think - I believe they have some large warehouses just across the border in PA as well (<2 hours away), so this one may only be critical for same day delivery. Yes, it would be expensive, more expensive than closing a Wal-Mart store, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon finds the alternative worse.