Amazon Shuttering Quebec Operations

GrumpyCanadian

Some of you may remember a brief side-discussion between AR and myself some months ago, about workers at an Amazon facility organising to form a union. I mentioned that Amazon was challenging the formation of the union and the Quebec ruling that the workers' vote was valid. My question was, "what next"? Well, today we have the answer: Amazon is closing all of its distribution centres in Quebec, firing all of its own drivers and going back to using third-party couriers. Story link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/amazon-warehouse-closures-quebec-1.7438078

My response to the claim that it has nothing to do with the formation of the union in Laval, possibly with more on the horizon? Bovine excretions! These sorts don't understand anything that doesn't talk to them in dollars, so hopefully they end up with enough late deliveries that turn into free orders and/or a large enough number of cancelled Prime subscriptions to register on the balance sheet.

I have been saying for years, usually when ranting about Walmart, that we need to get more forceful. All workers at
all locations in the country need to organise at the same time, forming a united, national union. The Amazons and Walmarts of the world would then have two choices: chalk it up to a cost of doing business, or leave the country altogether. Surely, if they tried to close or move all of their locations, it would result in stiff regulatory reactions, no matter who is PM.

urbanriot

GrumpyCanadian

My response to the claim that it has nothing to do with the formation of the union in Laval, possibly with more on the horizon? Bovine excretions!

I agree with you entirely but they would never say that because the optics would be bad amongst pro-union people.

The cost of employment is extremely high in Canada compared to the United States and unionization makes things worse.

This isn't just affecting Amazon, there are a lot of job positions and services that have moved to contractor-based services due to the increased cost of employment over the past decade.

Thane_Bitter

Honestly I could see Amazon pull up stakes and move on rather than provide a livable standard in Canada, compared with the US the sales here are small so why further lower profit by paying reasonable wages. Most of their workers are actually hired through subcontractors anyways which acts as a buffer for them, they dangle the carrot of full time amazon employee status and the workers are less interested in labour unions. In all the company sees them as needed, but still replaceable cogs meant to be discarded if they cause issues. Walmart (via Sam's Club) did pull out of Canada, the reasons might have been different but they must have felt that in the long run it wasn't worth the effort to continue despite spending a great deal fighting for the name (Sam's club was in fact an LP & CD record club) and building or renovating stores.

GrumpyCanadian

Thane_Bitter Honestly I could see Amazon pull up stakes and move on rather than provide a livable standard in Canada, compared with the US the sales here are small so why further lower profit by paying reasonable wages.

They have been in Canada since around 2000, so apparently they consider the Canadian market desirable enough to go on doing business here. Furthermore, in the last five years, they set up not one, but seven distribution centres in Quebec alone. If it wasn't worthwhile for them, and there weren't enough orders, which management dope decided to create that many large centres? If they were justified in having that many, why are they now reversing course? The only answer that makes sense is that they are having a Mirko-style tantrum over the formation of a union at the Laval centre. They tried to block it, but were told they couldn't. Given their record of union-busting tactics in the United States (which worked, if I remember correctly), the reasonable conclusion is that they insist on exploiting their workers, and are staunchly anti-union.

Amid calls for a boycott of Amazon in Quebec (good luck with that!), one local analyst said that they will likely get a new sub-contractor to take over the operations, such that it will be Amazon and their delivery facilities in everything but name. Should they try that, I hope (but don't seriously expect) that the government intervenes, forcing them to keep the former employees, with the Laval union intact and a collective agreement just updated from "Amazon" to the new "not-Amazon".

urbanriot

GrumpyCanadian

If they were justified in having that many, why are they now reversing course?

I'd posted why in the post above yours - the cost of employment is more than the value in having a distribution center in Quebec and employing delivery agents directly. It's really that simple.

The cost of employing humans in Canada is significantly more than the United States and it's a common sentiment you'll hear from big business owners from other countries, it's why so many people are contracted rather than hired. Canada is an expensive country to do business.

Thane_Bitter

GrumpyCanadian I bought books from them when there were just a bookstore, the reason why is they had books I couldn't order through the monopoly of at that time Chapters (and its other names such as Coles) and there were few independent bookstores left around at that time that would accept orders or could access the same goods. This is how they grew, offer things you can't get locally, make the process to purchase simple. As for the Quebec shuttering the reason is costs, they don't want to deal with unions, a short term upset of losses can be managed by the company, with the noise coming out of the US having less in Canada probably is to their advantage, they feel is worth it to close if they can escape paying its workers more money.

I agree they probably have a plan to keep providing goods so long as the market demands their offerings, and it's probably going to mean the workers get even less while a few higher ups that can organize a workforce (ie temp agencies) make more money.

GrumpyCanadian

urbanriot I read what you wrote the first time, but I don't accept that that is the only reason, and maybe not part of the reason at all. Part of the due diligence of setting up a multi-million dollar facility is understanding the costs associated with that business move. If nothing else, they fully understood after the first distribution centre was up and running in Quebec. Instead of shutting it down for being too expensive, they added six more and kept them running for five years; it doesn't take that long to figure out the cost structures of such an operation. Only after the formation of the union did they change their tune. To me, that is telling, especially when one considers their underhanded union-busting tactics south of the border.

There have also been articles about the treatment of their freelance delivery drivers. Add it all up and you see that they insist on taking advantage of their workers, making their own rules and avoiding any negotiations relating to salary or working conditions. It's not 1910 anymore, and we shouldn't stand for this.

px_eliezer_

urbanriot
The cost of employing humans in Canada is significantly more than the United States and it's a common sentiment you'll hear from big business owners from other countries, it's why so many people are contracted rather than hired. Canada is an expensive country to do business.

I don't know one way or the other if that's accurate.

Canada at least has an organized health care system (yes I know it differs by province) but Canadian employers don't have to cover health care for their workers.

By contrast, health care is a massive expense for US employers---which is why many US employers try to have only part-time people, or else use contractors, so they can escape the expense of providing health insurance.

digitalfutur

Amazon is just going back to the business model they had in Quebec before 2000 so for whatever reason the cost-benefit there doesn’t work out for them now. Whether they intend to or not, they are however, sending a message about unionization at their facilities.

Nash211

Deleted

GrumpyCanadian

Finally, an article that seems to shed a little more light on the situation. To me, this lends even more credibility to the accusation that it was little more than an anti-union move:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unionized-amazon-warehouse-quebec-concern-1.7441043

Hopefully the union challenge achieves something, because it doesn't seem like the provincial government is inclined to lift a finger to help.

px_eliezer_

GrumpyCanadian
Finally, an article that seems to shed a little more light on the situation. To me, this lends even more credibility to the accusation that it was little more than an anti-union move:

Oh fer sure.

Amazon has been very, very firm down here (in its original country) about fighting unionization efforts.

GrumpyCanadian

px_eliezer_ By contrast, health care is a massive expense for US employers---which is why many US employers try to have only part-time people, or else use contractors, so they can escape the expense of providing health insurance.

On the same subject, there are companies that do the same here. They keep a larger number of part-time employees, so that they don't have to worry about benefits, paid vacation or some of the other costs associated with having a single full-time position. From what I've heard, Apple (retail) is one such company; poor Apple, they just don't have the resources to cover all of those unreasonable expenses.

GrumpyCanadian

px_eliezer_ Indeed; per the article, there is only one U.S.-based facility that had a union certified. Even then, that New York location still lacks a collective agreement (or whatever the correct name for it is in New York state).

There was also an article, a few years ago, I think, that documented the attempt to bring in a union in another state. Amazon resorted to all sorts of difficult-to-prove, underhanded tactics, and eventually the employees didn't proceed with the effort.

With Quebec's tougher labour laws, their efforts weren't having the desired effect, and I guess they were terrified that the idea might begin to spread, so they left. I'm still hopeful that this will come back to bite them in some substantial way.

GrumpyCanadian

So, back to this story, Amazon's original estimate was that around 1700 would lose their jobs. That was already bad enough, but now the official Quebec estimate (the CSN came up with the same number) puts that closer to 4500 jobs lost.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10995828/amazon-quebec-legal-challenge-job-losses/

Pretty scummy tactics for a company that clearly doesn't have to chase every last dollar.

urbanriot

GrumpyCanadian

Pretty scummy tactics for a company that clearly doesn't have to chase every last dollar.

shrug

The employees got greedy and overplayed their hand. They had a good job with good incentives to work there, obviously, otherwise the place wouldn't have thousands of employees. The employees thought they could hold Amazon over the coals and squeeze more, Amazon said, "sorry but you ruined a good thing, goodbye."

Again, predictable.

Anyone in business knows that employment in Canada is expensive and employees seem to forget that, they seem to forget that the government is already extracting a massive toll from companies who do business in Canada so there isn't much left in the pie for the workers.

ElQuintron

GrumpyCanadian Pretty scummy tactics for a company that clearly doesn't have to chase every last dollar.

Even if they have to "chase every last dollar" if you can't pay your employees fairly you shouldn't be in business.

Somewhat-Reticent

ElQuintron fairly

Is subjective.

urbanriot

ElQuintron

if you can't pay your employees fairly you shouldn't be in business.

What wasn't fair about what they were receiving? My understanding that even new employees on the bottom rung with a starting wage were receiving good benefits. Google AI claims the average wage for a delivery driver was $25/hour with benefits which seems like a fine wage for driving a truck and dropping off packages.

GrumpyCanadian

urbanriot You can't decide what is a "fine wage" based on a job title alone, absent all other facts. The contention was that other workers doing similar work in Quebec are better-paid. There is also the matter of Amazon actively "discouraging" workers from filing reports with the provincial regulator in the event of injury, depriving them of the supports to which they are entitled by law. By one description, due to the frantic work environment imposed, the majority of workers have been injured, at one time or another, at the Laval distribution centre. Then there is the rush-rush work environment: if you want fewer people to take risks to get all of the work done on an unreasonable schedule, you have to pay for it.

As one employee on his way out explained, Amazon treats them like disposable, replaceable items. The unionisation effort was necessary, he said, to advocate for fair, safe and reasonable working conditions, not just for higher wages. No one should have to work in a setting in which they are virtually guaranteed to be injured, just for a salary. Additionally, the more dangerous the work, the higher the wages; think construction metal-workers or roofers.