Before abandoning its much-publicized plans to open a second headquarters in New York City, Amazon stood to get about $3 billion in subsidies from New York State and New York City to move into Long Island City, directly opposite the CUNY School of Law.
In return, Amazon claimed it would generate at least 25,000 jobs in NYC, with an average income of $150,000, in total benefiting the region to the tune of $27 billion over 25 years. Unquestionably, any company, person, or non-profit organization that seeks to bring jobs is not something to mindlessly oppose, especially at a time of global economic and political uncertainties. But, there were several questions that this Amazon deal engendered.
First, the deal was hammered out in a manner that was not as consultative as it should have been, especially considering the amount of money that NY taxpayers were going to offer the company. Any allocation of this magnitude should have been as participatory as possible, to ensure buy-in and support. A consultative and participatory process can be long, tedious, and even emotional, but there is no alternative in a democracy.
Second, the news that Amazon made taxable profits in excess of $11 billion in 2018 and paid no federal taxes should have been a factor in deciding what, if any, subsidies the state and city were willing to give the company. At a time of growing inequalities, and at a time when the rich are paying ever fewer taxes, while benefiting from the enabling environment that the state provides, such tax avoidance strategies speak volumes. Would the company have sought to avoid taxes in NY as well? Would it deliver on its promises to the state and the city or would it continue its extractive and predatory practices?
Third, it would have been great if Amazon had been pushed to explain the math behind its estimate of 25,000 jobs, with an average salary of $150,000 per year. What was the expected median salary? How many staff were expected to be on minimum wage? How many of the executives—whose salaries were undoubtedly the factor driving up the average—would have been sourced from New York City and the state? As Ms. Winnie Byanyima, the President of Oxfam International, stated at Davos recently, creating jobs is good, but it is more important to look at the quality of the jobs, to ensure that human dignity is preserved. There is no use in creating jobs that either have conditions that are intolerable (such as no bathroom breaks) or where the salary does not guarantee decent shelter or medical care. I’d direct you to the video below where historian Rutger Bregman told a room the world’s wealthiest people gathered at the Davos World Economic Forum 2019 that they need to step up and pay their fair share of taxes. Jeff Bezoz, founder and CEO of Amazon, is one of those people.
Fourth, the fact that Amazon stated quite clearly that it would not be neutral on issues of unionization was fundamental. Studies have shown that the declining ability and capacity of workers to organize is one of the key factors in driving growing inequality. It also increases the democratic deficit as workers seek an alternative—and often negative—ways to express their anger and frustration. They lose faith in institutions of governance and increase their intolerance of others who they believe are the reason for their declining livelihoods.
U.S. law and practice are unique in allowing employers to dissuade and discourage workers from organizing, under First Amendment interpretations. Some U.S. states have taken that even further and passed laws that make it incredibly difficult for workers to organize, and have taken the language of human rights, wrongly labeling this as the “right to work.” This misuse of human rights language and terms is immoral, and it weakens our understanding of what rights are and should be. The right to work under international law refers to the right of all people to get jobs, not to undermine workers’ ability to organize. These jobs and organizing result in better living standards and more dignity. For the essence of human rights is the increased dignity and comfort of all human beings – intellectually, economically, and socially – within a civil society that benefits all.
Under human rights laws, standards, and norms, the state—and individuals—have a duty to respect, fulfill, and promote all rights. The state or government cannot be neutral when it comes to the enjoyment of rights but must actively work to ensure that all rights are enjoyed by all. Thus, an interpretation that gives someone—an employer—the right to discourage the exercise of another’s (worker) right to associate is contrary to international human rights. We have the right to have rights and to enjoy them!
If there is one thing that we can take away from the Amazon saga, it is the fact that growing corporate power is superseding the power of the state and government. Some argue that businesses are more efficient—which is debatable—but governance is about way more than efficiency. Strong democratic institutions allow us to institute accountability and to ask questions that may mitigate against loss or bad decisions. NY showed the value of these institutions in pushing back against opaque decisions that may or may not have benefited the residents of the city and state.