Teamsters begin ‘largest strike’ against Amazon, accusing company of ‘insatiable greed’
Amazon workers in New York striking Thursday morning. Image via WABC.
(NEW YORK) — The Teamsters said workers will begin striking at Amazon facilities across the country Thursday morning — in what the union calls the largest strike against the online shopping giant less than a week before Christmas.
The Teamsters said the strike will begin early Thursday at several facilities, including in New York City, Atlanta, three locations in Southern California, one in San Francisco and one in Skokie, Illinois.
In addition, the Teamsters said local unions would also put up primary picket lines at hundreds of Amazon Fulfillment Centers nationwide.
In a news release, the union calls it the “largest strike against Amazon in U.S. history” and says it comes after Amazon has refused to bargain with workers organized with the Teamsters.
“If your package is delayed during the holidays, you can blame Amazon’s insatiable greed,” said Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien in a statement. “We gave Amazon a clear deadline to come to the table and do right by our members. They ignored it.”
In a statement to ABC News, an Amazon spokesperson said the Teamsters have illegally coerced workers to join the union.
“For more than a year now, the Teamsters have continued to intentionally mislead the public – claiming that they represent ‘thousands of Amazon employees and drivers’. They don’t, and this is another attempt to push a false narrative,” Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said. “The truth is that the Teamsters have actively threatened, intimidated, and attempted to coerce Amazon employees and third-party drivers to join them, which is illegal and is the subject of multiple pending unfair labor practice charges against the union.”
The spokesperson said the company has increased the starting minimum wage for workers in fulfillment centers and transportation employees by 20% and in September increased average base wage to $22 per hour.
The announced strike by the Teamsters comes after workers at several Amazon facilities authorized the walkout.
The Teamsters said nearly 10,000 Amazon workers across the country have joined the union.
The facility in New York City’s Staten Island was Amazon’s first-ever unionized warehouse. Workers there have said the company has refused to recognize the union and negotiate a contract after workers there voted to unionize in 2022.
The National Labor Relations Board officially certified the union representing workers at the facility, but Amazon has appealed that ruling.
(WASHINGTON) — Social media platform TikTok is hurtling toward a U.S. ban that could upend its business and frustrate more than 150 million American users — unless President-elect Donald Trump finds a way to reverse the policy.
Trump, who boasts 14 million followers on TikTok, voiced opposition to the ban earlier this year. The policy, which orders TikTok to find a U.S. parent company or face a ban, is set to take effect on Jan. 19, a day before Trump’s inauguration.
An effort to eliminate the ban may present formidable political challenges and legal hurdles, experts told ABC News. The outcome could depend on support from an array of major institutions ranging from Congress and the Supreme Court to tech giants like Google and Oracle, they added.
The China-owned app has faced growing scrutiny from government officials over fears that user data could fall into the possession of the Chinese government and the app could be weaponized by China to spread misinformation.
There is little evidence that TikTok has shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or that the Chinese government has asked the app to do so, cybersecurity experts previously told ABC News.
TikTok did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Neither did Trump’s transition team.
The president is expected to try to stop the ban of TikTok after he takes office, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with his views on the matter.
Here’s what to know about the different ways that Trump could try to stop the TikTok ban, according to experts:
Push Congress to repeal the TikTok ban
The most straightforward way to reverse the policy would be a repeal of the law that enacted the ban in the first place, experts told ABC News.
A repeal would require passage in both houses of Congress, landing the measure on Trump’s desk for his signature.
“The easiest way is to ask Congress to reverse the ban,” Anupam Chander, a professor of law and technology at Georgetown University, told ABC News. But, he added, it isn’t as easy as it sounds.
Congress voted in favor of the ban only seven months ago. In the House of Representatives, the ban passed by an overwhelming margin of 352-65. In the Senate, 79 members voted in favor of the measure, while 18 opposed and 3 abstained.
A repeal effort carries political risks for Trump, since it could be perceived as conciliatory toward China, in contrast with the adversarial tone voiced by Trump on the campaign trail, James Lewis, a data security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News.
“It’s a political problem,” Lewis said, noting that Trump could soften potential backlash by seeking a reform of the law rather than an outright repeal.
Trump may not need Congress to repeal the ban. A lawsuit against the ban brought by TikTok on First Amendment grounds currently stands before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Experts who spoke to ABC News said they expect the court to rule against TikTok, but the company could then appeal, potentially sending the case to the Supreme Court before the ban takes effect. The Supreme Court may determine that the legal challenge holds sufficient merit to delay implementation of the ban, leading ultimately to a rejection of the law.
“The Supreme Court may want a crack at this,” Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who focuses on the First Amendment, told ABC News.
Refuse to enforce the TikTok ban
Instead of repealing the law or counting on court intervention, Trump could try to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the measure, experts said.
The law orders distributors like Apple and Google to stop offering the social media platform in their app stores, and it requires cloud service providers like Oracle to withhold the infrastructure necessary for TikTok to operate.
Companies that violate the law risk a penalty of $5,000 for each user who accesses TikTok. “That adds up,” Rozenshtein said.
In theory, Trump’s Justice Department could opt against enforcement of the law, reassuring the likes of Apple and Oracle that the companies would not face prosecution in the event of a violation, experts said.
Along similar lines, the Trump administration could take up an interpretation of the ban that affords it wide latitude in finding that TikTok has complied with a requirement that it divest from parent company ByteDance, experts said.
In other words, even if TikTok has made little effort to comply with the law, the Trump administration could attempt a reading of the measure that finds the company has met the threshold necessary to avoid a ban, Rozenshtein said.
If Trump opts against enforcement, the move could still prove insufficient. Companies like Apple and Oracle may decide to comply with the ban anyway, since they could face legal risk if the Trump administration reverses its approach, Rozenshtein added.
“Trump is mercurial,” Rozenshtein said. “If you are Apple’s general counsel, do you really want this hanging over you?”
Help TikTok find a U.S. buyer
Finally, Trump could try to find a U.S. buyer for TikTok, allowing the platform to avoid a ban. This approach may appeal to Trump’s self-image as a business dealmaker, but time is running short for such a significant business transaction and TikTok has shown little appetite for it, experts said.
The law allows for a 90-day extension of the deadline for a TikTok sale, as long as the company is advancing toward an agreement. Under such a scenario, the deadline would move back to April, providing Trump with additional time.
“It’s possible that he’ll try to force TikTok to come to some kind of deal with American buyers,” Lewis said. “It’s not likely. TikTok will hold out as long as they can.”
China has signaled opposition to the sale of TikTok to a U.S. company, The Wall Street Journal reported in March.
Alternatively, Trump could seek a compromise measure in Congress that affords him additional time and wider latitude to establish a U.S.-based operation for TikTok, experts said. Or the Trump administration could offer up an interpretation of the law that gives it space to strike a compromise with TikTok.
TikTok previously proposed a solution called “Project Texas,” in which the company would keep all data on U.S. users within the country through a partnership with Oracle. When TikTok CEO Shou Chew testified before Congress last year, several members raised concern about a potential lack of third-party oversight in such an arrangement.
Trump could seek to assuage the concerns of members of Congress while reaching terms satisfactory to TikTok, Chander said.
“Trump may be able to do things that reassure the American people that the app is safe, and that it is bringing a lot of the programming here to U.S. soil,” Chander said.
(WASHINGTON) — Tariff threats voiced by President-elect Donald Trump this week rippled through global stocks and triggered warnings from U.S. retail executives about the risk of higher prices.
Former President George W. Bush, who congratulated Trump a day after the election, has not commented on Trump’s remarks, in keeping with a low public profile. As recently as 2021, however, Bush criticized trade barriers, lamenting the GOP under Trump as “isolationist, protectionist.”
Trump’s support for tariffs and skepticism toward global trade departs from previous Republican presidents spanning the past four decades.
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush, each venerated free trade, though in some cases they put forward policies similar to Trump’s protectionist proposals.
“Trump is not talking about free trade,” John Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan. “Trump’s rhetoric is completely different.”
In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Trump transition team said his tariff plans would boost the U.S. economy.
“In his first term, President Trump instituted tariffs against China that created jobs, spurred investment, and resulted in no inflation. President Trump will work quickly to fix and restore an economy that puts American workers by re-shoring American jobs, lowering inflation, raising real wages, lowering taxes, cutting regulations, and unshackling American energy,” Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump late Monday said he would charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States until action is taken by those countries to stem illegal immigration and the overflow of drugs across the border.
For China, Trump said that he’d impose an additional 10% tariff on products coming to the U.S.
The declarations of trade hostility echoed vows made by Trump on the campaign trail.
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago in October, Trump called “tariff” the “most most beautiful word in the dictionary.”
Tariffs as high as 2,000% would safeguard key U.S. industries, such as auto manufacturing, Trump said. In the absence of tariffs, Trump added, it’s “going to be the end of Michigan.”
The favorable tone toward protectionist policies contrasts with rhetoric voiced by Trump’s Republican predecessors.
Reagan, who served in the latter years of the Cold War in the 1980s, invoked free trade as a weapon in the fight against authoritarian adversaries abroad and perceived demagogues at home.
“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies,” then-President Ronald Reagan said in 1988, after signing a free trade agreement with Canada.
“We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends — weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world — all while cynically waving the American flag,” Reagan added.
The elder Bush, who had served as Reagan’s vice president, adopted a similar posture toward trade.
As president, George H.W. Bush sought to improve trade ties with China, and he helped establish the World Trade Organization, an international body that aims to facilitate global trade through a shared set of regulations.
In the early 1990s, Bush negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a trade pact between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
“Free trade throughout the Americas is an idea whose time has come,” Bush said at a ceremony promoting NAFTA in December 1992.
“This century’s epic struggle between totalitarianism and democracy is over. It’s dead. Democracy has prevailed,” he added. “Today, we see unfolding around the world a revolution of hope and courage, propelled by the aspiration of ordinary people for freedom and a better life.”
The deal was ratified under Bush’s successor, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
During his first presidential campaign in 2016, Trump sharply criticized NAFTA, which had drawn criticism for allowing manufacturers to relocate plants abroad and lay off U.S. workers.
Weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Trump described NAFTA as “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.”
Like Reagan and his father, George W. Bush voiced support for free trade while in office. Since then, he has continued to back global commerce and oppose trade barriers.
“Since World War II, America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies,” George W. Bush said in 2017.
“Free nations are less likely to threaten and fight each other. And free trade helped make America into a global economic power,” George W. Bush added.
Despite their rhetoric, Trump’s predecessors within the Republican Party put forward some policies that resembled his proposals this week.
Reagan slapped 45% tariffs on Japanese motorcycles, and 100% tariffs on some Japanese electronics, seeking to counter that nation’s economic rise and bolster domestic industry. Reagan also placed an annual quota on the allowable number of imported Japanese cars.
“There was a huge gap between rhetoric and reality,” Hanke, the former Reagan administration economist, told ABC News.
For his part, George W. Bush attempted to protect the U.S. steel industry by placing tariffs on some steel imports. Facing pushback from the World Trade Organization and threats of retaliation from other countries, he removed the tariffs after 18 months.
(WASHINGTON) — Albertsons has filed a lawsuit against its rival Kroger following a failed multibillion dollar deal that would have marked the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history.
Two federal judges in Oregon and Washington blocked the merger Tuesday, siding with the Federal Trade Commission, which has opposed the plan, arguing it would eliminate competition and raise prices for American shoppers.
Albertsons announced Wednesday that it had terminated the merger agreement following the failed bid.
“Given the recent federal and state court decisions to block our proposed merger with Kroger, we have made the difficult decision to terminate the merger agreement,” Albertsons CEO Vivek Sankaran said in a statement. “We are deeply disappointed in the courts’ decisions.”
Less than 24 hours after the failed deal, the Boise, Idaho-based retailer also announced it had taken legal action against Kroger.
“Kroger willfully breached the Merger Agreement in several key ways, including by repeatedly refusing to divest assets necessary for antitrust approval, ignoring regulators’ feedback, rejecting stronger divestiture buyers and failing to cooperate with Albertsons,” the company alleged in a statement Wednesday.
Albertsons claimed the Cincinnati, Ohio-based grocery chain failed to exercise “best efforts” and failed to take “‘any and all actions’ to secure regulatory approval of the companies’ agreed merger transaction as was required of Kroger under the terms of the merger agreement between the parties.”
The complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Kroger and is temporarily under seal.
In response to the lawsuit, Kroger released its own statement, calling the suit “baseless.”
“Kroger refutes these allegations in the strongest possible terms, especially in light of Albertsons’ repeated intentional material breaches and interference throughout the merger process, which we will prove in court,” the company claimed. “This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger’s written notification of Albertsons’ multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger’s break fee, to which they are not entitled.”
Kroger said the company “looks forward to responding to these baseless claims in court.”
Tom Moriarty, Albertsons’ general counsel and chief policy officer, expressed his disappointment and said the merger “would have delivered meaningful benefits for America’s consumers,” as well as both companies’ employees.
“Rather than fulfill its contractual obligations to ensure that the merger succeeded, Kroger acted in its own financial self-interest, repeatedly providing insufficient divestiture proposals that ignored regulators’ concerns,” Moriarty claimed in a statement. “Kroger’s self-serving conduct, taken at the expense of Albertsons and the agreed transaction, has harmed Albertsons’ shareholders, associates and consumers.”
The two supermarket chains first proposed combining forces back in October 2022, sharing a definitive agreement in which Kroger, the second largest U.S. grocery store chain, sought to purchase the fourth largest, Albertsons, for an estimated total enterprise value of $24.6 billion.
Following a three-week hearing in Portland, Oregon, U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson issued a temporary injunction blocking the merger on Tuesday.
That was followed later on Tuesday by a decision from Judge Marshall Ferguson in Seattle, Washington, who issued a permanent injunction that barred the merger in that state, citing competition concerns and a violation of Washington’s consumer-protection laws.
Kroger operates 2,800 stores across 35 states, with brands including Ralphs, Smith’s and Harris Teeter. Albertsons operates 2,273 stores in 34 states, including brands like Safeway, Jewel Osco and Shaw’s.
Between them, the two grocery chains have more than 700,000 workers and operate almost everywhere in the U.S.
In separate statements following Tuesday’s court rulings, both Kroger and Albertsons expressed disappointment and said at the time, they would review their options.
Both the White House and the FTC praised the rulings Tuesday.
“The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons,” Bureau of Competition Director Henry Liu said in a statement. “This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries — from milk, to bread, to eggs — ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets.”
White House National Economic Council Deputy Director Jon Donenberg said in a separate statement Tuesday, “The Kroger-Albertsons merger would have been the biggest supermarket merger in history — raising grocery prices for consumers and lowering wages for workers. Our administration is proud to stand up against big corporate mergers that increase prices, undermine workers, and hurt small businesses.”
