On 21 October, the New York Times reported that it had obtained a trove of leaked documents from Amazon, some of which indicated that the company intended to accelerate its already aggressive warehouse automation drive to avoid hiring 600,000 employees by 2033.
This is, of course, an interesting snippet. We are all constantly assailed by dark prognoses of massive layoffs. But here is a somewhat less alarming scenario: they’re saying, “We’re not laying anyone off, but we are never hiring a human for this role again”.
Adding grist to this mill, a new warehouse robot was announced last week, code-named Blue Jay, which consolidates what previously required three separate robotic stations into a single streamlined system. Suspended from a conveyor-belt-like track, Blue Jay’s robotic arms can simultaneously pick, sort, and consolidate packages – essentially the multi-tasking overachiever that makes other robots feel inadequate. It seems reasonable to link the new robot to the leaked plans for increased future automation.
Accompanying the announcement was this noble-sounding line:
“Designed with Amazon’s front-line employees in mind, these innovations reduce repetitive tasks, improve safety, and boost productivity – while speeding up delivery.”
Yes, well, interpret this as you will.
Amazon has had plenty of spats with unions and labour activists before. Most jobs at Amazon are in the warehouses, and labour organisation has become the central fault-line in Amazon’s relationship with its workforce. In the United States, attempts to unionise have met with fierce resistance. The high-profile vote at the Bessemer, Alabama, fulfilment centre in 2021 was a turning point: it drew national attention, political endorsements, and a visible campaign from both sides. The union ultimately lost, though appeals and later efforts in New York led to the first successful vote for the Amazon Labour Union in 2022.
Since then, unionisation drives have appeared in multiple US states and in Europe, where labour laws are stronger. Workers have demanded higher pay, better safety standards, and less punitive productivity metrics. Amazon’s public stance is that it prefers to “speak directly with employees” rather than through unions: a position it has maintained despite growing pressure from politicians and activists.
Surveillance and performance data
The company’s critics argue that this approach, combined with the extensive use of surveillance and performance data, creates a structural imbalance of power. Amazon controls the tools, the targets, and the tempo of work; collective bargaining is seen by organisers as the only counterweight.
Beyond unions, a network of activists, NGOs, and shareholders have targeted Amazon’s labour practices. They cite reports of extreme work rates, limited breaks, and physical injuries. Campaigns such as “Make Amazon Pay” link these concerns to broader issues – from carbon emissions to tax avoidance – positioning Amazon as a symbol of global corporate overreach.
Amazon’s response is consistent: it points to above-average starting wages, comprehensive benefits, and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year. The company insists that it is improving safety through technology and that turnover reflects the entry-level nature of much warehouse work, not exploitation. It frequently highlights internal promotion statistics and the economic growth that follows the construction of fulfilment centres in smaller cities.
The debate remains unresolved because both narratives contain an element of truth. Amazon does offer stable employment and advancement for some. It also operates a system that extracts intense performance from a vast, replaceable labour pool, monitored in real time and constantly benchmarked by machine. But stories of unhappy or burnt-out employees are a constant feature in Amazon’s attempt to defend itself against some sectors of the media and public.
You can imagine a conversation being had on the top floor of Amazon Towers (there is no such building, but indulge me).
“Jeff, we’re never going to win this PR war, and the unions are eventually going to get the upper hand. Let’s just do an end-run around all of it. We have the tech now. No firings but no more human hires. Period.”
Cost advantages
I assume that they foresee that this strategy will allow them to avoid the cruelty and accompanying PR nightmare of mass redundancies, while still benefiting from the cost advantages of automation as they slowly migrate from all-human to all-machine over a number of years.
Yes, well, this seems to me to be logically flawed. It’s obvious enough for one to assume that they are presumably being disingenuous. Competition in e-commerce is vicious; margins are thin. Anyone in this game (like Amazon, Walmart, and others) consistently and determinedly tries to cut costs to stay in the game. Launching a strategy to introduce new automation a little more slowly to avoid mass redundancies now is a fool’s errand; others will not go as slowly. I predict that mass redundancies will happen far faster than anyone imagines, notwithstanding the social carnage that would result from 600,000 people losing their jobs.
It may be unfair to single out Amazon here. Automation is colonising every plant where repetitive labour occurs (and has been doing so for a very long time). But the addition of AI to the mix has accelerated things into a territory where evolutionary change morphs into near-instantaneous upending of large numbers of lives, even in jobs where physical dexterity was required and was assumed to be automation-proof. (Forget about manufacturing and construction and other industries; there are about ten million people worldwide working just in picking and packing in warehouses).
We already know about looming AI-catalysed job losses in the white-collar, cognitive-first workforce. Now, as robotics steps into the fast lane, we are at the point of wiping out tens of millions of blue-collar jobs in a mere few years, and those who insist other careers will be available to those affected need to answer the following question:
Where?
[Image: reve.art]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend