I think some of you are arguing about whether Amazon is a nice company when the more important question is whether this law actually accomplishes what its supporters think it accomplishes.
@Theinsanegamer is one of the few people here getting to the real issue.
Start with his question about legally required breaks. If workers are already entitled to protections and those protections are being violated, then the first question should be why existing law isn't being enforced. Changing the corporate name above the worker on an organizational chart does not magically create enforcement.
And that gets to what this bill actually does.
NYC isn't merely proposing better breaks, safer vehicles or tougher penalties for labor violations. The proposal creates licensing, safety, training and employment requirements for last-mile facilities, and supporters openly describe the goal as requiring direct employment rather than Amazon's DSP model.
That's a much bigger intervention than “protect the workers.”
Amazon's DSPs are independent businesses that hire and manage employees. So while supposedly protecting jobs, government may also be telling an entire class of small businesses that the service they currently provide can no longer be purchased from them in its existing form.
That deserves more thought than
@NumberNine's....“The more Amazon hates it, the better it is for the working class.”
That's not economic analysis. That's choosing a football team.
@Theinsanegamer also made another uncomfortable point about wages.
You cannot measure living standards solely by the nominal number on a paycheck.
If wages increase while housing, food, insurance, utilities and transportation absorb most of the increase, the worker hasn't magically become wealthier. What matters is purchasing power.
That's why going from “fight for $15” to demands for $25 or $30 should at least make someone ask WHY the target keeps moving.
It doesn't mean wages shouldn't rise. It means raising a number and solving affordability are not the same thing.
Then
@Notmare gave us the inevitable....Take it from the CEO.
Executive compensation can absolutely be criticized, but the arithmetic still matters.
A $5/hour raise for 100,000 full time employees costs roughly $1.04 BILLION per year before additional employment costs. For 500,000 workers, that's about $5.2 billion annually.
Not once...Every year.
So “take the CEO's money” sounds wonderful until multiplication gets involved.
This is exactly why
@Theinsanegamer's response was useful. He actually did the math.
Then we get
@Kirby1....“Zero chance they will leave the city.”
Maybe. Maybe not.
But Amazon doesn't have to stop SELLING TO NYC to move DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE outside NYC.
Those are completely different things.
Amazon can move facilities outside city boundaries, alter distribution routes, use more third-party carriers, consolidate operations, raise delivery charges, slow delivery promises or automate more of the process.
Probably some combination.
So “zero chance” isn't analysis.
It's fortune telling.
And
@pnntmp brought up something else worth taking seriously...automation.
This is called capital labor substitution.
If you increase the total cost of using people for a task, you increase the financial attractiveness of technology that can substitute for them.
Automation doesn't have to become perfect. It only has to become cheaper relative to the human alternative.
A delivery system that isn't economical against $20/hour labor might look much more attractive against $30/hour labor plus benefits, payroll taxes, insurance and regulatory overhead.
No, robots aren't replacing every NYC delivery driver next Tuesday.
But you've changed the ROI calculation. That's how businesses make capital investment decisions.
Then there's
@maxxcool7421...“THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE ECONOMY IN ANY WAY.”
That's a fascinating new theory.
Workers receive wages.
DSPs receive revenue.
Vehicles are purchased.
Fuel is purchased.
Insurance is purchased.
Warehouses are leased.
Maintenance is performed.
Goods are moved.
Consumers receive products.
But apparently all of that economic activity somehow adds up to zero economic activity.
Economists will be fascinated.
You can argue Amazon should contribute MORE.
You cannot seriously argue it contributes nothing.
@GABulldog also raises a legitimate point...carrier substitution.
UPS exists.
FedEx exists.
USPS exists.
Regional carriers exist.
Amazon's own network exists.
They're not infinitely interchangeable, but that's the point: businesses respond to regulation by changing the combination of inputs they use.
There's also another layer almost nobody is discussing.
We already have a legal framework for determining whether Amazon exercises enough control over DSP workers to bear employer responsibilities, joint employer law.
The NLRB has already pursued Amazon in a DSP dispute on exactly that issue.
So if Amazon exercises sufficient control to legally qualify as a joint employer, then establish that standard and enforce it.
That's a much more interesting discussion than simply legislating the intermediary business model out of existence.
And yes,
@p51d007, the Teamsters are heavily involved.
They openly support the bill and openly want the DSP structure eliminated.
There's nothing mysterious about that. Unions advocate for structures they believe benefit labor.
But let's stop pretending anyone here is operating without incentives.
Amazon has incentives.
DSP owners have incentives.
Workers have incentives.
Consumers have incentives.
The Teamsters have incentives.
Politicians have incentives.
That's precisely why legislation should be judged by incentives, enforcement, substitution effects and unintended consequences rather than deciding who the villain is first.
And that's why I appreciated
@Theinsanegamer's posts.
He's asking the questions people SHOULD be asking...
If existing worker protections aren't being enforced, why will another law automatically fix enforcement?
If wages rise but purchasing power remains strained, what costs are driving the affordability problem?
If executive compensation is supposed to fund massive permanent wage increases, does the arithmetic work?
If regulation substantially raises the cost of human delivery, how will companies respond?
Those questions matter.
“Amazon bad, therefore law good” doesn't.
Neither does “Amazon won't move anything because I said so.”
If workers are being abused, enforce the law.
If DSPs violate wage or safety rules, hammer them.
If Amazon meets the legal standard for joint employer responsibility, hold Amazon responsible.
But if government is going to effectively eliminate an entire subcontracting structure, perhaps we should perform slightly more analysis than:
Amazon bad.
Union good.
Law good.
Economic systems have this annoying habit of responding to incentives whether the comment section believes in them or not.
For anyone whose head still doesn't hurt...
NYC Council – Intro 518:
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7879110
Teamsters – Delivery Protection Act:
https://teamster.org/2026/04/amazon...livery-protection-act-in-nyc-council-hearing/
Amazon DSP program:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-dsp-program-update
NLRB/Amazon joint-employer dispute:
https://teamster.org/2024/10/nlrb-doubles-down-amazon-is-a-joint-employer/
There. Now we can disagree using actual economics instead of interpretive dance.
