Amazon has threatened to move thousands of delivery jobs out of New York City and close more than a dozen facilities if a proposed labour law backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani becomes law, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over worker protections, subcontracting and the future of last-mile deliveries.

The company’s warning puts more than 5,000 delivery workers employed through third-party contractors at risk, while a potential closure of its 15 last-mile delivery stations could also threaten about 2,000 warehouse and facility jobs. The closures and job losses remain a possible outcome, not a confirmed decision.

The dispute has drawn attention to Amazon’s 2025 decision to close seven facilities in Quebec, Canada, after a unionisation drive at one of its warehouses. Labour advocates see the closures as evidence of the company’s willingness to restructure operations rather than change its employment model. Amazon has disputed claims that the Canadian shutdowns were driven by union activity.

For workers, small delivery businesses and consumers, the New York dispute raises a central question: will legislation designed to improve wages, accountability and safety strengthen employment conditions, or prompt a major delivery company to relocate operations beyond the city limits?

Mamdani’s bill challenges Amazon’s subcontracting model

The proposed Delivery Protection Act, sponsored by New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán, would establish licensing requirements for certain last-mile warehouses and impose new safety, training and labour standards. It would also require companies operating covered facilities to employ workers directly for core delivery and warehouse services, rather than relying on third-party contractors.

Mamdani backed the proposal in August, arguing that large delivery companies should be held responsible for working conditions and the consequences of their operational decisions.

Amazon’s current New York delivery network relies on independent Delivery Service Partners, which employ thousands of drivers across the city. The company argues that the proposed legislation would undermine this arrangement and force it to consider relocating delivery operations.

The dispute also affects smaller businesses that depend on Amazon contracts. Around 40 independent delivery partners reportedly employ more than 5,000 drivers across New York City. Some operators warn that losing their contracts or being forced into a different employment structure could threaten their businesses and employees.

Supporters of the legislation counter that the existing model allows major companies to exercise substantial control over delivery work while shifting employment responsibilities to subcontractors.

The proposal is therefore about more than the identity of a worker’s employer. It concerns who is accountable for delivery quotas, training, workplace safety, wages and working conditions.

The legislation had not been approved as of the latest reporting, and no final outcome had been established. Its provisions could change during negotiations.

Quebec closures provide a warning, but not a guaranteed outcome

Amazon’s Canadian operations have become central to the argument over what the company might do in New York.

In early 2025, Amazon closed seven warehouses in Quebec following a unionisation drive at a facility in Laval. The closures affected approximately 1,900 warehouse employees and 2,800 contracted delivery workers, according to reporting cited by The New York Post.

Marc Wulfraat, president of logistics consultancy MWPVL International, argued that Amazon’s response demonstrated how the company could use facility closures to discourage challenges to its operating model.

Amazon, however, has disputed the claim that the Quebec closures were a direct response to unionisation, maintaining that it was changing its delivery model for operational reasons. The disagreement is significant because the Canadian precedent does not establish that Amazon will necessarily take the same action in New York.

The two markets also differ in their scale and logistics networks. New York City is a large, complex delivery market, and relocating its facilities could create substantial operational challenges.

Nevertheless, Amazon has warned that the proposed law could lead to higher costs, slower deliveries and a reduced ability to serve customers within the city.

Small businesses and customers face the fallout

The potential consequences extend beyond Amazon’s own operations.

Independent delivery companies fear that a shift to direct employment could eliminate the business model on which they depend. Some operators have warned that they would struggle to survive if Amazon terminated their contracts or if the legislation required a wholesale restructuring of their workforce.

The company has also cited potential cost increases for consumers. A study commissioned by Amazon estimated that the proposed legislation could cost New Yorkers an additional $664 a year, or roughly $5.20 per package, under the scenario it examined.

That figure is a company-funded estimate rather than an independently established cost or an approved increase in delivery charges. The actual impact would depend on the final legislation, Amazon’s response and any changes to its delivery network.

Consumers could face longer delivery times if facilities were relocated outside the city, although the extent of any disruption remains uncertain. Other delivery companies could also face additional compliance requirements if the legislation applies to their operations.

The dispute has broader implications for urban logistics. Last-mile delivery networks rely on the proximity of warehouses to customers, making city-centre facilities valuable for rapid fulfilment. Relocating those facilities can affect delivery distances, labour requirements and operating costs.

A wider test of corporate power and worker protection

The confrontation between Amazon and New York City reflects a broader debate over the employment structures used by large technology and logistics companies.

Subcontracting allows companies to expand delivery capacity through independent businesses, but critics argue that it can separate control over work from responsibility for workers. Direct employment, meanwhile, can strengthen accountability but may increase costs and require companies to redesign their operations.

For Mamdani, the proposed legislation is an effort to make major corporations responsible for the conditions under which deliveries take place. For Amazon, the threat to relocate operations reflects its opposition to a change that could disrupt a business model used across its US delivery network.

The final outcome will depend on negotiations among city officials, lawmakers, Amazon and delivery contractors. Possible compromises could preserve some subcontracting arrangements while imposing stronger safety guarantees and other protections, although no final agreement has been confirmed.

For now, the threatened removal of 5,000 delivery jobs and the possible closure of 15 facilities remain contingent on the legislation and Amazon’s eventual response.

The Quebec precedent has made the threat more credible to labour advocates, but it does not make the New York outcome inevitable. The unresolved question is whether the city can secure stronger protections for delivery workers without triggering the large-scale relocation that Amazon has warned about.