In a move that has sent shockwaves through Quebec’s labor community, Amazon recently announced the closure of all seven of its warehouses in the province, resulting in the loss of approximately 1,700 jobs. The company claims this decision is part of a strategic shift to revert to third-party delivery services, aiming to offer greater long-term savings to customers. But if this move is truly about savings, why is it only happening in Quebec and not across Canada or in other regions where Amazon operates? This narrative is met with skepticism, especially considering that just last May, workers at Amazon’s Laval warehouse successfully unionized, marking the first such victory in Canada. The optics are that the closures are a direct retaliation against unionization efforts.
This scenario is eerily reminiscent of Walmart’s actions in Quebec two decades ago. In 2005, after employees at a Walmart store in Jonquière unionized, the retail giant abruptly shut down the location, citing economic reasons. The Supreme Court of Canada later ruled that Walmart’s actions violated Quebec labour laws.
These incidents underscore a troubling pattern among major corporations: a willingness to undermine workers’ rights to unionize, even in jurisdictions where labour laws are designed to protect such rights. The closures devastate the livelihoods of the affected employees and send a chilling message to workers elsewhere about the potential consequences of organizing.
Big Tech Is the Medium—and the Message
Adding another layer to this complex narrative is the role of Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos. In the lead-up to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Amazon donated $1 million to the inaugural fund and planned to air the event on its Prime Video service, an in-kind donation valued at an additional $1 million. This move raised eyebrows, especially given Trump’s previous criticisms of the Washington Post, which is owned by Bezos. Furthermore, reports emerged that Bezos influenced the Post’s editorial decisions last fall, including preventing the endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, a move that led to internal turmoil and significant subscriber loss.
In a move that has raised significant concerns, Meta, under CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which already banned Canadian news content on its platforms in response to Canada’s Online News Act, has overhauled its content moderation policies. The company has ended its fact-checking program and relaxed restrictions on hate speech (in the name of free speech), particularly concerning gender and sexual identity, aligning its approach with platforms like X and the preferences of President Trump. Critics argue that these changes could lead to an increase in misinformation and harmful content, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Notably, Zuckerberg, like Elon Musk, secured a million-dollar seat at Trump’s inauguration, highlighting the close ties between tech oligarchs (the tech bros) and political power.
These actions highlight a broader issue: the influence of billionaires on media and politics, often at the expense of workers’ rights and democratic principles. The cozy relationship between corporate titans and political power can lead to policies that favour the wealthy while undermining the rights and welfare of the working class. How much more wealth and power does a billionaire really need—and at what cost? The price of their unchecked influence is chaos for ordinary people on both sides of the border.
