Amazon Interfered in Canadian Union Efforts, Labor Board Rules
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board found that Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services ULC violated provincial labor laws by interfering in organization efforts at a facility in Delta, south of Vancouver. The board green-lit the union on Friday through remedial certification — a move reserved for situations where an employer's actions make a fair vote unlikely.
'There is little doubt that Amazon was trying to control the messaging within its facility and it did so in a manner that was coercive and intimidating,' the board's decision said. Amazon's conduct made it 'impossible for the board to determine the true wishes of the employees.'
Amazon 'bombarded' employees with messages that were generally anti-union, the labor body said, though the company said it was 'simply providing facts.'
In one series of Slack messages reviewed by the board, an Amazon manager noted that excessive hiring was taking place at 'the site that is going thru vote,' adding, 'generally we do not hire at such sites.'
Another manager responded: 'This coming from two levels above chuck,' referring to Chuck Cummings, an Amazon executive.
'While Amazon says the hiring from January to May 2024 was consistent with its labor planning, the union's witnesses testified that there was a lack of work,' the labor relations board said.
'This decision is wrong on the facts and the law — it goes against what our employees have said they want, and deprives them of their right to make an informed decision,' Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said in a statement. The company plans to appeal the decision.
'Workers at Amazon organized against very difficult odds, but they've slayed the giant,' Lana Payne, national president of the union known as Unifor, said in a statement.
Amazon has previously faced legal challenges over how it handles worker unionization efforts. In May, the US National Labor Relations Board ruled the company had committed several unfair labor practices after employees unionized at a Staten Island warehouse. One violation involved suspending a worker for 10 weeks with pay because of his position as a union leader.
And in January, Amazon announced it would close a series of warehouses in the province of Quebec — a decision that came less than a year after workers at one of those facilities unionized. The Canadian government condemned the move and threatened to review its contracts with Amazon.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
BOE Governor Bailey Warns Banks Against Issuing Own Stablecoins
Bloomberg Published 14 Jul 2025, 01:05 AM IST (Bloomberg) -- Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has warned the world's largest banks against issuing their own stablecoins, setting up a potential clash with President Donald Trump's administration and its backing of the digital assets. Speaking in an interview with the Times newspaper, Bailey said he 'would much rather' banks offer digital versions of traditional money — known as tokenized deposits — than stablecoins, which are designed to hold a steady value and are usually pegged to a traditional currency. Bailey also warned that stablecoins threaten to take money out of the banking system and leave less funds available for lending, according to the Times interview. The governor is also chair of the Financial Stability Board, which is responsible for monitoring risks in financial markets globally. His stance is at odds with the direction being taken by the US under Trump, which has passed stablecoin legislation setting up regulatory rules for cryptocurrencies pegged to the dollar. A Trump-affiliated stablecoin already has a $2.2 billion market value. Bailey's concerns have been echoed by other central bankers, who have called for laws regulating stablecoin companies in much the same way as banks. They worry about issues such as the risk of stablecoin crashes, which could trigger fire sales of their underlying assets, and the prospect of vast sums changing hands outside of the formal banking system, enabling crimes such as money laundering. Bailey also hinted that he didn't want the UK to adopt a central bank digital currency (CBDC), known as the digital pound. He said it would be 'sensible' for the UK to head toward digitizing deposits instead of issuing a CBDC in response to private sector stablecoins. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Human-Centred AI: Turning performance data into dialogue, HR News, ETHRWorld
Advt Advt By & , ETHRWorld Contributor Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox. All about ETHRWorld industry right on your smartphone! Download the ETHRWorld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles. Once upon a time in the kingdom of Pratham Garh, the wise but slightly anxious king, Raja Dutta Dev, grew tired of hearing mixed reviews about his courtiers. The commander said the soldiers were lazy. The poets claimed they were overworked. The minister of productivity insisted that the royal astrologer had been idle since Mercury went retrograde. Raja Dutta Dev sighed and declared, 'I want objectivity! No more opinions. Let's bring in… Artificial Intelligence !'He summoned the kingdom's smartest mind, Acharya Algorithm Anand, who built the first-ever performance system: RajBot 1.0—a magical machine that tracked every scroll sent, every sword swung, and every tea break taken. Soon, chaos followed. The court jester got flagged for 'non-serious behaviour during work hours'—which, frankly, was his actual job. The head chef was accused of 'excessive stirring without measurable output.' The treasurer was put on watch for 'counting coins with no documented outcomes.' Worst of all, General Veer Pratap, who had just returned victorious from war, was given a low score. Why? Because he'd missed 30 royal Zoom calls while saving the Dutta Dev called Acharya Algorithm Anand and said, 'I wanted insight, not insult. Let's build a system that helps my people—not humiliates them.' The Acharya bowed, and together they rewrote RajBot's code with four royal principles: Clarity, Context, Compassion, and days, AI tools are doing more than filtering cat photos or recommending your next binge-watch—they're shaping careers. In the modern workplace, algorithms now assess productivity, predict potential, and even try to read your emotional state through sentiment analysis. Promotions, bonuses, and hiring decisions are increasingly data-driven—which sounds efficient, until you realize no one quite knows how the data works. I've experienced it first-hand: asynchronous interviews scored by AI, video assessments with no human follow-up, and automated tests that somehow decide if you're 'collaborative' based on word choice and webcam lighting. Sure, it's scalable, but it's also disorienting. You're left wondering whether you were evaluated on your answers or your apartment's background lighting. These systems promise objectivity, but without transparency or empathy, they risk reducing people to data points. The fix isn't to scrap AI altogether—but to design it better. We need systems that combine analytical power with human dignity, fairness, and are rolling out AI performance tools faster than HR can say 'algorithmic accountability.' From tracking keystrokes to decoding Slack emojis, companies are using tech to find out who's productive and who's just good at pretending during Amazon, for instance, where warehouse employees are timed between scans like they're on a game show—with the prize being not getting penalized for a bathroom break. Or Meta, where engineers are reportedly rated by lines of code—because apparently, in 2025, size does matter. Meanwhile, sentiment analysis tools try to detect how happy (or sarcastically dead inside) you sound in analysis, while sophisticated, can misinterpret harmless frustration or workplace humour as negativity, affecting career advancement or compensation decisions unfairly. Algorithms trained on historical data can unintentionally replicate biases related to gender, age, or cultural differences, disproportionately disadvantaging certain employee groups. Bias? Oh yes. Historical data might think women don't lead teams or that older employees aren't tech-savvy—forgetting that half your IT department is run by people who still remember floppy hyper-monitoring systems can erode trust, stifle creativity, and make everyone feel like they're living in a Black Mirror episode—except with worse lighting and no plot resolution. A culture of surveillance, however well-intentioned, undermines genuine engagement and innovation. Ironically it reduces the very productivity these analytics are intended to must rethink not only what they measure but how and why they measure AI that's ethical doesn't mean sending it to therapy. It means embedding four essential principles that remind the system—and its creators—that people are more than the sum of their Slack messages.1.: Employees should know what's being tracked—because nobody wants to find out their Zoom background plants were analysed for stress levels. Spell it out clearly: What's being measured? Why? And is there a secret leaderboard?2.: Don't measure your graphic designer like you do your logistics manager. One creates magic with pixels, the other makes sure your coffee arrives on time. Different strokes for different spreadsheets.3.: Don't just tell employees they 'scored low on collaboration.' That's vague enough to sound like a buzzword salad. Offer them real, actionable steps—like 'schedule one brainstorming session this week' or 'talk to Dave more nicely.'4.: Data should start conversations, not end them. Let people explain themselves. Maybe the coder didn't log time because they were mentoring a junior. Maybe someone's 'negativity score' came from shouting at the printer, not their analytics adhere to these principles, companies do more than collect data. They build trust, motivation, and authentic a product management team at a fast-paced SaaS company—where people type faster than they talk, and meetings are scheduled like cricket matches: instead of dumping yet another cookie-cutter dashboard onto already dashboard-fatigued employees, the company rolls out a performance analytics tool with an unexpected twist—it's actually ethical and human-centred. Yes, the tool is transparent. Not 'terms and conditions nobody reads' transparent—but genuinely clear. Everyone knows exactly what's being tracked—project timelines, collaboration frequency, stakeholder feedback—and not whether they stretched awkwardly during a Zoom call. Even better, the system respects context. It doesn't compare the UX designer who lives in Figma to the product manager who lives in meetings. No more apples-to-orange comparisons—or worse, apples-to-orange-juice. And here's the best part: instead of just throwing raw data at you like a robotic boss yelling 'Do better,' the tool gives useful, personalized nudges. Like 'maybe don't schedule seven meetings on a Monday' or 'this Slack thread could've been an email.' Employees can opt in for deeper insights—or not. It's analytics with consent, not analytics with result? People stop feeling like they're being watched by HAL 9000 and start feeling like they're being coached by someone who's... well, not emotionally dead inside. Productivity goes up, not because Big Brother is watching, but because the team finally has a system that supports growth without breathing down their small changes can start the shift from creepy to constructive: HR, data science, ethics nerds, and maybe a philosopher into one room. Trust me, it's more fun than it check if the algorithm is showing favouritism. Bias doesn't wear a name a metric can't be explained in plain English (or memes), don't use it. Prioritize simple visualizations, clear definitions, and intuitive your people: 'Do these tools help, confuse, or mildly terrify you?' Then, listen. Regular dialogue ensures analytics evolve with human needs, not against employees choose what's shared. No one wants their mood swings graphed without permission. Whenever possible, give employees control over what data they share and how it's used. Offering meaningful consent options helps build trust and reduces the age defined by data and algorithms, measuring performance isn't the problem. Measuring it like you're building a robot army is. We need systems that understand context, invite conversation, and actually help people grow—not panic every time they step away from their keyboard. Let's build analytics that see people as people—not Wi-Fi-enabled productivity bots. Because in the end, the best workplaces aren't powered by powered by trust, coffee, and that one perfectly timed cat meme that makes everyone believe again—in humanity and in heaven, if your AI can't tell the difference between divine work and 'non-compliance,' it needs a rewire.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
Trump tariffs: EU to extend suspension of countermeasures as trade talks with US continue
The European Union (EU) announced on Sunday that it will extend the suspension of its trade countermeasures against the United States until 1 August 2025. The decision comes as the bloc seeks to continue negotiations with the US as President Donald Trump threatened to impose a new 30 per cent tariff rate on EU goods, Bloomberg reported. These countermeasures, initially adopted by the bloc in response to tariffs imposed by Trump on steel and aluminum, had been paused to allow for talks and are due to snap back automatically at midnight on Tuesday, said EU chief Ursula von der Leyen. The chief also said that meanwhile, the EU would continue to prepare further countermeasures, ensuring the bloc is 'fully prepared,' in case the negotiations falter. The extension comes after Trump, in a letter published on Saturday, warned the EU of a 30 per cent tariff rate next month if better terms can't be negotiated. Trump has been sending out letters to trading partners, tweaking his proposed tariff levels from April and inviting them to further talks. This latest move by the US president has punctured recent optimism in Brussels over the prospects for an 11th-hour agreement between the major economies. The current list of countermeasures, which has been paused, targets around €21 billion ($24.5 billion) of US goods. The EU also has a second list prepared which is valued around €72 billion, highlighting the potential economic impact if a trade resolution is not reached. The bloc's ambassadors are scheduled to meet on Sunday to discuss the trade situation. Cars and tariff levels on agriculture have emerged as key sticking points between the EU and the US as the two sides work toward a provisional trade agreement in the coming days. The EU is pushing for a tariff no higher than 10 per cent on agricultural exports. An offset mechanism that some carmakers had pushed as a way to grant tariff relief to companies in return for investments in the US isn't under consideration for now as concerns arise for the EU that it could shift production across the Atlantic. Instead, the bloc's negotiators are now focusing talks on car tariffs, the news agency reported. Von der Leyen also clarified that the EU's most powerful trade tool, the anti-coercion instrument (ACI) would not be deployed at this point. 'The ACI is created for extraordinary situations,' she said. 'We are not there yet.' The extension of the suspension of countermeasures will require approval from the EU member states, the news report said.
