Cori Bush to Amazon: “Shut Up and Work” Is Not a Climate Disaster Plan

A new bill would set workers’ health ahead of the bald guy’s space fetish.

Tom Williams/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When Amazon wouldn’t let a team of warehouse workers pause their shifts in a deadly storm, the results were predictable—and it wasn’t the first time. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) wants to make it the last.

Bush, a House freshman whose district stretches across the St. Louis area, is introducing a climate-focused worker protection bill motivated by a December tornado that killed two constituents. They were among six workers killed in the collapse of an Illinois Amazon warehouse where, according to a lawsuit filed by one of their families, managers told employees they would be fired if they fled. Investigators with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration found other issues with the facility and its tornado plan, but didn’t find the company liable for the deaths, nor impose any kind of penalty. There’s no federal law or regulation that meant the warehouse had to close, or that the company couldn’t fire staff who left to find shelter. Bush’s bill would make a dent in that, guaranteeing workers job protection and paid emergency leave during a wide range of climate disasters.

Amazon facilities’ serious injury rate is 40 percent higher than an average American warehouse. (Its contract drivers also get hurt and die disproportionately often.) Current and former employees have criticized the company’s handling of workers’ compensation claims, many characterizing the process as a runaround or alleging retaliation after filing injury claims. The legislation, titled the Worker Safety in Climate Disasters Act, bars employers from firing workers who walk off during life-threatening climate events.

The tornadoes that prompted the bill were part of a storm system that swept the Midwest last year. Its 90 victims included both the six Illinois Amazon workers and another eight at a Kentucky factory run by a different company. As tornado sirens rang out, and despite the weak protection both buildings offered, all were allegedly told they’d be fired if they didn’t keep working. An OSHA investigation of the Amazon warehouse identified multiple risk factors, but found no legal violations and imposed no penalty.

Bush’s bill guarantees two weeks’ paid leave for those unable to work in the wake of a climate disaster, whether injured, forced to relocate, facing school closures, or caring for relatives who have been affected. Employers would be penalized for refusing to pay staff who left or missed work in a disaster.

Any climate-related event with potential for great loss of life would meet the bill’s criteria, including earthquakes, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, severe blizzards, tornadoes, tsunamis, utility failures, and wildfires. It fines violators under the Fair Labor Standards Act, applying the existing penalty for wage theft: a $10,000 fine, small change even to a corporation a fraction Amazon’s size.

That might not seem like a big deterrent—it isn’t—but guaranteed pay protections, together with some legal accountability, could save the lives and incomes of millions of Americans. As I’ve reported, the climate crisis is making many of our jobs deadlier, across all kinds of industries, and agencies like OSHA have been largely denied (or stripped of) the powers that would let them protect workers from its most dangerous consequences. 

Amazon, in particular, has a documented history of throwing workers in Mother Nature’s way for tiny gains to its bottom line. In 2018, two of its employees were killed in Baltimore when a tornado collapsed a warehouse wall. Workers had to drive to and work at its New York City facilities as tropical depression Ida took 14 lives, sparking large protests. Less than a month ago, a New Jersey Amazon worker died in a heat wave while racing to fulfill its Prime Day rush. (Amazon blamed a “personal medical condition” and passed out water and snacks.)

“Currently there are no protections that support job security,” Bush told the Intercept, “nor paid time off due to missed work because of a climate disaster.” Her new bill, she said, would ensure that as climate disasters become more and more frequent, workers’ safety is not impeded by their bosses.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate