Labor Laws Cannot Keep Up with Big Tech
Written by Saana Dharia
In June 2024, California fined Amazon nearly $6 million for violating the state’s warehouse worker protection law, Assembly Bill 701. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, state regulators found that Amazon did not properly disclose productivity quotas and algorithmic evaluations to workers at two Inland Empire warehouses. This led to more than 59,000 violations over a five month period that penalized workers for breaking rules they did not know they were subject to. While the penalty appears to be a major win for labor enforcement, the case reveals that current labor laws are growing unable to regulate big-tech workplaces run by algorithms rather than people.
Assembly Bill 701, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect warehouse workers from unrealistic and unsafe productivity demands. In this, large warehouse employers were forced to provide written descriptions of productivity quotas, how those quotas are measured, and what consequences workers face for failing to meet them. The law also prohibits quotas that interfere with legally mandated breaks and workplace safety rules. The California Department of Industrial Relations stated that the purpose of the law was to ensure transparency and safe keep worker health.
Despite these requirements, California found that Amazon disciplined workers for missing performance targets that were never clearly disclosed as they should have been. According to ABC7 News, the Labor Commissioner cited Amazon for failing to give employees written explanations of quotas at facilities in Moreno Valley and Redlands, even though those quotas were being used to evaluate and discipline workers. In doing so, Amazon was able to push for more productivity without having a set target to hit and avoid legal pressure of having productivity quotas that were too high. However, when workers do not know the standards they are being judged by, they have no ability to protect their rights or challenge unfair treatment.
What makes this issue especially concerning is the way Amazon manages its workforce. Productivity in their warehouses is dictated by automated systems that track speed, output, and movement through scanners and software. Workers often do not know exactly how fast they are expected to work, yet face discipline or termination if they fall behind the algorithm’s expectations and this algorithmic management removes human judgment from day-to-day supervision and replaces it with inhumane performance systems that put efficiency over worker welfare.
The safety consequences of this model are significant as warehouse workers have argued that speed-based quotas push them to skip breaks, rush through physically demanding tasks, and avoid reporting injuries. When productivity software sets the pace of work, workers feel forced to choose between meeting quotas and protecting their own health. While AB 701 represents an important step forward, California’s action against Amazon shows that transparency alone is not enough. The law penalizes companies for failing to disclose quotas, but it does not place limits on how demanding the quotas themselves can be. Amazon has said it plans to appeal the fine, arguing that it already complies with workplace safety laws. This response highlights weaknesses in current labor protection legal enforcement as companies can claim legal compliance while still pressuring workers to unsafe levels of productivity.
Amazon is not the only culprit, retailers like Walmart have increasingly turned to high-tech automated fulfillment centers where software monitors the pace of human labor. Similarly, companies like UPS and FedEx have integrated telematics and AI-driven sorting systems that track every second of a worker's movement, including how long the door is open and how long it takes for a driver to get to the curb. By automating the managerial supervisor role, these companies that are giants in their industries have made an environment where the speed of the machine determines the safety of the human normal.
The issue extends beyond California. Other states, including New York, Washington, and Minnesota, have started exploring similar warehouse worker protections, and federal lawmakers have proposed a national Warehouse Worker Protection Act. However, as algorithmic management becomes more common across major industries, state laws will not be enough to protect workers from technology driven exploitation. To truly protect workers, legislation must move beyond transparency laws and establish safety guidelines. This includes requirements that prevent workers from being fired by an algorithm without human review, and bans on tracking workers for every second of inactivity. Without stronger standards, enforcement actions will only occur after the harm has already been done.
California’s case against Amazon should serve as a wake up call for lawmakers. Labor laws written for human managed workplaces are currently unable to address environments where software controls discipline and job security. If employment law does not evolve with the world and its shift towards using technology to regulate algorithmic management systems, companies will be enabled to hide behind the guise of compliance while workers bear the physical and mental costs. Efficiency should never come at the expense of worker safety, and California’s lawsuit makes clear that labor law must catch up to modern workplaces who are currently able to maintain excessive quotas without true consequences.
