Amazon’s working conditions in its EU warehouses became the focal point of a heated clash during the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) public hearing on 28 January 2026. The debate revealed a pronounced divide between Amazon’s senior leadership—David Zapolsky, Stefano Perego, and Lucy Cronin—and worker and union representatives, including Polish warehouse worker Maria Malinowska and UNI Europa’s Oliver Roethig.
The central disagreement revolved around claims on workplace safety, surveillance practices, and the legitimacy and scope of collective bargaining. Amazon executives defended their record, highlighting reported improvements in safety statistics, the strategic use of AI to enhance safety and productivity, and compliance with national labor laws through predominantly direct communication structures. Contrastingly, Malinowska and Roethig, backed by a coalition of MEP critics from S&D, Greens, The Left, and EPP groups, condemned what they described as extensive workplace surveillance, anti-union tactics including union busting and retaliatory dismissals, and insufficient recognition of trade unions as the sole rightful representatives for collective bargaining.
This intense exchange took place at the European Parliament’s EMPL Committee hearing on working conditions in Amazon warehouses held on 28 January.
In terms of concrete proposals, Amazon’s leadership emphasized financial and operational commitments: $2 billion invested globally in safety initiatives, thousands of safety professionals deployed in Europe, and AI-based tools purported to optimize working conditions while respecting legal frameworks. Stefano Perego claimed engagement with about 270 employee representation bodies and adherence to collective bargaining agreements in France, Spain, and Italy, albeit favoring mixed representation bodies over formal trade unions. Conversely, critics including MEPs Oliver Roethig and Estelle Ceulemans demanded a firm commitment to EU-style collective bargaining led solely by trade unions, with Roethig pushing for the 80% collective bargaining coverage target.
The policy cleavages surfaced clearly: Amazon advocates for a model emphasizing direct communication and internal employee forums, a relatively decentralized approach to labor relations that argues for technological innovation as a safety enabler. Critics press for stronger EU integration of labor protections, including binding union-led collective bargaining frameworks, increased transparency, and stricter regulation of surveillance and AI usage to protect worker autonomy and privacy.
Stakeholders impacted by these divergent visions include EU regulatory bodies tasked with social and labor standards enforcement, Amazon as a major employer in the logistics sector facing reputational and compliance risks, warehouse workers confronting physical and psychological pressures, and EU civil society advocating for labor rights.
Amazon’s proposed models could maintain operational flexibility and potentially foster incremental safety advances but face skepticism over transparency and worker empowerment. The critics’ demands, if realized, promise stronger worker protections and union influence but could lead to increased administrative and operational costs for Amazon and potentially slower adaptation in a tech-driven, competitive sector.
The institutions involved, particularly the EMPL Committee, are expected to continue scrutiny, including Amazon site visits announced during the hearing. This ongoing dialogue foreshadows potential legislative initiatives to enhance worker rights, balance technological innovation with protections, and reinforce the EU social dialogue framework, with outcomes depending on how far the Parliament pushes toward binding regulatory measures versus encouraging corporate self-regulation.