Mayor Zohran Mamdani is backing legislation that would effectively dismantle Amazon’s network of independent delivery contractors in New York City, even as his own administration relies extensively on outside companies to provide workers for essential city services, the NY Post reports.
Mamdani has argued that Amazon’s use of delivery contractors amounts to exploitation. Yet when City Hall obtains workers through private employers to carry out government functions, the administration treats the arrangement as ordinary contracting.
The Delivery Protection Act, sponsored by City Council Member Tiffany Cabán and backed by Mamdani, would require Amazon and other companies operating last-mile facilities to directly employ workers performing core warehouse and delivery functions.
If enacted, the measure would effectively eliminate Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner program within the five boroughs.
Amazon says it currently works with more than 40 locally operated delivery companies that collectively employ over 5,000 New Yorkers.
Under Amazon’s current arrangement, the retailer contracts with those independent businesses, which then employ their own drivers. Most of those drivers are traditional employees rather than independent gig workers.
Cabán’s legislation would terminate the Amazon arrangements on which those delivery companies depend, potentially putting some of the businesses themselves at risk of closure.
Amazon would be required to offer positions to affected drivers, but the legislation would not guarantee that those workers retain their existing schedules, routes, benefits or level of job security.
Critics contend that the legislation also exposes a significant contradiction in Mamdani’s position because New York City itself routinely uses outside employers to supply workers.
The Mamdani administration, for example, contracted with an outside company to provide 109 temporary professionals for homeless services under an $8.46 million renewal that remained in effect through June 30.
City Hall also renewed an $11 million citywide trucking agreement under which an outside contractor supplies drivers and other labor.
Both arrangements operate on essentially the same structure being targeted at Amazon: A large entity contracts with an independent business, which employs workers who then perform the required services.
In City Hall’s case, such an arrangement is classified as government procurement. Mamdani, however, has characterized Amazon’s version of subcontracting as exploitation.
Supporters of the Amazon restrictions have cited workplace injuries and traffic safety problems associated with last-mile delivery operations, but critics argue that the evidence does not establish subcontracting itself as the cause.
The city comptroller’s office found a rate of 9.2 injuries per 100 full-time-equivalent workers among Amazon delivery contractors. However, the analysis did not compare that figure with injury rates among directly employed delivery workers or establish that changing the workers’ employer would improve safety.
Traffic data cited in support of the measure has similarly drawn questions. The comptroller found that crashes resulting in injuries increased near 14 of 18 last-mile facilities following their opening, but the study did not determine that vehicles associated with those facilities were responsible for the crashes.
Critics therefore argue that even if legitimate problems exist within last-mile delivery operations, there is insufficient evidence that the subcontracting structure causes them — particularly enough evidence to justify eliminating dozens of independent delivery companies.
Amazon, meanwhile, says its rate of serious crashes in New York City declined 35.7% between 2024 and 2025 after its delivery contractors implemented camera-based warning systems and driver coaching.
Opponents of the legislation contend that Mamdani is using concerns about safety to justify a fundamental restructuring of the employment model despite failing to demonstrate that the two issues are connected.
The proposed law would nevertheless impose sweeping changes on delivery operators.
Companies covered by the measure would be barred from outsourcing core warehouse and delivery operations and would be subject to extensive requirements governing worker retention and training. During the transition, operators could also face a $500,000 bond for every covered delivery worker not placed directly on their payroll.
At the same time, the legislation provides no comparable protection for owners of the independent delivery companies whose Amazon business could disappear under the new rules.
One such operator is Rudy Cazares, who runs an Amazon Delivery Service Partner business while also contracting with FedEx.
Cazares told The Post that his company employs approximately 130 W-2 workers, with starting wages of $23.75 per hour.
Under the Cabán-Mamdani proposal, his Amazon delivery business would not simply face additional regulation; its existing business model would effectively cease to be permitted.
Critics also point to a significant exemption written into the legislation: Government entities are excluded from its definition of a “facility operator.”
That exemption is particularly consequential because New York City depends heavily on outside contractors to carry out a vast range of public functions.
During fiscal year 2025, the city comptroller registered approximately 12,500 new procurement contracts with a combined multiyear face value of $42.3 billion.
In fiscal year 2024 alone, New York City spent approximately $8 billion on contractors providing human services.
Those agreements extend well beyond peripheral government work. City Hall relies on outside organizations to provide services that the city itself considers fundamental public responsibilities, including homeless shelters, mental-health programs and foster care.
Even Mamdani’s signature proposal for government-backed grocery stores is expected to rely on private operators contracted to manage the locations for the city.
Supporters of subcontracting argue that specialized outside businesses — including delivery companies — can offer expertise, flexibility and knowledge of local communities that large centralized organizations may struggle to provide.
Critics say Mamdani’s approach instead assumes that eliminating the intermediary employer automatically benefits workers, without adequately accounting for the independent businesses and jobs that could disappear in the process.
The economic consequences could also extend directly to New York City households. Estimates cited by opponents suggest the legislation could increase costs by as much as $664 per household annually.
Because the requirement would apply only within New York City, delivery companies could also find neighboring New Jersey, Long Island and Westchester County more attractive locations for their operations.
Warehouses located outside the five boroughs could continue delivering packages to city residents, but from greater distances.
That could produce longer delivery routes, additional vehicle mileage, higher operating expenses and increased traffic and emissions — potentially undermining the environmental arguments being made in favor of the legislation.
Small businesses, working-class customers and delivery employees could ultimately bear much of the cost and disruption created by those changes.
Critics argue that City Hall has a less disruptive alternative: directly regulate unsafe or abusive practices wherever they occur while permitting subcontracting arrangements that meet appropriate labor and safety standards, much as the city does with its own contractors.
The central challenge for Mamdani, they contend, is consistency. If subcontracting is inherently exploitative, the same principle should apply to New York City government. If it is not, City Hall should not selectively prohibit the practice when private companies such as Amazon use it.
