Sanders Investigating Amazon: Congressional Oversight Explained

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt) endeavors to intervene in labor battles at giant corporations like Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. highlight just how far congressional oversight of corporate America extends.

Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, launched a probe last week into Amazon’s treatment of workers. The lawmaker told company CEO Andy Jassy in a letter that he and founder Jeff Bezos have created a “corporate culture that treats workers as disposable” as Amazon’s worker safety practices are scrutinized by a series of federal and state courts.

Sanders told Bloomberg Law “everything is on the table” in the investigation, including forcing testimony from the e-commerce giant’s executive leadership.

Amazon is Sanders’ second target for alleged unfair labor practices since the progressive firebrand took over the HELP panel in January. Earlier this year, Sanders sent letters to Starbucks executives asking them to testify about the company’s handling of unionization efforts at cafes across the country, and then-interim CEO Howard Schultz attended a March 29 hearing.

Sanders’ moves to increase oversight of private sector workers mirror efforts in the House to look into Biden administration and agency practices and priorities. But in both instances, lawmakers face opportunities and hurdles navigating what is within their power to ultimately change.

1. What are Congress’ tools?

Congress has a series of escalating options when it comes to interacting with employers.

Lawmakers will often send letters that include a number of questions to businesses, and give them a deadline to respond. They can also invite executives and legal representatives to appear at hearings and give testimony.

But if lawmakers believe they have been ignored, or want to enforce compliance, they can draw on a powerful, and more rarely used, tool: a subpoena.

Congressional committees have the power to issue subpoenas to force individuals to testify or hand over documents. The subpoena, or the threat of issuing one, can result in high-profile executives going to Capitol Hill.

While most House panels empower their chairs to issue subpoenas, most Senate committees require that the chair either obtain consent from the ranking member or put the subpoena’s issuance for a committee vote. The HELP panel, however, can only issue subpoenas with the approval of a majority of its members.

2. Are companies willing to collaborate?

Most of the time, businesses will do their best to comply with questions from lawmakers to avoid a subpoena, said Christopher Armstrong, an attorney who represents companies under congressional investigations for Holland & Knight LLP.

Being served with a subpoena is very bad from a public relations perspective, he said, so counsel typically keeps close touch with committee staffers to answer inquiries and testimony requests.

Just the threat of a subpoena can move the needle. Schultz appeared voluntarily for testimony before the HELP committee only after a threat from Sanders to schedule a vote to issue a subpoena.

3. What if the company doesn’t comply?

Lawmakers can hold individuals in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. But the decision falls to the entire chamber, whether the Senate or House, rather than just the committee and its chair.

It’s a rare event, considering the common line of communication between staffers and the entities’ legal teams, but it has happened. In 2016, the Senate unanimously voted to hold classified ad website Backpage.com in civil contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena.

Under a more arcane procedure called “inherent contempt power,” the uncooperative witness may be arrested and brought to trial in Congress, with the offender facing possible prison time. But this hasn’t happened in several decades because of the time-consuming nature of the trial.

4. How do these investigations usually end up?

One of the main goals in these investigations is bringing attention to an issue and stirring public debate. The Schultz hearing, which drew major media attention with a room full of photographers and television cameras, may have raised the profile of the organizing efforts at Starbucks.

A recent hearing on artificial intelligence has ignited a conversation over how Congress can regulate the emerging technology.

And beyond the public spotlight, the inquiries can result in a report or a referral to the Justice Department to pursue charges against companies or individuals. But more often than not, these investigations can also go nowhere, according to Armstrong.

“Because oversight is often driven by timely policy or news events, after a few months Congress’s attention also moves elsewhere,” he said.

Read More:

• Sanders Launches Senate Probe Into Amazon Workplace Safety
• Amazon Is Caught in Wave of Federal, State Worker Safety Cases
• Amazon 2022 Injury Rate Dip Is Still Above Warehouse Average
• Schultz Rejects Allegations That Starbucks Broke Labor Laws
• Starbucks Is Racking Up Labor Law Violations as Rulings Roll in