USA 
United Kingdom
Amazon executives have come under fire from UK lawmakers after repeatedly failing to explain why workers at the company’s Coventry warehouse have staged multiple strikes over pay and working conditions.
During a parliamentary hearing in December, Amazon HR executives Jennifer Kearney and Stuart Morgan avoided directly answering the same question eight times, raising concerns among MPs about the company’s treatment of its workforce.
The hearing was called following a wave of industrial action at the Coventry fulfilment center, where employees have voiced grievances over low wages and alleged workplace safety issues. In early 2024, staff at the site narrowly missed winning a vote to unionize, with 49.5% of employees supporting the move—just 0.6% short of the required majority.
MPs repeatedly asked Kearney and Morgan why so many Coventry employees had chosen to strike. Instead of providing a clear response, Kearney maintained that workers were simply “executing their rights,” prompting frustration from lawmakers.
“If Amazon is such a great place to work … why have your team in Coventry gone on strike so much?” MP Jonathan Reynolds pressed.
After several attempts to extract a direct answer, MP Antonia Bance pointed out that under UK law, strikes require a legal reason to proceed. When asked to specify what that reason was, Kearney admitted she “didn’t have the information top of mind” and promised to follow up later.
Alarming safety concerns in Amazon warehouses
The hearing also brought renewed attention to Amazon’s workplace safety record in the UK. MPs raised concerns over reports that ambulances had been called to the company’s warehouses more than 1,400 times over a five-year period.
One particular case involved an employee who lost 80% of his sight following a chemical spill. The hearing was told that Amazon delayed calling emergency services due to concerns over the number of ambulance requests from that site.
Kearney and Morgan again struggled to respond, with Kearney stating: “One [safety] incident is too many, so we work actively…to support [employees] and to make sure we’re doing everything as safely as possible.”
The 2026 Employee Engagement Impact Report
Terryberry surveyed 1,000 full-time U.S. employees to understand how engagement programs affect retention, motivation, and performance—and what separates effective programs from those that fall short.
Our employee engagement survey report found:
- 91% of employees agree that their workplace engagement programs would be more effective if they were better connected.
- 70% of employees with well-connected workplace engagement programs say those programs have significantly influenced them to stay at their job.
- Remote employees are nearly 20% less likely than hybrid and in-office employees to say their organization’s engagement programs work well together.
- 59% of employees experience at least one obstacle to participating in workplace engagement programs.
The report breaks down key findings across industries and work environments, with practical takeaways to help HR leaders strengthen program participation and maximize the impact of their engagement initiatives.
The MPs remained unconvinced, however, pressing for further details on the company’s handling of such cases.
Retaliation claims deepen tensions
Since the hearing, tensions between Amazon and its workforce have escalated, with allegations emerging that the company has retaliated against employees involved in unionization efforts.
The GMB union recently claimed that 60 workers, all of whom supported unionization, have faced disciplinary action under newly enforced productivity tracking rules.
The changes, which affect how Amazon assesses “non-productive time”, including delays caused by equipment failures, meetings, and even bathroom breaks, have reportedly led to threats of termination, often without clear communication to employees.
With Amazon executives failing to provide satisfactory answers on key concerns around worker rights, HR leaders and business executives will be watching closely to see how the company responds to mounting pressure from both employees and UK regulators.
