(Hartford, CT) – Attorney General William Tong, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas, Commissioner of Banking Jorge Perez, and Commissioner of Consumer Protection Bryan T. Cafferelli today warned businesses to avoid an ongoing potential government imposter scam targeting Connecticut businesses. In this scheme, a company called CT UCC Statement Service, attempts to get businesses to pay $90 for a copy of a Uniform Commercial Code report. While the solicitation is designed to look like a government notice, this company has no affiliation with the State of Connecticut. In fact, UCC reports may be accessed for free via the Secretary of the State’s website at business.ct.gov.
A UCC financing statement is a form documenting that a creditor, such as a bank, has a lien on a borrower’s personal property. These forms are filed with the Secretary of the State and provide proof of the assets subject to the lien to other creditors.
While the company notes in small print that they are “not affiliated with any state or government agency” and that businesses are not required to use their services, such a disclaimer may not be sufficient.
“This company has zero affiliation with the State of Connecticut and there is no need to pay for their useless services. If you receive this letter, do not respond. If you have paid any money to this business, please file a complaint with my office,” said Attorney General Tong.
“Businesses should be on high alert to avoid becoming a target of scams, especially as we near the annual report filing deadline on March 31,” said Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas. “Our business.ct.gov website can provide members of the public with access to many documents free of charge, including copies of UCC reports and liens.”
“It is important for businesses to keep an eye out for these types of scams. This company in particular, targets business entities that recently obtained a loan or other extension of credit. These mailed solicitations are misleading and deceptive as they attempt to charge a fee in exchange for obtaining documents that businesses can access at no cost. We advise businesses to carefully read any correspondence that appears to charge a fee in order to obtain any document(s) associated with a loan or other extension of credit. Before paying any type of fee, businesses should independently verify the company and contact the appropriate government agency with any concerns,” said Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez.
“Scammers pay attention to when filing deadlines for businesses are looming and then try to take advantage of a stressful and busy time for business owners by asking them to pay for services that are actually free,” said Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli. “Business owners should never give in to threatening letters, emails, or calls that encourage them to act immediately or face consequences. Those kinds of pressure tactics are almost always the signs of a scam. And if you’re unsure, you can do research online, or send an email or make a phone call to the correct agency to verify the notice you received is false before paying any money to a scammer.”
Government imposter scams can take many forms and can target individuals and businesses alike. Scammers may mail solicitations or send emails to businesses to “advise” them that they must purchase certain products or forms, or file particular reports in order to be in compliance with the law. The scammers then offer to assist businesses with satisfying these requirements in exchange for a fee.
Scammers are careful to design their mailings to resemble official government documents by incorporating elements such as seals, bar codes, and references to statutes and regulations. The mailings may include terms such as “IMPORTANT,” “OPEN IMMEDIATELY,” or “TIME SENSITIVE” to create a false sense of urgency. Businesses which fall prey to these tactics end up paying significant fees for services they either do not need, or could take care of themselves for much less money.
To report a scam or instance of fraud to the Office of the Attorney General, please file a complaint online here: https://www.dir.ct.gov/ag/complaint.
(Hartford, CT) –Attorney General William Tong this week led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget, urging the Biden administration to complete its review and swiftly implement proposed FDA Rules, which would prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. In the letter, the coalition specifically highlights calls for action by civil rights and public health groups to remove menthol tobacco products from the marketplace to protect public health and address the systemic and disproportionate impact of these products on minority communities and other vulnerable populations, including young people.
“Menthol is added to make a deadly and distasteful product more palatable, with disproportionate health impacts in Black communities where tobacco companies have aggressively marketed menthol tobacco. I join civil rights leaders, public health experts, and attorneys general from across the country in urging the Biden Administration to prohibit menthol cigarette and flavored cigar sales,” said Attorney General Tong.
Overwhelming scientific evidence — including the FDA’s own findings and statements — leave no doubt that menthol cigarettes have far-reaching adverse impacts on public health, resulting in more smoking and more death and disease from tobacco use. Cigarette manufacturers add menthol to cigarettes and cigars to disguise the harsh taste of tobacco. As a result, this flavoring remains a primary reason why young people initiate and become addicted to smoking. Menthol cigarette use is also disproportionately high among LGBTQ+ smokers, women, racial and ethnic minorities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
For decades, the tobacco industry has aggressively marketed menthol cigarettes in Black communities through heavy advertising and promotional campaigns. As a result, in 2020, approximately 81 percent of non-Hispanic Black adults who smoked used menthol cigarettes, compared to 34 percent of non-Hispanic White adults.
In the letter, the multistate coalition urges the Biden Administration to finalize its review of the FDA’s proposed Rules without delay. As state and territorial chief legal officers, the attorneys general refute the tobacco industry’s unfounded claims that the proposed menthol ban will likely increase illicit trade or abusive policing in Black communities. The coalition argues that the FDA’s proposed rules are critical for advancing health equity and protecting the public health of all Americans.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that, in Connecticut alone, an estimated 8,200 additional adults who smoke would quit smoking if menthol cigarettes were no longer available. Banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars would bring the country closer to achieving the Cancer Moonshot, President Biden’s historic push “to end cancer as we know it.”
Attorney General Tong led the coalition, along with the attorneys general of California, Illinois and New York. Attorneys general from Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and District of Columbia also signed the letter.
Heather Wilson, Deputy Section Chief for Tobacco Enforcement, Assistant Attorney General Amor Rosario and Deputy Associate Attorney General Philip Miller, Chief of the Financial and Revenue Services Section, assisted Attorney General Tong in this matter.
(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Ned Lamont and Treasurer Erick Russell today announced that 7,810 children across Connecticut have been born automatically eligible for the landmark Connecticut Baby Bonds program since it launched on July 1, 2023.
Connecticut is the first state in the nation to fund and implement a baby bonds program aimed at building a brighter future for children born into poverty. Children whose birth is covered by HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program, are automatically enrolled in the program and are having $3,200 invested on their behalf. Those investments, which are managed by the Office of the Treasurer, will grow over time and can be used when the participant is between the ages of 18 and 30 for specific purposes intended to help build individual wealth. These include purchasing a home in Connecticut, starting or investing in a Connecticut business, paying for education or job training, and saving for retirement.
“In just six months, the first-in-the-nation Connecticut Baby Bonds program has put more than 7,000 working families on a pathway to the middle class and is transforming the future of our state,” Governor Lamont said. “This gives our young people startup capital for their lives and ultimately will help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty for thousands of families. These funds aren’t just an investment, they’re a symbol of hope and a promise that everyone can make it right here in Connecticut.”
“It’s thrilling to see thousands of new residents born with access to resources that will help them shape their own future here in Connecticut,” Treasurer Russell said. “Connecticut Baby Bonds invests directly in people, creating new economic opportunities for families in every city and town. The result will be tens of thousands of new potential homebuyers, skilled workers, and inventive entrepreneurs. My office has been hard at work building the program’s infrastructure and collaborating with stakeholders to maximize its impact. I look forward to continued outreach and support to prepare these kids and their parents for the exciting future that awaits.”
Between July 1, 2023, and December 20, 2023, a total of 7,810 Connecticut births have been covered by HUSKY, according to data from the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS). It is estimated that about 15,000 babies will be eligible for Connecticut Baby Bonds annually. Parents of eligible newborns do not need to take any action to enroll or apply.
Since its launch, children eligible for Connecticut Baby Bonds have been born in 165 of the state’s 169 towns and cities. Over the course of a full year, it is anticipated that eligible participants will be born in every municipality. According to the data, the municipalities with the highest number of participants so far are:
Bridgeport, 798
Hartford, 621
Waterbury, 615
New Haven, 560
Stamford, 376
“The fact that we have helped set up more than 7,800 newborn babies in the last six months with a head start out of poverty is a tremendous achievement,” DSS Commissioner Andrea Barton Reeves said. “It is through the leadership of Governor Lamont and Treasurer Russell that we are here today.”
In 2021, Connecticut became the first state to pass baby bonds legislation and funding was secured in 2023 under a plan that lowered the overall cost of the program by more than $200 million than initially anticipated and avoided $600 million in borrowing by investing the full amount required upfront. The Connecticut Baby Bonds Trust was officially formed and funded in August 2023.
Connecticut Launches New One-Stop-Shop Portal for Jobseekers
(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Ned Lamont today announced the launch of Connecticut’s new jobs portal, jobs.ct.gov. The portal is aimed at assisting Connecticut residents and those seeking to move to the state in the process of finding a job. It represents the latest development in the Lamont administration’s ongoing journey toward an all-digital state government.
“The new jobs portal is the next step in our administration’s effort to make information more accessible and available for Connecticut residents and businesses,” Governor Lamont said. “Through jobs.ct.gov, jobseekers can access search tools, tips, and resources to help land a job, as well as training and certification opportunities. The jobs portal is also a tool that will help bring qualified candidates to employers’ job openings. It is another step in the right direction in the state’s digital journey, benefitting both residents and businesses.”
Jobs.ct.gov joins health.ct.gov and business.ct.gov as the next service category to be developed in the new digital, one-stop government ecosystem. Some of the resources available through the jobs portal include:
Powerful job search tools;
Job search tips and personal help;
Free and low-cost training, certificate, and classroom programs; and
Resources to help employers hire, train, and retain employees.
All of the resources are Connecticut-specific and focus on connecting jobseekers with the variety of employment and workforce development opportunities offered in the state.
“Over the past few years, Connecticut has made dramatic progress on its digital journey,” Connecticut Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Commissioner Michelle Gilman said. “Jobs.ct.gov is another example of cross-agency collaboration that will lead to a better experience for the resident. We recognize the need to meet residents where they are, making information more easily accessible while working to break down agency barriers. The jobs portal is an exciting development, giving jobseekers another tool to help connect them to opportunities, and we expect more initiatives like this in coming months and years.”
“Connecticut provides many services to support people on their journey to raise their level of employment, however those services were historically spread out across agencies and websites,” Connecticut Chief Information Officer and DAS Deputy Commissioner Mark Raymond said. “Jobs.ct.gov simplifies how people can find these critical resources.”
“This is an important addition to the job seeker’s toolbox,” Connecticut Department of Labor Commissioner Danté Bartolomeo said. “Under Governor Lamont’s leadership, the statewide economy continues to be strong, steady, and add jobs. Yet, employers in some industries still face workforce shortages and jobs.ct.gov will be a valuable resource to them. This portal will help recruiters of all types find and train their workforce, get people into jobs, and keep Connecticut companies growing.”
“Jobseekers need information and tools that will enable them to search and apply for jobs quickly and easily and access training and resources that will support them in attaining a good job,” Connecticut Chief Workforce Officer Kelli Vallieres said. “Jobs.ct.gov provides jobseekers with these tools in one centralized location. Importantly, the new portal also provides employers with information to reach greater numbers of skilled jobseekers from diverse backgrounds, which is critical to a more robust and equitable Connecticut economy.”
The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) is applauding the portal’s launch, saying it reflects broader calls from employers and residents for solutions that streamline and improve access to state services and resources.
“An easier front door for jobseekers is exactly what is needed to better connect supply and demand, especially for this who are disconnected from the labor force, unemployed, or underemployed,” CBIA President and CEO Chris DiPentima said. “We have the jobs, what we need are the people to fill those jobs and jobs.ct.gov will help connect the two.”
In an announcement made today, Governor Ned Lamont disclosed the creation of the Connecticut Interagency Council on Homelessness, a panel comprising agency heads from his administration. This council will focus on fostering collaboration among various state agencies to enhance the state’s efforts in preventing and responding to homelessness. The leadership of the council will include key figures from state agencies responsible for housing and intervention support services, such as the Department of Housing, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.
Governor Lamont emphasized the importance of ensuring everyone has access to a safe and warm home, calling for a holistic approach that addresses factors contributing to homelessness. The council has been assigned three primary goals: strengthening existing programs, improving the effectiveness of the homelessness response system, and meeting housing demands. These objectives encompass refining health and human services, enhancing housing stability, and creating more affordable housing across the state.
Housing Commissioner Seila Mosquera-Bruno has been appointed as the chairperson of the council, with leaders from various state offices serving as members. Additionally, certain offices will contribute as ad hoc members to ensure comprehensive representation. Governor Lamont urges council members to amplify the voices of those directly impacted by homelessness and to establish an advisory committee for practitioners and advocates to provide ongoing feedback. The Office of the Governor will collaborate with the Connecticut General Assembly to address challenges and opportunities in a coordinated manner.
“Some of the oldest newspapers in the country, like the Hartford Courant, have closed their newsrooms, & it is a national tragedy, a painful and traumatic time, for reporters, editors, and their industry, and a deep danger for our democracy.” [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, delivered opening remarks at a hearing titled “Oversight of A.I.: The Future of Journalism.” “It is, in fact, a perfect storm. The result of increasing costs, declining revenue, and exploding disinformation. And a lot of the cause of this perfect storm is in fact technologies like Artificial Intelligence,” said Blumenthal in his opening remarks at the hearing. “It is literally eating away at the lifeblood of our democracy, which as we all know is essential to local jobs, local accountability, local awareness and knowledge…local reporting is truly the result of sweat and tears, and sometimes even blood of local reporters.” “The rise of Big Tech has been directly responsible for the decline in local news, and it is largely the cause of that perfect storm, accelerating and expanding the destruction of local reporting. First Meta, Google, and OpenAI are using the hard work of newspapers and authors to train their AI models without compensation or credit. Adding insult to injury, those models are then used to compete with newspapers and broadcast, cannibalizing readership and revenue from the journalistic institutions that generate the content in the first place,” Blumenthal said, citing a recent New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, along with deep concerns AI will directly replace journalists. “Our purpose here must be to determine how we can ensure that reporters and readers reap the benefits of AI and avoid the pitfalls,” emphasized Blumenthal. “We need to move more quickly than we did on social media, and learn from our mistakes, in the delay there.” Blumenthal pointed to potential standards Congress can build consensus around in this area, including licensing requirements, an AI framework similar to the bipartisan proposal by Blumenthal and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), clarifying that Section 230 does not apply to AI, and updating antitrust laws to stop Big Tech’s monopolistic practices in advertising as proposed by the AMERICA Act and the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. Video of Blumenthal’s opening remarks can be found here. Video of Blumenthal’s witness questions and comments can be found here and here. The full transcript of Blumenthal’s opening statement is available below. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): I’m pleased to convene the subcommittee and welcome our witnesses, welcome everyone who has come to hear, and of course my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for a hearing that is critical to our democracy, critical to the future of journalism in the United States, because local reporting is the lifeblood of our democracy, and local reporting by newspapers and broadcast stations are in existential crisis. It is, in fact, a perfect storm. The result of increasing costs, declining revenue, and exploding disinformation. And a lot of the cause of this perfect storm is in fact technologies like Artificial Intelligence. Not new, not original for me to observe it. But it is literally eating away at the lifeblood of our democracy, which as we all know is essential to local jobs, local accountability, local awareness and knowledge. Everything from obituaries to the planning and zoning commission. And you can’t get it anywhere else. National news, you can buy by the yard, or by the word. But local reporting is truly the result of sweat and tears, and sometimes even blood of local reporters. What we are seeing, and it is a stark fact about American journalism in existential crisis, is the decline and potential death of local reporting as a result of that perfect storm. Local papers are closing at a staggering rate. One third of our newspapers have been lost in the last two decades. I don’t need to tell anyone here that some of the oldest newspapers in the country, like the Hartford Courant, have closed their newsrooms, and it is a national tragedy, a painful and traumatic time, for reporters, editors, and their industry, and a deep danger for our democracy. Hedge funds are buying those papers, not for the news they can communicate, but often for the real estate that they own. They are publishing weekly instead of daily, and they are buying out reporting staffs, sometimes firing them. Millions of Americans now live in a news desert, where there is no local paper, and that’s especially true for rural populations and communities of color, so there is an equity aspect to this challenge as well. For any of us on this panel, we know the importance of local news, but so should people who live in those communities. Because just as local police and fire services are the first responders, local reporters are often the first informers, and that information is no less important to them than fire and police service in the long term. The rise of Big Tech has been directly responsible for the decline in local news, and it is largely the cause of that perfect storm, accelerating and expanding the destruction of local reporting. First Meta, Google, and OpenAI are using the hard work of newspapers and authors to train their AI models without compensation or credit. Adding insult to injury, those models are then used to compete with newspapers and broadcast, cannibalizing readership and revenue from the journalistic institutions that generate the content in the first place. As the New York Times’ recent lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft shows, those AI models will even essentially plagiarize articles and directly permit readers to evade pay walls to access protected content free of charge. I realize that those claims and allegations are yet to be contended or concluded in court, but they are certainly more than plausible. Second, the models may also misidentify or misattribute statements about media-outlet content or endorsement of a product, and the result is more rampant misinformation and disinformation online and damage to the brand and credibility of those media outlets. And there are legitimate fears that AI will directly replace journalists. The experiments we have seen with fake reporters are a breach of trust. It is never a substitute for local reporters in local newsrooms, broadcasters, journalists who reflect their community and talk to their neighbors. So our purpose here must be to determine how we can ensure that reporters and readers reap the benefits of AI and avoid the pitfalls. That’s been one of the themes of our hearings. And another has been that we need to move more quickly than we did on social media, and learn from our mistakes, in the delay there. Once again, we need to learn from the mistakes of that failure to oversee social media and adopt standards, and I think there are some that maybe we can form a consensus around, just as Senator Hawley and I have on the framework that we have proposed. First on licensing, guaranteeing that newspapers and broadcasters are given credit financially and publicly for reporting and other content they provide. Second, on an AI framework such as we proposed, requiring transparency about the limits and use of AI models, including disclosures when copyrighted material is used, as provided for in our framework now, but we may need to expand on it and make it more explicit. Third, on Section 230, clarifying that Section 230 does not apply to AI, again as Senator Hawley and I have proposed in our legislation, to create the right incentives for companies to develop trustworthy products. And finally, — not really finally, but fourth — updating our antitrust laws to stop Big Tech’s monopolistic business practices in advertising that undercut newspapers. And I want to thank my colleagues Senator Klobuchar and Senator Lee for their work on legislation that I have joined as a cosponsor. We are fortunate to have an extraordinary panel today. I want to thank all of you for being here. And now, turn to the Ranking Member for his comment.
WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on Wednesday led 28 of his Senate colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy requesting information about the company’s Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program and its efforts to avoid legal liability for the persistent mistreatment of DSP drivers. The senators are also seeking information regarding Amazon’s justification for refusing to bargain with union representatives of DSP employees and requiring DPSs to sign non-poaching agreements.
“Amazon’s freight truck drivers haul a variety of goods across highways every day, and their branded delivery vehicles are a virtually unavoidable feature in neighborhoods all over the country. Though nearly all Americans are familiar with and reliant on the services of Amazon- branded vehicles – which are operated by drivers in Amazon-branded vests who exclusively deliver packages with big, bold Amazon labels – few realize that Amazon refuses to acknowledge the workers who operate these vehicles as its legal employees,” the senators wrote.
The senators detailed the dangerous working conditions of DSP drivers: “An overwhelming body of reporting suggests this system of control without responsibility exacts an awful toll on drivers. Drivers have been made to work in extreme heat without air conditioning, forced to make deliveries in the snow without proper safety equipment like snow tires or chains, and are often pressured to skip breaks. In some instances, drivers have been forced to work for nearly twelve hours without access to a restroom. In 2021, researchers used publicly disclosed OSHA 300A summary data to estimate that DSP drivers were injured at a rate of 18.3 injuries per 100 workers in 2021. In other words, nearly one in five drivers was injured on the job. This represented a shocking 38% increase over the 2020 injury rate.
“Amazon is also facing numerous allegations of flagrant violations of the National Labor Relations Act, including refusal to recognize and bargain with workers who recently voted to unionize with the Teamsters, holding captive audience meetings to stifle worker organizing efforts, reducing DSP routes in response to union activity, and terminating DSP employees in retaliation for union organizing and other protected activities,” the senators added.
U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Maizie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) Tina Smith (D-Minn.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also signed the letter.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Mr. Jassy,
We write to express concerns regarding reports that Amazon inflicts persistent mistreatment on its Delivery Service Partner (DSP) drivers and to request further information regarding Amazon’s DSP program.
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chair Sanders recently launched an investigation into “the abysmal safety record in Amazon’s warehouses and the company’s treatment of workers who are injured in those warehouses.” In response to a growing body of public reporting, expert analyses, and constituent concerns shared with our offices, we are conducting a similar but distinct oversight inquiry into Amazon’s DSP program.
Amazon’s freight truck drivers haul a variety of goods across highways every day, and their branded delivery vehicles are a virtually unavoidable feature in neighborhoods all over the country. Though nearly all Americans are familiar with and reliant on the services of Amazon- branded vehicles – which are operated by drivers in Amazon-branded vests who exclusively deliver packages with big, bold Amazon labels – few realize that Amazon refuses to acknowledge the workers who operate these vehicles as its legal employees.
Even though Amazon reportedly exercises near-total control over the wages and working conditions of its delivery drivers, it appears to avoid legal liability through a network of delivery service partners – supposedly independent businesses that contract with Amazon. On paper, Amazon claims that these DSPs are the real employers of its delivery drivers. But as has been reported, DSPs have little discretion over key aspects of their businesses, which means that Amazon may be required to shoulder legal responsibility as an employer of DSP drivers.
An overwhelming body of reporting suggests this system of control without responsibility exacts an awful toll on drivers. Drivers have been made to work in extreme heat without air conditioning, forced to make deliveries in the snow without proper safety equipment like snow tires or chains, and are often pressured to skip breaks. In some instances, drivers have been forced to work for nearly twelve hours without access to a restroom. In 2021, researchers used publicly disclosed OSHA 300A summary data to estimate that DSP drivers were injured at a rate of 18.3 injuries per 100 workers in 2021. In other words, nearly one in five drivers was injured on the job. This represented a shocking 38% increase over the 2020 injury rate.
Over the last few years, reports of unsafe and unfair working conditions have demonstrated that widespread safety and labor violations appear to be a feature, not a bug, of the DSP program. As a result, Amazon drivers and dispatchers have picketed 25 Amazon warehouses across nine states over the past several months, including Connecticut, California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey.
Amazon is also facing numerous allegations of flagrant violations of the National Labor Relations Act, including refusal to recognize and bargain with workers who recently voted to unionize with the Teamsters, holding captive audience meetings to stifle worker organizing efforts, reducing DSP routes in response to union activity, and terminating DSP employees in retaliation for union organizing and other protected activities.
In addition to being dangerous for workers, the structure of Amazon’s DSP program may help Amazon escape regulatory scrutiny. The DSP program is a highly fragmented, captive business model, characterized by its use of leased vans and other vehicles under 10,000 pounds. Because these vehicles are not subject to certain commercial vehicle regulations, it is nearly impossible to conduct oversight or regulatory efforts to analyze and understand the full universe of DSP operations. And while Amazon reportedly contracts with a workforce that is nearly as large as the U.S. Postal Service, there is no clear reporting requirement that would enable regulators to effectively identify all DSPs.
Clearly, further Senate oversight of Amazon’s DSP program is overdue. In furtherance of this inquiry, we request answers to the following questions by February 10, 2024:
What is Amazon management’s justification for insisting it is not obligated to bargain with union representatives of DSP employees, given the control Amazon wields over the terms and conditions of DSP employees, such as their wages, working conditions, routes, and hours of availability?
What is the justification for Amazon’s requirement that several DSPs sign non-poaching agreements, in light of the company’s claim that it does not control the working conditions of its DSP’s employees?
Under what circumstances might an Amazon DSP possess a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) number and be subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) inspection? Under what circumstances might an Amazon DSP operate under an Amazon DOT number?
If DSPs are indeed independent entities, are DSPs permitted to work with Amazon’s direct package delivery competitors? Why, or why not? If so, what percentage of current DSPs work directly with Amazon’s competitors?
Is Amazon responsible for the provision and maintenance of DSP vehicles and other safety and health conditions at its DSPs? If so, what is Amazon’s process for ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations?
On average, at what percentage or dollar amount does Amazon subsidize the costs of vehicles and equipment for DSPs? What additional details can you provide as to the vehicle and operations financing model Amazon offers to prospective DSPs?
Does Amazon limit the number of delivery stations a DSP may operate out of or restrict how much DSPs can scale operations within the Amazon network?
What companies has Amazon contracted with as a part of its DSP program? Where are these companies operating their DSP programs?
Does Amazon have a standard lease agreement that DSP companies must sign to receive vehicle fleets? Please provide a copy of the standard lease agreement or copies of your 10 most recently entered lease agreements.
Does Amazon possess copies of OSHA 300A and OSHA 300 filings for all currently active DSP companies for the past 3 years (2020-2023)? If so, please provide this information. If no, please explain why Amazon does not collect this information.
What is the DSP turnover rate, and how many DSPs have stopped participating in the DSP program since 2018? Please provide this information by calendar year.
Does Amazon collect data on the automobile crash rates involving DSPs over the last 10 years (2013-2023)? If so, please provide this information. If not, please explain why Amazon does not collect this information.
We look forward to your prompt attention to this request.
The Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition with the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority requesting they commence a contested proceeding to investigate Frontier Communication’s well-documented and prolonged non-compliance with the Quality of Service standards that telecommunications companies are required to meet in accordance with Connecticut statutes and regulations.
Connecticut’s certified telecommunications providers, like Frontier, are required to file semi-annual Quality of Service reports outlining their performance on a six-month basis in five categories: Trouble Reports Per Hundred Lines, Maintenance Appointments Met, Installation Appointments Met, Installation Interval, and Out of Service Repair. These categories are each broken down into performance by region (New Haven/Berkshire, Bridgeport/Gateway, Capitol, and East) as well as by average for the entire state.
The petition calls attention to each of the instances where Frontier’s reporting indicates they not only fell short of these standards during several reporting periods, but also failed to file exception reports explaining their failures and including a timeline for improvement as is also required. The reports assessed span sixteen reporting periods, from January 2015, which was the start of first reporting period after the control of SNET changed from AT&T to Frontier, until the end of the most recent reporting period in June 2023.
Total Calls for Service – 3,426 Speeding Violations – 107 Other Moving Violations (Following too Closely, Failure to Move Over, etc.) – 259 Motorist Assists – 119 DUI Arrests – 36
Motor Vehicle Accidents – 222 Serious Injury – 1 (Oxford)
