Don't quotas already exist in other forms of unionized work; like I recall hearing electrical unions have designated time quotas for completing certain jobs? Maybe that memory is off though or inaccurate.
How often have you seen linepersons diligently working after a heavy storm while doing the pee-pee dance?
I think the problem is that Amazon probably does this completely backwards. Quotas should be based on tracking the output of all your workers and deciding on some percentile to use as a baseline. And this output needs to be tracked when no quotas are in place, so you get an idea of what "normal" work looks like.
Instead, I expect that Amazon essentially says "we want at least X packages to move through here every Y hours, and we want to spend no more than $A on warehouse workers, so that means we'll hire no more than B workers, so they'll just have to work as hard as it takes". That's obviously a recipe for unrealistic expectations and a lot of overwork.
Since you bring up unions, the quotas are almost certainly negotiated by the union, so (hopefully) what's negotiated will be much fairer to the workers. But of course Amazon fights against their warehouse workers unionizing, in no small part due to this.
You can only collude with someone you were in competition with. Shareholders of the same company by definition cannot collude with each other because they are not competing. Collusion would be Walmart and Target and Costco and Amazon unionizing together to negotiate wages.
Shareholder votes are public, but anonymous. The more typical scenario is that you hold on to the shares and create demand for the stock as a sign of your approval. Unless you own tens of thousands or more shares, you were probably not invited to the perfectly legal but private discussions about the proposals.
Shareholders recently voted against every single proposal that was also opposed by Amazon.[1]
[1] https://www.geekwire.com/2021/final-tally-amazon-shareholder...
I said "can openly" collude, not plain unadorned collude.
Amazon buys a competitor and suddenly what would be considered collusion prior is washed clean, because someone else could bid too? My whole point is how silly this transformation from illegal to legal is, if at the same time you want to prevent unions.
Unions BTW have similar restrictions to your second half of your comment (secondary strikes are illegal).