Workers stand in line to cast ballots for a union election at Amazon’s JFK8 distribution center, in the Staten Island borough of New York City, U.S. March 25, 2022.
Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters
For the past few months, an Amazon warehouse near Albany has hosted the latest labor battle between the retail giant and its workers.
Workers at the facility, located in the upstate town of Schodack, sought to capitalize on a successful union campaign at another Amazon warehouse, more than 150 miles away on Staten Island, which resulted in the company’s first unionized site in the U.S.
On Tuesday, those hopes were dashed.
Employees at the warehouse near Albany voted overwhelmingly against joining a union, delivering a blow to the Amazon Labor Union, the group behind the Staten Island victory. The ALU can challenge the results of the election, and it has a week to file an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board.
Workers at the ALB1 warehouse began organizing earlier this year, believing that a union could give employees more power to address their concerns about safety, inadequate paid time off and low wages. The starting wage at the facility rose to $17 an hour, up from $15.70 an hour, after Amazon raised pay for its frontline workforce nationwide.
Following the vote, an Amazon spokesperson said “Amazon as we think that this is the best arrangement for both our employees and customers. We will continue to work directly with our teammates in Albany, as we do everywhere, to keep making Amazon better every day.”
Here’s what workers on the ground told us.
‘$18 does not stretch very far’
Cari Carter, who has worked at ALB1 for two years, makes $18.20 an hour as a packer, placing items into boxes before they’re shipped out. As a single mother with three children, she said she can’t afford to manage her expenses and recently took out a loan from Amazon in order to pay her car bills.
“Some people are happy making $18 an hour because that’s enough to support themselves. They’re usually single individuals,” Carter said in an interview outside the warehouse. “I myself am a single mother of three. $18 does not stretch very far.”
Her son, Najiel Carter, works the same morning shift as her at ALB1. He said he attended meetings held by Amazon and the union and was leaning toward voting for the union because he felt it could lead to longer break times and a less stressful atmosphere at work.
Carter said she threw her support behind the union after she grew frustrated about pay and Amazon’s policies around unpaid time off. She said Amazon enforced the policy too harshly, pointing to a co-worker who was recently fired after he ran out of unpaid time off, and was absent from work for six hours while he dealt with a car emergency.
Amazon refused to let the employee use their vacation time to cover the absence, she said, adding that employees even offered to “donate their unpaid time” to help him keep his job.
“It just so happened that he had an unforeseen incident happen, he’s negative six hours, and he’s gone,” she said.
Michael Verrastro said he also feels a union is necessary to keep Amazon from unfairly disciplining its workers. In late August, Amazon fired Verrastro from ALB1 after he kicked an empty box out of frustration when tools at his workstation repeatedly malfunctioned.
Amazon said Verrastro, who joined the company in 2020, violated its workplace violence policy and claimed a box hit his co-worker after he kicked it. Verrastro said he acted out because he was concerned he wouldn’t reach his productivity goals for the day.
Verrastro said the loss of his job has created significant hardship for him, as he was diagnosed in 2020 with aggressive prostate cancer and is still undergoing treatment. Two weeks ago, he was denied unemployment benefits.
“Here I am, now 60 years old, aggressive prostate cancer, ran out of insurance, had to go short term on Medicaid, no right to an appeal to go back to work, and Amazon just refuses to acknowledge what they’re doing,” Verrastro said. “Unfortunately, I’m not the only person who something like this has happened to.”
After he was fired, Verrastro said he got a call from lead organizer Heather Goodall and was connected to the ALU’s lawyers. They filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board over his firing. Verrastro has also filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
“I want people to know what this company does to its people, to its employees, to the people who make the company possible,” Verrastro said.
‘A union isn’t good for Amazon’
Other employees said they voted against the union, saying they felt it was unnecessary because the pay and benefits offered by Amazon are generous.
“If anything, I’m concerned a union will take money out of my paycheck,” said Dionte Whitehead, who works as a stower at ALB1. “A union isn’t good for Amazon.”
Workers also expressed skepticism about the ALU. The organization was started by Chris Smalls last year after he was fired from his management assistant job for leading a protest at Amazon’s sprawling JFK8 warehouse on Staten Island. The victory at JFK8 turned into a lightning rod for labor organizers seeking to unionize Amazon and other companies across the country.
But the group has struggled to build momentum after a failed union drive at another Staten Island facility, and it has suffered from infighting among members. The election win has also been clouded by a months-long court battle with Amazon, which is seeking to have the results thrown out.
Amazon sought to discredit the ALU in posters and other communications broadcast at ALB1. One message displayed on a screen inside the warehouse called the union “untested and unproven,” while flyers left on a break room table said “The ALU isn’t telling the truth.”
ALB1 worker Tyrese Caldwell said he voted no because he felt the ALU is too inexperienced.
“They’re a fresh union, and they’re trying to tackle something as big as Amazon,” Caldwell said.
Michael Oakes, another ALB1 employee, agreed. “If it were an established union, not the ALU, I might be behind it,” he said.
Plan B: A more experienced union?
Carson, the packer, said ahead of the vote on Tuesday that ALB1 organizers had discussed other strategies if they lost the election, including asking workers if they’d prefer to be represented by a well-established union.
“There are a lot of people who were opposed because it was a startup union,” she added.
Major national unions have tried to unionize Amazon workers for years to no avail. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union is seeking to represent workers at a Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse, but a vote there last spring did not have a clear outcome and is currently in court as both sides challenge some votes. Meanwhile, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters last year announced a renewed push to scale up efforts to organize Amazon workers.
Even if some workers question the fledgling Amazon Labor Union’s ability to organize ALB1, Smalls signaled he remains committed to the effort.
“This won’t be the end of ALU at ALB1,” Smalls said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.
Stocks eked out gains Friday and closed the week higher after the Federal Reserve’s favorite inflation gauge added to the case for an interest rate cut next week. For the week, the S & P 500 rose 0.3%, while the Nasdaq added nearly 1%. Both indexes logged back-to-back weekly gains. The Dow gained roughly 0.5%. On Friday morning, the government’s September personal consumption expenditures price index showed a cooler-than-expected year-over-year increase in the core rate, which excludes food and energy prices. While the PCE report was delayed because of the government shutdown, it was welcome news in a data-starved market ahead of the Fed’s two-day policymaking meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday. .SPX 1M mountain S & P 500’s 1 month performance It has been a couple of weeks since New York Fed President John Williams breathed new life into the possibility of a central bank rate cut. During that time, the S & P 500 rebounded 5% and ended this week just shy of its record-high close of 6,890 on Oct. 28. Here are some of this week’s portfolio highlights. Meta Platforms shares advanced 4% for the week after Bloomberg reported Thursday that the Instagram and Facebook parent was set to cut metaverse spending by up to 30%. It would be a wise move by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, especially if it means the company focuses on technology that can be monetized more quickly, such as Meta’s smart glasses and its AI efforts. Meta has been spending like crazy, and its stock has taken a hit since late October when management increased its capital expenditure guidance alongside strong earnings. Salesforce shares jumped 13% for the week after a big earnings beat. While it was this week’s best-performing portfolio stock, it was still down 22% year to date. That dynamic reflects Salesforce’s struggle to convince investors that generative AI adoption does not pose a threat to the seat-based business model of its core customer relationship management software. Alongside fiscal 2026 third-quarter results, management on Wednesday evening also raised guidance and disclosed more paid deals for Agentforce, the company’s AI platform. On Thursday’s “Mad Money” with Jim Cramer, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff argued AI is a ” commodity feature ” that boosts the value of the company’s CRM software. CrowdStrike on Tuesday evening reported better-than-expected fiscal 2026 third-quarter results and strong forward guidance. Jim called it a “trophy quarter” after the cybersecurity firm delivered record free cash flow, annual recurring revenue, and operating income. We weren’t fazed when the stock, which was pretty flat for the week, didn’t move on the bullish report. It’s become commonplace to see CrowdStrike — and even our other cyber stock, Palo Alto Networks — trade lower after earnings, only to recover and move higher in the weeks ahead. Following the print, we reiterated our buy-equivalent 1 rating on CrowdStrike and raised our price target to $550 from $520. We sent out three trade alerts this week. On Monday , we bought more Boeing as the stock stabilized after a steep post-earnings decline in November. We didn’t buy shares on the way down because the stock was trading like a falling knife. We wanted to see things calm down before putting more money to work. On Tuesday , we bought more Procter & Gamble shares after they dipped following CFO Andre Schulten’s remarks on a volatile U.S. environment. We see better times ahead for P & G, and we’re building this defensive position in case the AI trade losses steam. On Wednesday , we booked some profits on Goldman Sachs , which closed at a record high Friday. We still love this position long-term. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Go back a decade and most Americans had never heard of Huawei. Today, the Chinese telecom giant is a symbol of how quickly China can dominate a strategic technology sector and in the process create new national security and market threats for U.S. government and industry.
Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is now worried about another Chinese company that he predicts will eclipse Huawei in both scale and consequence: BGI. It is not building cell towers or smartphones for the 5G era. It is collecting DNA.
“If Huawei was big, BGI will be even bigger,” Warner said at the CNBC CFO Council Summit in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday.
BGI is one of the largest genomics companies in the world. It operates DNA sequencing laboratories in China and abroad. It processes genetic data for hospitals, pharmaceutical firms and researchers across dozens of countries, according to a recent report by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology.
The company began as a Beijing-based research entity, the Beijing Genomics Institute, tied closely to China’s national genome projects. It later expanded into a global commercial powerhouse, selling DNA sequencing, prenatal testing, cancer screening, and large-scale population genetic analysis, according to an NBC News report.
Through subsidiaries, BGI says it operates in the U.S. Europe, and Japan. In several countries, it helped built national genetic databases and pandemic testing systems.
A man visits the booth of BGI at the Healthy Life Chain area of the third China International Supply Chain Expo CISCE in Beijing, capital of China, July 16, 2025.
U.S. intelligence officials believe that global footprint gives BGI access to one the largest collections of genetic data on Earth. Lawmakers have warned that genetic data is not just medical information. At scale, it becomes a strategic asset spurring a “DNA arms race,” according to a Washington Post report. DNA profiles can reveal ancestry, physical traits, disease risk, and family relationships, and when linked with artificial intelligence, the data can also be used for surveillance, tracking and long-term biological research tied to national security, according to the Washington Post’s reporting.
At the CNBC event this week, Warner continued to press for more focus on BGI. “They are hoovering up DNA data,” Warner said. “This level of experimentation on humans and intellectual property theft, we all should be concerned about it.”
Congressional investigators have previously warned that BGI maintains close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese military, according to a report from the House Select Committee on the CCP. They argue that China makes little distinction between commercial data and state security needs.
The ‘super soldier’ fear
One of the biggest fears tied to BGI and China’s broader biotech push is the possibility of a genetically enhanced soldier. U.S. officials have publicly claimed that China has explored human performance enhancement and military biotechnology. U.S. defense analysts say China’s research spans population DNA collection, military databases, and AI-driven human performance modeling, according to a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by U.S. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe in 2020, when he was Director of National Intelligence during President Trump’s first term.
Warner directly referenced those concerns this week.
“It’s terrifying,” Warner said.
Troops make preparations before a military parade in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 3, 2025.
Warner described China as a great nation and great competitor, and as a former telecom executive (he was among the founders of Nextel), he said what Huawei was able to execute on — producing good products at inexpensive prices before the U.S. and Western competitors were prepared — is a cautionary tale.
The BGI story looks uncomfortably familiar to Warner.
“Go back in time eight or nine years, and most people had never heard of Huawei,” he said.
Huawei rose by combining massive state support, global market access and aggressive pricing, not only outcompeting Western firms on scale and cost, but positioning itself inside the world’s telecom infrastructure before governments understood the security implications. Huawei was first placed on a U.S. trade blacklist in 2019, which banned U.S. firms from selling some technology to the Chinese tech giant over national security concerns. Chip restrictions on Huawei have since become even stricter.
But Warner said by the time the U.S. moved to restrict Huawei, “[we started to] lose a little.”
Much of the 5G backbone had already been shaped by Chinese technology.
During a separate interview with Javers at the CNBC CFO Council Summit, the Republican Chairman of the House committee on the Chinese Communist Party, Michigan congressman John Moolenaar, said “We’ve seen how they run the play of excess capacity, price manipulation, driving people out of business in different areas; they’re going to continue to run that play,” he said. “We want to be friendly with China, but China is not our friend. They are our foremost adversary,” he added.
The Soviet Union was a military and ideological competitor, but China, in tech domain after domain, Warner says — from telecom and 5G to AI, quantum computing and biotech — is a different kind of competitor.
Warner now sees BGI following a similar model in biotechnology. Like Huawei, BGI scaled rapidly with state support. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank Foundation of Defense of Democracies called upon lawmakers of both parties earlier this year to restrict BGI’s access to U.S. institutions.
Congress has been trying to pass various versions of the BIOSECURE Act, which would limit the ability of Chinese biotechs to operate in the U.S. Some U.S. hospitals and research institutions with ties to Chinese genomics firms are under federal pressure, according to the Associated Press, though some medical professionals within the U.S. say they risk losing key research support for core medical goals. BGI told the AP that the bill is “a false flag targeting companies under the premise of national security. We strictly follow rules and laws, and we have no access to Americans’ personal data in any of our work,” it said.
U.S. intel has moved too slowly, and disrupted key spying alliances
Warner said the U.S. intelligence apparatus has moved too slowly to recognize the biotech threat. He says that intelligence agencies focus too much on foreign governments and militaries, with less attention placed on commercial technology sectors. But in a world where technology supremacy is national security, Warner says more of our intelligence efforts need to reflect this shift.
Only in the past two to three years, he says, has the U.S. seriously expanded spying into AI, semiconductors, and biotechnology. Warner says we need a more “advanced approach” in this area, and he gave as one recent example when China’s largest chipmaker SMIC stunned U.S. officials by producing a six-nanometer chip despite sweeping U.S. export controls. The breakthrough showed that Washington had underestimated both China’s technical qualities and ability to work around restrictions. “We got caught off guard with the SMIC six-nanometer chip,” Warner said.
Warner is also worried that tracking China’s tech rise requires a type of deep cooperation with U.S. allies that the Trump administration has squandered, such as the global intelligence-sharing network called the “Five Eyes” alliance.
Those relationships are now under strain, he said, and key partners including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France have gone public in saying they are reluctant to share intel with the U.S. “They feel like we may be politicizing the intel product and that is not good news for America,” Warner said.
Underlying his concerns about the technology competition with China in areas including AI and biotech is the U.S. ceding the global lead in standards setting. For decades, the U.S. shaped the rules for wireless networks, satellites, and internet infrastructure. That dominance help Americans lead global markets, Warner said, but now China is aggressively positioning itself as the international standards setter.
Warner described the U.S. role in international bodies as one of the “secret sauces” in the era of America’s dominance of the global economy and technology, allowing the U.S. to leverage innovations occurring around the globe, “even if it didn’t arise in America.”
Across technology domains, influencing standards and protocols is critical to not only maintaining a competitive edge but also establishing ethical boundaries. “Will it be us or the Chinese?” Warner said. “The Chinese come in with clearly a less humanist approach. It’s been effective in lots of domains. We see it on standards-setting bodies. China floods the zone with lots of engineers, almost buying off the votes. We’ve got to reengage for American business and government,” he said.
Roughly 1 in 7 people are leaving unclaimed property on the table, according to the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators. While the recent heavy selling in bitcoin and ether is rightly getting all the short-term attention, this estate planning issue is a longer-term one that’s likely to be exacerbated as crypto adoption and ownership increase.
Many people neglect to account for cryptocurrency in their estate plans, or they don’t let their heirs know how to access their crypto holdings. With surveys in recent years from Gallup and Pew Research estimating that 14% to 17% of U.S. adults have owned cryptocurrency, losing access to those funds is a growing concern.
“Leaving property or mutual funds behind in a will is pretty cut and dried, but with more and more assets placed in cryptocurrency, a large share of inherited assets are in danger of forfeiture,” said Azriel Baer, partner in the estate planning and administration group at law firm Farrell Fritz.
This issue could be mitigated, in part, by crypto ETFs, which are gaining popularity with investors since the first batch of spot bitcoin ETFs were approved by the SEC in 2024, such as the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), followed a few months later by ethereum spot price ETFs, such as the Fidelity Ethereum Fund ETF (FETH). These ETFs allow investors access to the crypto asset class without actually owning crypto outright, helping reduce the chances of actual crypto getting lost.
Nevertheless, estate planning mistakes among crypto owners are common and can be avoided. Here are some of the biggest issues cryptocurrency owners need to tackle sooner rather than later.
Wills, if they exist, often don’t include digital assets language
Only 24% of Americans have a will that describes how they want their money and estate managed after their death, according to a survey from Caring.com. Even people who have wills in place have not updated them for many years, with nearly one in four Americans saying they haven’t touched their wills since their original was drafted, according to the survey.
This can be problematic for many reasons. An old will may no longer reflect people’s current wishes. In a crypto-specific context, anyone who hasn’t updated their estate plan in the past several years may not have language to provide legal authority for the trustee or executor to gain access to digital assets.
“It’s very common for people not to update their estate planning documents for 10, 20 years or sometimes longer. If that’s the case, you’re behind,” said Patrick D. Owens, shareholder at Buchalter and a member of the law firm’s tax, benefits and estate planning practice group.
Absent language about digital assets, your heirs might have to go to court to get the authority for the executor or administrator of the estate to gain access to the crypto assets. Most likely they’ll get access, “but it’s a hassle,” Owens said. “Obviously, it means time and money going into court.”
Even with a will, crypto assets can get stuck in court
A standard will is appropriate for many people, but many attorneys recommend clients also utilize a revocable living trust as part of their estate plan. Drafting a will is less expensive, but a revocable living trust offers more privacy and can help limit the time and expense of the probate process after death.
Baer advises clients to transfer their crypto to a revocable living trust so the trustee has immediate access upon the owner’s death. It could be six to eight months, or more, before a will is settled in probate and in the meantime, heirs wouldn’t have access to the assets. If the price of the crypto was going down rapidly, for example, they would have to wait to sell it if the estate was caught up in probate. Putting crypto assets into a revocable trust to avoid probate can prevent a lot of headaches, he said.
Generally, a revocable trust is paired with a pour-over will so that assets not included in the trust at the time of a person’s death are transferred to the trust and distributed accordingly.
Not sharing basic crypto information can cost millions
You don’t have to tell heirs you’re worth a fortune in bitcoin before you pass away, but you should make sure they know how to access your crypto after you’re gone.
Baer worked on an estate where tens of millions of dollars in crypto were lost to the heirs because they didn’t know the decedent’s private keys, which function as digital passwords to grant access to cryptocurrency funds and prove ownership of blockchain assets.
Someone should know how to access the assets, whether through written instructions in a safe box, a safe at home, or directions kept with a lawyer or with one of the various crypto inheritance services that help ensure crypto assets are passed on to your family members, Baer said. Don’t put these private keys or other sensitive information in a will, because wills become public through the probate process, he added.
Many designated fiduciaries can’t handle crypto
The person you chose to handle your other assets may not be the right person to deal with the crypto portion of your estate.
Not everyone understands crypto, the associated volatility or how to transact with digital currency, meaning lots of money can inadvertently be lost. The recent volatility in the price of bitcoin is a reminder that if you name someone who needs weeks to get up to speed on how to transact with bitcoin, the financial losses could be meaningful, Baer said. “Uncle Bob may be a great person, but he may have more challenges transacting with an asset class he’s totally not familiar with,” he added.
Sometimes, even institutional trustees might not be able to take on the responsibility for crypto. Owens had a client pass away with half a million dollars in bitcoin and ether. The institutional trustee who oversaw the client’s account refused to take on the responsibility for the crypto and a special trustee was named. Luckily, the client had a nephew who took on the role, but finding a suitable replacement can often be costly from a time and money perspective, Owens said.
Failure to plan for crypto estate taxes
With the massive explosion in the values around cryptocurrency, many people have large crypto holdings, which could be subject to significant taxes, whether that’s income taxes or estate taxes, and failure to plan could be detrimental to their families, said Jonathan Forster, shareholder at law firm Weinstock Manion.
There could, for example, be estate taxes due, depending on the size of the estate. The federal estate tax exemption for 2025 is $13.99 million per individual. Some states also have a state-level estate tax.
Knowing the impact crypto ownership might have on your estate is an important consideration while you are alive. Forster has clients whose crypto holdings are worth more than $50 million. They wanted an efficient way to make gifts for the benefit of their children to get some money out of their estate. They created a limited liability corporation, transferred the crypto into the LLC and gifted an interest in the LLC to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of minor children with an independent trustee, Forster said.
Many crypto investors fail to keep track of cost basis, which can be problematic for many reasons, including if you’re considering gifting digital assets during your lifetime. If you want to gift the assets while you’re alive, you need to have the basis so the recipient can properly account for the crypto if it’s eventually sold, Baer said. “It can be onerous to keep track of basis, but it’s important,” he said.