The Coalition of Immokalee Workers famously used this argument as part of their campaign for farmworkers. The argument was that fast food companies paying 1 cent more per lb. for their tomatoes would have a huge benefit for the workers picking the tomatoes, and they won.

That wouldn't be the news headline, though. The customer would find out about the cost increase via an article titled something like "Amazon increases prices by up to 20%, are your favourite purchases affected?".

I'm with you though, it costs the consumer nothing.

This could be addressed by having more labor-conscious journalists and headline writers.

Framing it that way, of course people would respond negatively to price increases.

"Amazon workers now paid for all the time they're clocked in, prices may be affected" is a lot more sympathetic to workers.

Labor conscious writers mean nothing if their editors (and newspaper / website / whatever) owners disagree. Ultimately the wordsmiths need to get paid, too, and they write what gets them money -- which is what their bosses want to print.

I feel like they're labor conscious they just don't give a fuck or are actively opposed.