Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#181

Post by jahaja »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #120
archagon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why does everyone ignore the fact that is voluntary?" Some business arrangements are exploitative by their incentives, even if they are "fair".

I'll take that bait. What exactly is immoral about selling one's kidneys? Do individuals not own themselves? Are they capable of using or disposing of their own property as they see fit? If your argument is that people who are forced into such decisions by economic necessity are not capable of making rational decisions, then what criteria do you use to determine if someone is able to make such decisions for themselve…

Why do you think it matters if a forced decision is rational or not?

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#182

Post by [deleted] »

amyjess wrote: post #32
Rotdhizon wrote: post #6

A company as big as Amazon doesn't make as much as it does by treating workers fairly. They are the modern day version of old industrial factories. They take down and out people who they know they can exploit and push them to their limits. I've seen a few places in the poorer section of states where most of the locals are forced to work in a small number of factories/plants. Even in these cases though, they are at le…

Amazon's treatment of sick people is horrifying: https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home/harassing... I have an online friend who used to work for an Amazon fulfillment center. I say "used to", because she got fired. For being sick. She got food poisoning one day and had to take a week off. When she got sick, she put in a request via MyLeave. Two or three months later, Amazon retroactively denied her reque…

[deleted]

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#183

Post by s73v3r_ »

sokoloff wrote: post #141
s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Trying to pretend this is about Wal-Mart selling food, and not the wages they pay is incredibly dishonest.

> Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. Literally the post to which I replied complained about "simultaneously are the beneficiary of 20% (or $14B) in taxpayer funded food stamps annually there is a problem". It seems that someone is upset about that.

No. They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough.

Again, pretending the reason people are upset is because they're selling food, and not because Wal-Mart is requiring you and I to subsidize their labor costs, is incredibly dishonest.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#184

Post by s73v3r_ »

geezerjay wrote: post #152
s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Trying to pretend this is about Wal-Mart selling food, and not the wages they pay is incredibly dishonest.

> What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem. I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public…

"If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem."

I fail to see how they're not. Wal-Mart is entirely, 10,000% responsible for how much they pay their workers.

"I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public assistance then obviously the employer isn't to blame for the region's economy."

That employer, especially when they are one of the largest companies in the nation, is entirely to blame for how much they pay their workers.

"Where does it make any sense to go after them instead of doing something to fix the economy and improve the lives and conditions available to those workers?"

Who says you can't do both? But why on earth does it seem acceptable that the job conditions are based on how good the economy is? Why is it suddenly acceptable to treat your workers like crap if some GDP number goes down by a quarter of a point?

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#185

Post by s73v3r_ »

gagege wrote: post #70

Why does everyone ignore the fact that employment at Amazon is voluntary? When the employee was hired, they made an agreement that the payment was a fair trade for the work to be done. If it turns out that the pay was not fair after all, which it sounds like it isn't, then the employee should simply stop working there, because Amazon isn't holding up their end of the bargain. The reason this continues to be an issue…

"Why does everyone ignore the fact that employment at Amazon is voluntary?"

Because it absolutely does not matter.

"then the employee should simply stop working there, because Amazon isn't holding up their end of the bargain."

This makes a whole lot of assumptions about things, namely that the employee has the ability to go somewhere else, and that Amazon is entitled to treat their workers like shit.

"So Amazon cuts out lunch breaks and whatever else to try to make the $7.25 back, and the employee is able to just barely scrape by with this crappy job because they're making $7.25 plus food stamps."

And for a company of their size, with their resources, this is entirely unacceptable and pure evil.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#186

Post by s73v3r_ »

devit wrote: post #11

The problem is caused by society/government, due to the lack of universal basic income, or alternatively a ban on having children if the parents can't provide an equivalent payment. If everyone had access to the basic necessities of life without having to work, then nobody would accept jobs like those, and Amazon would be forced to either automate everything or substantially improve working conditions (much less hour…

No. While I'm completely in favor of UBI and stuff like that (although entirely against your call for deciding who can have children), shifting blame to society completely ignores that Amazon is the one who bears all the responsibility for what they pay workers, and how they treat them. This problem is entirely Amazon's to own.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#187

Post by ElBarto »

dv_dt wrote: post #179
ElBarto wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very hypocritical way to blame companies for paying minimum wage, which is set by law...

Wouldn’t this bill, if passed, also be set by the law? Its not blaming anyone, it is setting standards we expect companies to comply with.

The standard is the minimum wage.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#188

Post by dragonwriter »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #184
geezerjay wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem. I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public…

"If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem." I fail to see how they're not. Wal-Mart is entirely, 10,000% responsible for how much they pay their workers. "I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public assistance then obviously the employer isn't to blame f…

> Wal-Mart is entirely, 10,000% responsible for how much they pay their workers.

Yes, but the public is largely responsible for how little of what they allocate to pay gets to employees, by way of the fact that wages are taxed higher than regular income (because payroll taxes) which in turn is taxed higher than capital gains, which in turn are taxed higher than most unearned generational wealth transfer (thanks to the generous nontaxed allowances for gifts and inheritances.)

Tax income as income and at the same overall tax level, very few WalMart employees would need public assistance and employers would have a lot less incentive to replace employees that must be purchased with supertaxed wages with minimally-tax-burdened capital investments.

Right now, the tax rate on any kind of income varies inversely with the wealth of the people who tend to have that kind of income.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#189

Post by lostapathy »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #142
lostapathy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But raising minimum wage at what cost? It's already gotten really hard for high school kids to find work. Raising minimum wage will just make that worse.

I'm far less concerned about high school kids than I am about people needing these jobs to survive.

That ship has already mostly sailed. Raising the minimum wage WILL shrink the pool of available jobs for everyone low-skilled, so the problems high school kids have now will spread to adults that should be independent.

Re: I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them

#190

Post by will_brown »

geezerjay wrote: post #176
will_brown wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think employers like Walmart and Amazon are unique cases. Again consider the fact that Walmart as a national grocer is able to milk the SNAP program on a national level to the tune of $14B/year. That enables them to move into a depressed area and set up shop, even at a loss, which in turn allows them to shutter the existing market incumbent(s). With the mom & pops gone and/or employee owned grocer now gone only Wal…

> Again consider the fact that Walmart as a national grocer is able to milk the SNAP program on a national level to the tune of $14B/year. Others in this thread have pointed out that "milk the SNAP" program is a very disingenuous and deceitful statement. SNAP is a wellfare program that subsidizes food purchases and both wallmart and amazon sell groceries, and somehow people like you spin the fact that supermarkets se…

>Others in this thread have pointed out that "milk the SNAP" program is a very disingenuous and deceitful statement. SNAP is a wellfare program that subsidizes food purchases and both wallmart and amazon sell groceries, and somehow people like you spin the fact that supermarkets sell groceries to sound like these companies are stealing money from the government at the expense of poor people.

Walmart is stealing...it’s not like Walmart happens on $14B in SNAP benefits a year. It not a coincidence Walmart has more employees receiving SNAP benefits than any other employer.

Is it not disengenious and deceitful that you are pretending Walmart just so happens to sell groceries and benefit from SNAP in the amount of $14B/year vs acknowledge walmart are one of the largest drivers of the SNAP program?

Nothing about having Walmart reimburse taxpayers for their employees that receive SNAP Bars SNAP recipients from shopping at Walmart, so the point you are making is disengenious and deceitful...as if Walmart had to payback taxpayer funds their employees receive that has anything to do with Walmart revenue from SNAP benefits.

Let’s say there was a major arms dealer who was making $14B/year in government contracts so long as the US War of Terror continued...is there a problem in your mind if that same company successfully lobbied every year to keep the war on terror going and maybe even paid a little of the revenue from US contracts to fund terror groups? You know like a corporation who is benefiting from suppressed wages with corporate welfare, and then lobbying for said corporate welfare and using its power as an employer to surpress wages giving rise to the need for said welfare

Post reply on HN