71–80 of 468 posts
Why would you expect anything else? Amazon is a logistics company like UPS; if Bezos didn't squeeze every last drop of profit from their employees it wouldn't be world-dominating.
Really disappointing to see the "Well, what did you expect?" comments already. Just because companies have been trying to prevent organization of their labor for over a century doesn't mean it isn't still messed up now. It's easy to say that it's just the way the world works from your desk, the people who are forced to work in Amazon's warehouses with terrible working conditions don't have that luxury.
Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?
So yes, companies have to accept it.
Really disappointing to see the "Well, what did you expect?" comments already. Just because companies have been trying to prevent organization of their labor for over a century doesn't mean it isn't still messed up now. It's easy to say that it's just the way the world works from your desk, the people who are forced to work in Amazon's warehouses with terrible working conditions don't have that luxury.
Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world-dominating is largely a negative from my perspective: it pushes it's smaller competitors out of business which decreases the competitiveness of the market and extracts profits/wealth out of local communities where it would likely be spent productively into the pockets of Jeff Bezos and Amazon investors where it is not nearly so useful.
The services they provide have been of incomparable quality to any other offering in the US. They made free 2-day shipping and free returns the baseline. Amazon lockers provide online shopping opportunities to those not privileged to own a house with a secure front yard (I do wish shipping to amazon lockers was possible from other online-only retailers). And in truth the vast majority of amazon’s income is still inve…
Stock ownership should be illegal.
Really disappointing to see the "Well, what did you expect?" comments already. Just because companies have been trying to prevent organization of their labor for over a century doesn't mean it isn't still messed up now. It's easy to say that it's just the way the world works from your desk, the people who are forced to work in Amazon's warehouses with terrible working conditions don't have that luxury.
> the people who are forced to work in Amazon's warehouses with terrible working conditions don't have that luxury. Who is forced to work in Amazon's warehouses? Is Amazon rounding up people with guns everyday to make them work there?
This exact transformation already happened with Wal-Mart in the 80s and 90s. Obviously no one is literally forcing workers to go to Amazon's warehouses but you can see how in essence this leaves them with no choice (i.e. forced).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I just point out that I think the "horrible working conditions" things is a little played up. You want to know terrible working conditions dancing with a sign for 5 hours a day in the sun when it's 90+. I did that for 3 years and was happy to do the job, mind you this was only 10 years ago so it isn't forever. I made 7.50 an hour. I would've killed to get a job at amazon back then. People are getting payed $16 th…
> People are getting payed $16 that is incredible for an unskilled labor position. That's one view, but it's only informed by "the way things are". Another view is based on the way things should be, that no one should have to work for less than the wage it takes to live a reasonable life. https://livingwage.mit.edu/ offers values for this. I don't see why someone should work full time and still end up poor.
Let's take 2 identical twins Juan and Jamal (because if you've seen Juan you've seen Jamal). In school Jamal works hard, studies, and puts his efforts first. Juan on the other hand decides football is the way to go and along with that partying, drinking and at one point gets a gal pregnant.
They graduate Jamal gets several scholarships and goes to school while working part time to try and avoid debt. Juan only qualifies for community college but spends several years "finding himself" aka partying, drinking and generally not doing much.
4 years later Jamal graduates from school and gets a successful software engineering gig making a decent salary with which he is able to afford a decent house for him, his wife and his 2 children.
Meanwhile Juan has just finished his latest stint in jail for another DUI and it is a wake up call to him. He decides to get his life in order so he cuts out the drugs and the bad friends and tries to find a job. Unfortunately he's unqualified for anything decent because it turns out shotgunning a beer is a useless skill.
For many years Juan has made poor decisions, he has been a drain on society and it's resources, but now wants to change. That is good however to claim that he should get the same privileges and standing as his brother who spent years working hard giving back and making better long term choices is asinine.
EDIT:
There have been a lot of great and informative comments. Several people have been calling this out as a strawman. I'd like to point out this isn't a strawman this is actually remarkably close to what happenned in my own family, it isn't a fantastic out of this world scenario, it's one I lived. Dismissing this as a strawman, is to dismiss hte point without engaging with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?
In most Western countries, workers have a right to form unions. So yes, companies have to accept it.
Really disappointing to see the "Well, what did you expect?" comments already. Just because companies have been trying to prevent organization of their labor for over a century doesn't mean it isn't still messed up now. It's easy to say that it's just the way the world works from your desk, the people who are forced to work in Amazon's warehouses with terrible working conditions don't have that luxury.
Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?
None. This is a legally protected right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I just point out that I think the "horrible working conditions" things is a little played up. You want to know terrible working conditions dancing with a sign for 5 hours a day in the sun when it's 90+. I did that for 3 years and was happy to do the job, mind you this was only 10 years ago so it isn't forever. I made 7.50 an hour. I would've killed to get a job at amazon back then. People are getting payed $16 th…
I worked in a factory building car bumpers. The work was so alienating that one day I "woke up" in the factory with literally no recollection of the last 2 hours. From all I knew I could have been taken by ETs but since my bumper quota was good I guess I just zoned out and became a bot. And I still call Amazon "horrible working conditions". The fact that it is better than being poor isn't saying much.
(And to forestall the inevitable adjustment of one's pince-nez to well-actually: that it'd be median or even above-median wages somewhere else does not mean that it is not poor in America, nor that the two situations can be reasonably compared.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked article is an interview with the journalist who leaked the documents discussed in the Vice and Gizmodo articles. I think this story is intended to be a continuation of the discussion on the original story.
Okay that is not particularly clear to me from the article and it's doing a disservice to the overall discussion then, imo. They should at least be linking to the original articles then to give context on that fact.
The reason I went looking for the Vice article in the first place was due to what was said in the first paragraph of the article:
>According to documents, Amazon reportedly runs a surveillance program to track activism among its workers. NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Lauren Gurley of Motherboard magazine, who broke the story.