Live data from Hacker News

It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

youtube.com

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#101
post #7

Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route. This should be interesting from a legal perspective.

While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.

Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.

I'm sure this is the one criticism among the millions that actually lands at his feet.

Edit: Surprise surprise, it wasn't. See other comment.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.

Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.

Sounds like he's restructuring a payment plan that was already designed to push the pain into the future. Who knows if it will have been better to stave off the near term pain or let the financial time bomb set decades ago tie his hands.

> Delaying payments of the city’s full pension obligation until 2037 from 2032 would save the city nearly $2.3 billion in the next two years, Mamdani said, without affecting retiree benefits. The reamortization schedule alters the original amortization plan constructed in 2010 that had the city pay higher amounts of its pension debt each year until the Fiscal Year 2032 cliff, at which point the entire obligation would be erased from the city’s books.

> Under Mamdani’s new plan, which will need approval from state lawmakers by June 30, the city would pay a similar amount each year until FY32 when it would decrease year over year for the final half-decade of payments.

> “If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0,” Mamdani said on May 12. “What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year.”

> Pension experts have previously warned the city against executing a reamoritzation plan, arguing that it was a short-term fix that would saddle the city with big costs in the 2030’s. But Andrew Perry, director of fiscal research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a finance think tank, argued in a blog post that the current amortization schedule is “poorly designed” — due to the escalating payments and dropoff in 2032 — and said Mamdani’s new plan is an “act of prudent fiscal management.”

> Ken Giardin, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, argued the opposite, saying that the payment plan relies on the city’s five pension systems that “are hardly models of fiscal health," continuing to pump out positive returns.

> “The entire reason we're talking about the unfunded accrued liability is because the systems made excessively optimistic assumptions in the past—that's why NYC will already be paying off decades-old debt in the 2030s,” he said. "Mark your calendar for 2032, when city [politicians] will be wishing they hadn't done this.”

https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new...

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#104
post #29
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual problem is not that Amazon breaks any rules, but that the rules are so soft that even Amazon doesn't break them. But explaining it to an average worker doesn't work. Blaming specific companies and specific billionaires for systemic problems works much better for building support - that's why the politician in the video does the latter.

Ok but I expect more from my government than "here's youtube video; trust me bro - you're an average worker, you won't get it"

Why do you expect politicians to be suboptimal at the job of a politician (gaining support)? This kind of "trust me bro" video is exactly what a perfectly spherical politician in a vacuum should be coming up with. If you don't want politicians in the government, stop voting for them!

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#105
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York City has a greater population than 38 states. Why should the governor of South Dakota (pop 935,094) have more clout than the mayor of New York City (pop 8,804,190)?

I said the governor of the state, not a state. Why you jumped to some inane example that has nothing to do with the conversation is beyond me. By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.

Fair enough, I missed the exact article used.

However, in that case, it's just a matter of delegation. When one city dominates the state, it will dominate everything about that state. So unless the governor of New York wants to spend most of their time handling New York City problems, it's best for them to let the mayor sort that.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#106
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no real-life harm, then it should be net-neutral to roll these trucks back under the Amazon corporation directly, and no reason to push back on it.

If there’s no real life harm, and Amazon chose to organize their business in this way, it means they think it’s a cheaper/better/more efficient way of doing it. So we shouldn’t make laws preventing it or undoing it unless we have a good reason. Burden of proof is on those who want to make new rules that compel others.

It's way cheaper and more efficient to set up shell companies that are compelled to push the legal boundaries of what's allowed, and to accept no blame when they inevitably push too far. I think we both agree on that. It's just unhealthy for society, and laws protect us all, not just Amazon.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees. They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business. They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicl…

> Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries? I don't know, can they not? If that is the case then it's definitely problematic.

This has a lot to do with the analysis. How much control does Amazon have over the company. That's why they point out in the video that the drivers have to wear Amazon vests (and get punished if they don't), work Amazon directed hours, drive Amazon routes, deliver only Amazon packages, etc.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#108
post #98
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical. Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes. I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages i…

>So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have…

You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task.

I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service.

I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc.

Things are different from me personally hiring a single ride to the airport and me operating a transportation company to shuttle people to and from the airport.

If someone paid me to find them a ride to the airport and the person I hired to do the job wound up running over a kid, then I would be liable. Because then I've taken on the responsibility of vetting the driver.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#109
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires Amazon to directly employ delivery drivers in New York City and sets up a licensing scheme for last-mile delivery.

Isn't that.. worse? Putting local businesses out of jobs and instead consolidating all of them directly under the company's umbrella?

Are these really local businesses or are they employees forced to take on liability as a condition of employment? Tech has been mislabeling employees as independent contractors for years.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#110
post #108
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have…

You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task. I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service. I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the…

>You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task.

I thought the issue was that you want Amazon to be on the hook for damages, not that they didn't do enough vetting? You can do all the vetting you want, but people still can crash into kids.

>I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc.

If you're trying to imply nobody gets rides from craigslist and therefore we don't need to worry about this edge case, limos (think for weddings and stuff) are frequently by 1-2 man operations.

Post reply on HN