I worked in an Amazon warehouse. Bernie Sanders is right to target them • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by notacoward » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #102

sokoloff wrote: post #36

IMO, it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. It's perfectly fine for enforcement agencies (OSHA, FDA, IRS, FAA, FTC, SEC, etc) to enforce policy/law on individuals/companies who have been found in violation, but to originally target individuals with the force of government lawmaking is a dramatic overreach of power, IMO. If Senator Sanders et al want to target all compani…

>it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the - not so clever - name of the Bill, it doesn’t exactly sound like anyone is being targeting so much as a legal framework is being proposed for recipients of corporate welfare to have to reimburse the government, based on cor…

> In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional.

That's highly debatable. Does "attainder" as used in the constitution apply to corporations? To a large extent that depends on whether corporations are persons in the context of that prohibition, but there are other concerns as well. You're assuming that the answer to all such questions can be answered in favor of corporations, but that's hardly settled.

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

#152

Post by geezerjay » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

sokoloff wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That $14B in SNAP benefits is because Walmart is a significant market share grocer and people who receive SNAP benefits buy food at Walmart with those benefits. I'm not sure how that makes Walmart a villain in the current discussion. Target takes in about $5B revenue from sales under SNAP, Aldi about $4.5B, and Kroger just under $4B. Companies who serve SNAP recipients should be lauded not vilified, IMO. They're serv…

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 assistance then obviously the employer isn't to blame for the region's economy. In fact, that employer is already offering the very best jobs available in that region. 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?

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

#153

Post by faster » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #102

sokoloff wrote: post #36

IMO, it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. It's perfectly fine for enforcement agencies (OSHA, FDA, IRS, FAA, FTC, SEC, etc) to enforce policy/law on individuals/companies who have been found in violation, but to originally target individuals with the force of government lawmaking is a dramatic overreach of power, IMO. If Senator Sanders et al want to target all compani…

>it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the - not so clever - name of the Bill, it doesn’t exactly sound like anyone is being targeting so much as a legal framework is being proposed for recipients of corporate welfare to have to reimburse the government, based on cor…

The idea of employees receiving food stamps seems like a clear case of manipulating the system. But I think there is more nuance than the 20%/$14B numbers describe.

Imagine a single mom who wants to be home when her kids get home from school. She's working part time, and not making enough to feed her family. Who is responsible for her shortfall?

In a community where Walmart is a big employer, many people may work part time and one consequence of that is that more people have jobs. Walmart benefits from that but so do those employees, even when they don't make enough to eat well.

Sure, the system can obviously be manipulated. Yes, people (and company leaders) make bad choices. Who decides who pays?

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

#154

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #118

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing any law inherently does violence to people. Do you wish to pedestal law above people? And if not, do you want them on equal footing? I personally would like to work toward a culture that doesn't require law and, barring that, law that peacefully respects a person's decision to revoke consent to be governed at any moment's notice. Blanket consent for government isn't realistic or sustainable. And even if it…

"Government" of any variety, stripped of all its pomp and circumstance, is just a set of rules for people to agree to follow so they can live next to each other without regular resort to personal violence. "Revoking your consent" to government means that you no longer want to follow those rules. It's not clear why the other people around you should accept your presence without that agreement. Even anarchy is itself a…

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by hulton » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

"Bernie Sanders" and "is right" shouldn't be in the same sentence.

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

#156

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #60

swarnie_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure why people work there. The warehouses are universally known to be shitty places but people sign up anyway. Surely if its terrible and no one will work there they will have to improve or pay more? Or am i misunderstanding basic economics?

A lot of people don't have other options so they take whatever they can get in order to survive. Why don't victims of domestic abuse leave immediately but stay for years?

Wow. Domestic abuse survivors stay because they don’t have any other options?

No.

Abusers create an environment of fear where abused believe they have no choices. They separate people from their friends so they think no one cares about them. They convince their victim that no one else will want them.

They create an artificial sense that there is no way out. It’s absolutely not the case that abused people are abused because they have no other option.

Promoting the idea these people have no choices plays right into the abusers plans.

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

#157

Post by chrisbennet » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #108

amyjess wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To me (as a European), the concept of "denying sick leave" is just bizarre to begin with. When I present a sick note from my doctor, there is literally nothing that the employer can do about it.

I wonder if the people working in these warehouses can even afford to go to the doctor to get the note in the first place.

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

#158

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #85

geggam wrote: post #78

If you have a business in a country and cannot afford to pay your workers high enough wages that they can afford to live without society subsidizing them. Then you cannot afford to run your business and are stealing money from the society you are in. This concept that people are welfare bums when they are working is incorrect. Their employers are the welfare bums. If you want to use the infrastructure to run a busine…

It isn't the businesses fault that people don't have high margin skills. There effort should be on improving workforce skill and productive. Not villianising those who employ them.

You are assuming they don’t have the skills and that hiring is a perfect, fair process. This is not so.

There is clear evidence that even something as simple as being black might prevent someone being rejected over a less skilled white applicant.

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

#159

Post by geezerjay » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #60

swarnie_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure why people work there. The warehouses are universally known to be shitty places but people sign up anyway. Surely if its terrible and no one will work there they will have to improve or pay more? Or am i misunderstanding basic economics?

A lot of people don't have other options so they take whatever they can get in order to survive. Why don't victims of domestic abuse leave immediately but stay for years?

> A lot of people don't have other options so they take whatever they can get in order to survive. Why don't victims of domestic abuse leave immediately but stay for years?

If Amazon is offering the very best jobs available to those workers, and Amazon actually complies with all laws and regulations, then I fail to see how is Amazon responsible for the worker's problems. It seems to me that the problem lies elsewhere, like how a regional economy managed to get so depressed to the point that no alternative job is available.

If the only job that's availanle to you is working in a sweatshop, does shutting the sweatshop down fixes anything?

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

#160

Post by geezerjay » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

faster wrote: post #153

will_brown wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the - not so clever - name of the Bill, it doesn’t exactly sound like anyone is being targeting so much as a legal framework is being proposed for recipients of corporate welfare to have to reimburse the government, based on cor…

The idea of employees receiving food stamps seems like a clear case of manipulating the system. But I think there is more nuance than the 20%/$14B numbers describe. Imagine a single mom who wants to be home when her kids get home from school. She's working part time, and not making enough to feed her family. Who is responsible for her shortfall? In a community where Walmart is a big employer, many people may work par…

I woukd also add that it's hardly reasonable or desirable to dump on employers the responsibility of providing wellfare assistance. If the people, collectively, don't want to provide that service through state institutions, why should they dump that responsibility on someone who thought it would be a good idea to creatr jobs in a town?