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

Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 310 posts

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#151

Post by kevindong »

blakesterz wrote: post #2

Wow, I guess I never really paid attention to the details behind all the Amazon headlines I see. "In April, Amazon announced it would reduce the amount it paid for drivers from $17.25 to $16.00 an hour, according to the letter...Weeks later, Amazon announced a series of raises for its drivers around the country as part of a public relations push following a union drive at an Amazon warehouse" "Currently, Amazon deliv…

I don't think you should be directly comparing UPS and Amazon drivers in this instance.

Amazon can pick and choose where they have contractors make deliveries (e.g. non rural areas with higher population densities). UPS serves almost everywhere. Additionally, we don't know what hours UPS drivers work in comparison to Amazon drivers.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#152

Post by bamboozled »

jmeister wrote: post #127
Frost1x wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of corporate gains have been at a cost of squeezing on labor resources in some form or another, either time, lower comp, higher productivity, etc. or some combination of these elements. There has been some innovation in general technology making improvements for labor but a lot is really just doing more, for less, and someone else pocketing the gains. You need look no further than AWS treatment of SEs in their…

> corporate gains What about customers? They seem to be happy to ignore how the sausage is made, to have stuff delivered to their doorsteps cheap and fast.

We're not "happy" customers, we see issues with Amazon and AWS, but we wouldn't be competitive from a price standpoint if we rolled out own infra, or hired people to do it.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#153

Post by marcus0x62 »

mattmcknight wrote: post #59
at-fates-hands wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I called Amazon and they of course speak of them like they are some completely separate affiliate that has nothing to do with them. This by design: Amazon has repeatedly said in court that it is not responsible for the actions of its contractors, citing agreements that require them, as one puts it, to “defend, indemnify and hold harmless Amazon.” Just last week, an operations manager for Amazon testified in Chicag…

If you or I hire a company to ship a package, we are not generally responsible if the driver the shipper hires runs someone over. This same construct should apply at scale.

It does apply at scale. If one company were to “hire [another] company to ship a package”, there would be no question that the delivery company would be liable if their driver did something negligent. If they meddled in the delivery company’s affairs, specified almost every aspect of their operations, entered into a sole-source agreement that forbids the delivery company from working for other customers, then that is an entirely different matter.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#154

Post by tablespoon »

MattGaiser wrote: post #147
tablespoon wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The linked article is an example of the market self-regulating. Unemployed workers starving to death with their families due to lack of income would also be an example of the market self-regulating. The market self-regulates, but it often self-regulates to optimize the wrong thing . The people who celebrate that self-regulation usually leave that qualification out, or just deny it completely.

In this case it self regulated because the market rate for drivers was too high. The drivers are evidently employed in some way that makes their market rate that high.

> In this case it self regulated because the market rate for drivers was too high.

It what way has it self regulated? Amazon could setup a new set of captive small businesses to exploit and nothing will change. It's not like they were actually dependent on these people in any way. It seems like they're running a model that's at least partially about exploiting their vendors' hope and ignorance, and there's a sucker born every minute.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#155

Post by cartoonworld »

relax88 wrote: post #98
tablespoon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is more or less how it should be. If Amazon isn't going to offer a good enough deal, then companies shouldn't move packages for them. Not really. These companies are basically committing suicide, because Amazon is in such a dominant position. The way is should be is that they could have put pressure on Amazon much earlier, instead of being forced into such extreme action. Nothing will change. Amazon will just…

> It’s not like there’s a club of past & future delivery company operators that meets regularly Why not? “National Delivery Drivers Union” sounds pretty good to me for a name. If you want to negotiate with leverage against Amazon, you need to actually have the leverage. Why is collective bargaining so weak in this industry?

Amazon fronts the startup afiak and controls who gets to start the business. Unionizing this is a tough nut, what you are witnessing is not a usual labor protest--this is a Management protest.

The Independent operators are shuttering in protest rather than keep suckling.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#157

Post by sjg007 »

This is an interesting analog of the problem retail workers have on shift scheduling and shift changes.

"One day Amazon dictates that you have thirty routes, the next day forty, then the day after twenty. You’re supposed to have enough drivers for back-up while Amazon is lowering pay. Amazon’s actions are unlawful."

Delivery is probably something you want to run in house and not outsource. It opens them up to another group that could push to unionization though which is probably why they went the Uber route.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#158

Post by paulpauper »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #10

HN really needs to look at these types of headlines - They are written without qualification. 0.001 of Amazon delivery companies shut down 2 out if 2000 delivery companies shut down. Are both probably more accurate.

Agree. This is lower than the expected attrition rate. Because it involves Amazon, it is suddenly newsworthy.

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#159

Post by La1n »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #67
subhro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points. But, with Amazon taking the lion’s share of online sales, how much of delivery is left outside of Amazon? I am not advocating for Amazon, just wondering if this move is sustainable for the employees while Amazon gets (theoretically) strong armed.

If they "sell" 20,000 cheap knockoffs smartphones, but no one ships them, did they really sell them? Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry

>Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry

This is also why dock-workers unions have historically been very powerful.

https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodes...

Re: Two Portland delivery companies revolt against Amazon, shut down

#160

Post by drzaiusapelord »

robertlagrant wrote: post #132
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd rather have a happy safe driver than a miserable one at the end of his or her rope, all so I could save a dollar. I mean, that's just you and your ethics as a person. Capitalism demands relentless and permanent profit, so capitalist culture is middle-managers doing exactly the opposite of you. Worse, they're in a rat-race against other middle-managers to see who can save the most money. So the system is designed…

> Capitalism demands relentless and permanent profit No it doesn't. Plenty of companies go years without making profit.

Because they're failing at capitalism, usually because their competitors are better than them at it. Not because of kindness to employees or somesuch. Capitalists fighting other capitalists as ruthlessly as possible doesn't change my argument.

Also capitalisms demands are just that, demands, its not a guarantee. If company x can't compete, it will quit. If it thinks it can weather a storm because it will be able to compete in the future, it will. Its not generosity. Its just profit-seeking.

Post reply on HN