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

Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 431 posts

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#161

Post by jedberg »

jtreminio wrote: post #28
bluedino wrote: post #12

I'm always amazed at the stark differences between UPS drivers, and Amazon drivers. UPS trucks are always clean. They follow the rules of the road. The drivers wear neat uniforms, they walk on the sidewalks, they're polite, they're just professionals held to a higher standard. Then there are Amazon drivers. They park blocking half the road, music blasting, the vans usually look like they haven't been washed in a mont…

> music blasting Far be it from me to say a driver can't listen to music while they are at work. > the vans usually look like they haven't been washed in a month Good. Washing work vehicles so that they are always sparkling seems like a waste of resources. > Reminds me of fast food employee who simply hands your meal out the window, no greeting, no thank you, no smile This is such a weird American fixation. Here, tak…

> Good. Washing work vehicles so that they are always sparkling seems like a waste of resources.

The point of the clean truck is that it shows the delivery company it willing to lose money to maintain their equipment. It means they are probably also willing to lose money to care for your package better.

It's the same reason Lexus requires their mechanics to wear white lab coats. To show you that they are willing to spend money to take care of your stuff.

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#162

Post by epivosism »

wpietri wrote: post #88
epivosism wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was saying that the original claim was self-contradictory since if you use "resistance exists" as a proof that something is good, then you've already admitted that anti-unionism is good too, since it's also strongly resisted.

Rewriting a comment after somebody has already responded is very rude. Now your comment is differently wrong, but I'm sure not going to bother with it or you given that you may just keep rewriting the thing I'm responding to.

Apologies, I was adding detail and don't realize you were already responding. I don't think we disagree though - do you? I still agree with what you responded to, I just removed that phrase because it seemed inflammatory

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#163

Post by fallingknife »

fouc wrote: post #21
fallingknife wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't contractors like Uber drivers. They are corporations that are contractors of Amazon, and the drivers are employees of those companies. How would this possibly be a legal issue?

The fact that the employees of the contractor companies ultimately work for only one company - Amazon - that means they should be treated like employees of Amazon. This is the same situation when independent contractors have only one client.

Why? A company hiring another company like this seems perfectly reasonable to me. There is no argument to be made about contractor vs employee status because the employees are still full time employees. Why should they have to be an employee of a single corporate parent?

When companies like Amazon buy other companies and vertically integrate, people complain. When Amazon contracts with vendors instead, people complain too. I don't think there is any legitimate point to this and it's just "I hate Amazon."

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#164

Post by taeric »

snoman wrote: post #45
taeric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also be happy with better base level care for everyone. Would start requiring more taxes on corporations, largely because that is where the money is siphoning to. But would be far more efficient than the current efforts we do where every time a new rule is made, bypasses are found.

As long as the bills proposing tax increases also contain where the tax money is going to be allocated, I'd be all for it. America's track record for directing tax money towards the public good, is poor.

Nobody has a track record of using money well. Basically period. At best, you can find some examples that were short lived, but by and large, building wealth turns to either wasting it, or hoarding it.

With that framing, I honestly don't like "as long as we tightly control where it is spent" arguments. They all beg the question that we know where money should be spent. Where history is a great guide that, no, we didn't. We have examples to look to, to be sure. Some decent guidelines, as it were. But they are often last year's guidelines, and that year came and went.

So, I'm game to "keep our eyes open" as we increase allocation. But, by and large, I think insisting on winning bets is a fools errand that will likely cause more problems than it solves.

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#165

Post by [deleted] »

altairprime wrote: post #143
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional". And now we're back to cultural norms and expectations, and there's no point in arguing about something so very subjective. The original complaint was about "weird" Americans and my entire point was that it's not that weird, it's just different. And now we're just around and back where we started. I've offered my perspective and there's little point in repeating it again. If you…

Please don’t frame your personal disinterest in discussing subjective viewpoints that contradict your own, as though everyone at HN becomes disinterested in discussing subjective viewpoints once disagreement occurs. HN users regularly discuss conflicting subjective cultural norms and expectations: when discussing Linux window managers, emacs, tabs versus spaces, the expectations of junior engineers in a startup, how…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#166

Post by BaseballPhysics »

altairprime wrote: post #143
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional". And now we're back to cultural norms and expectations, and there's no point in arguing about something so very subjective. The original complaint was about "weird" Americans and my entire point was that it's not that weird, it's just different. And now we're just around and back where we started. I've offered my perspective and there's little point in repeating it again. If you…

Please don’t frame your personal disinterest in discussing subjective viewpoints that contradict your own, as though everyone at HN becomes disinterested in discussing subjective viewpoints once disagreement occurs. HN users regularly discuss conflicting subjective cultural norms and expectations: when discussing Linux window managers, emacs, tabs versus spaces, the expectations of junior engineers in a startup, how…

> as though everyone at HN becomes disinterested in discussing subjective viewpoints once disagreement occurs.

Except you didn't present your viewpoint as subjective, did you?

No, like many of the other folks participating in this thread, you delivered it as objective truth:

> “Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional”.

> Smiling isn’t about courtesy, respect, or professionalism

Now in fairness, I'm not sure you even realize that's just an opinion.

Unfortunately, if you can't see that difference, then conversation devolves into an argument about those supposed "truths" and that's a conversation that cannot go anywhere since they aren't truths at all.

A meaningful conversation about differing cultural norms, how they might've come to be that way, how they work today, etc?

Yeah, that's interesting!

But if the goal is to just sling insults at folks and call people "weird" for having different subjective values? Yeah, I'll pass.

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#167

Post by adfskghnmionio »

epivosism wrote: post #35
oldjim69 wrote: post #11

Nothing shows the power of unions more than the lengths companies go to fight them. In a Union there is Strength.

This sounds like just the opposite of a capitalist monopoly from the other side. Why would I want any party to control the way a market works? You'll get stagnation both ways. see many historical examples where both monopolies and unions refused change and were overturned, leading to failures. i.e. Detroit I want a functioning competitive market where workers and firms compete and have to adjust and innovate to fit w…

A capitalist monopoly is a conspiracy in favor of the firm. Unions are a conspiracy in favor of the people.

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#168

Post by [deleted] »

bluedino wrote: post #12

I'm always amazed at the stark differences between UPS drivers, and Amazon drivers. UPS trucks are always clean. They follow the rules of the road. The drivers wear neat uniforms, they walk on the sidewalks, they're polite, they're just professionals held to a higher standard. Then there are Amazon drivers. They park blocking half the road, music blasting, the vans usually look like they haven't been washed in a mont…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#169

Post by Zetice »

macinjosh wrote: post #92
coldtea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds me of fast food employee who simply hands your meal out the window, no greeting, no thank you, no smile... They aren't even putting on a little dance for each customer, to celebrate the wonderful minimum-wage soul-crushing git they got!

There is a middle ground of basic social interaction between failing to acknowledge a party in a transaction and being forced to do an impromptu dance for them. In the case of Cold Stone Creamery though I agree, those kids should not have to sing for tips.

No there isn't; you pay for a service you get that service. Let these people live their lives, society is already massively underpaying them.

We should have to apologize to them when they hand us our meal, that should be the "basic social interaction".

Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

#170

Post by mcpackieh »

whalesalad wrote: post #137
rootusrootus wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a smart business move from an economic point of view? Aside from some regional differences in vehicle/transport law (which I bet are not as different as you'd expect, a lot of this is federalized), this should cost Amazon more , not less . The scale works to their advantage. Having subcontractors is strictly more expensive since there's an extra layer of profit.

> which I bet are not as different as you'd expect, a lot of this is federalized I've lived in 5 different states over the course of my life. The operating environment varies substantially. Local ordinances vary greatly. Fuel costs. Climate (vehicles in Phoenix are not exposed to rust, salt, etc while here in Michigan they are). Local labor laws, unemployment costs, insurance costs and restrictions. It's literally co…

> If unions did not exist I would posit that they would still operate this way.

Yes, I think so. Furthermore, if unions were mandatory and universal, businesses would still favor subcontracting when paying for work outside their core competency.

Post reply on HN