Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by fouc » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #7

bfeynman wrote: post #2

This behavior of legal loopholes to discount workers should be made illegal. The definition of sub-contractor has got to change and/or have laws/policies in place that actually make sense in a sub contractor relationship. These are shell companies that spin up and exclusively deliver for amazon, they aren't gig workers delivering when they want, they have strict quotas.

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.

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

#22

Post by runesofdoom » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

polygamous_bat wrote: post #10

dclowd9901 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. The courts are supposed to be the last vestige of common sense. It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense.

> It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense. See also: [0], sometimes it may not be judges "dropping the ball" but rather playing the ball for their own benefits. However we spin it, corruption in the US is a larger problem than we like to pretend it is. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...

We (Americans) have normalized, often explicitly legalized, quite a lot of corrupt behavior in various positions of power.[1] We then look at how comparatively little illegal corruption there is, and the official line is that everything is fine, nothing to see here.

1. Officials failing to accurately provide financial disclosures result in a consequence of having to fill it out again. Members of Congress can legally practice insider trading, and often do. And even when there's no revolving door, post-facto bribes in the form of cushy sinecures are accepted. Money as protected speech. Etc.

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

#23

Post by Analemma_ » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #7

bfeynman wrote: post #2

This behavior of legal loopholes to discount workers should be made illegal. The definition of sub-contractor has got to change and/or have laws/policies in place that actually make sense in a sub contractor relationship. These are shell companies that spin up and exclusively deliver for amazon, they aren't gig workers delivering when they want, they have strict quotas.

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?

Because courts are supposed to see through flimsy fictions like this. These companies are not in an ordinary vendor/customer relationship: they are controlled completely by Amazon, they do not and cannot serve customers other than Amazon, their conditions and working hours are set by Amazon, etc. They are Amazon subsidiaries in all but name, and their treatment by the law should reflect that.

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

#24

Post by singleshot_ » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

polygamous_bat wrote: post #13

tiahura wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shell company" isn't a legal term and has varying definitions, but generally is a company that only exists on paper and doesn't do anything. These companies deliver products for Amazon. Make sense to whom? People that have no experience with running a business and hiring subcontractors?

If you have a single product that kills people, you aren't legally allowed to put all your liabilities and none of your assets into another (non-shell, by your definition) company to get out of your liabilities. [0] What's happening here is quite similar. [0] See, for example, the J&J case, which was an even more generous form of the same.

Let's say I have $100 in assets and $10 in liabilities. The assets consist of Nike sneakers I'd like to sell; the liabilities consist of bags of trash that would cost me $30 to throw away at the dump. I'm lazy, so sell some shoes and I pay the trash man $35 to take the liabilities away.

I have put all my liabilities in one company (the trash man) and left all my assets in my company.

Now, I have a company with a few Nike assets and no liabilities. One of the pairs of shoes catches on fire and becomes a smelly, smoking liability. I sell the rest of the shoes and return the money to the shareholders, leaving the company only owning the burned shoe liability. Now all of the company's assets belong to the shareholders, and all the company has is liabilities.

Which law did I break?

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

#25

Post by NikolaNovak » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

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…

Fair enough, but I wonder how much areas and personal experiences matter.

My experience with UPS over last 2 decades, as a receiving individual, has been dismal (condos in Toronto and now house in satellite residential community). I understand they optimize toward businesses, and I'm sure as a business their procedures are streamlined and efficient, but as a resident receiving package, it's awful. Majority of packages don't get delivered when I'm in the house eagerly expecting a package. Sour attitudes when I do. Amazon delivery on the other hand is always with a smile and a wave - and it gets here every.single.time.

But I recognize it's a personal / individual experience. I don't know what a broader picture is.

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

#26

Post by tyree731 » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

jvmfjvfjvf wrote: post #18

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.

What strength do they have? Unions routinely cause jobs to be eliminated and offshored.

Would Amazon drivers unionizing cause Amazon to offshore drivers?

If Amazon drivers unionizing would cause Amazon to eliminate drivers, does that suggest unions lack strength, or that unions have strength that Amazon fears?

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

#27

Post by tiahura » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

polygamous_bat wrote: post #13

tiahura wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shell company" isn't a legal term and has varying definitions, but generally is a company that only exists on paper and doesn't do anything. These companies deliver products for Amazon. Make sense to whom? People that have no experience with running a business and hiring subcontractors?

If you have a single product that kills people, you aren't legally allowed to put all your liabilities and none of your assets into another (non-shell, by your definition) company to get out of your liabilities. [0] What's happening here is quite similar. [0] See, for example, the J&J case, which was an even more generous form of the same.

How are they remotely similar? Amazon has trillions of products and hasn’t spun off its liabilities anywhere.

Amazon simply decided they want to limit the extent to which they are in the the last mile delivery business.

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

#28

Post by jtreminio » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

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, take my money and hand me my burger and receipt, there's no need for a conversation or a fake smile. You don't care how my day is going, I don't really care about yours. Let's keep this transaction professional and solely focused on this exchange of money for burger.

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

#29

Post by game_the0ry » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

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…

One time, I had amazon delivery driver show up and they just threw my package at the door. Literally, just chucked at my door and I heard the thud in my home office.

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

#30

Post by jvmfjvfjvf » Tue, Aug 08, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

tyree731 wrote: post #26

jvmfjvfjvf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What strength do they have? Unions routinely cause jobs to be eliminated and offshored.

Would Amazon drivers unionizing cause Amazon to offshore drivers? If Amazon drivers unionizing would cause Amazon to eliminate drivers, does that suggest unions lack strength, or that unions have strength that Amazon fears?

Amazon drivers unionizing would cause Amazon to hire FedEx or DHL. Unions don't have a monopoly on drivers.