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

Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 239 posts

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#221

Post by lidHanteyk »

looping__lui wrote: post #207
lidHanteyk wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, counterfactually, no Jeff Bezos means no Amazon means no abuse of Amazon employees. So, to some extent, Bezos and Amazon are responsible, even if they aren't wholly responsible.

As I mentioned in another comment: I think you get cause and effect wrong - and that is imho a big issue and makes the entire discussion really annoying. The destruction of the social safety net in the US allows companies to act differently in the US than in other countries. So: Amazon pays above minimum wage, gives more leave to its employees than legally required, has stricter safety standards than legally required…

Careful with your "you guys". I'm a leftist, and I advocate for health care as a human right.

In the USA, labor rights were earned by literally committing armed rebellion against corporate "company towns" [0], as in the West Virginia coal wars [1]. Without this, the USA would not have weekends or eight-hour workdays.

Even if Amazon did not exist, Facebook would still need a lot of computers and Google would still have a lot of spare compute, so public clouds might still happen. And if they didn't, well, maybe that's not a bad thing! It's not clear that public clouds are good.

The Washington Post is older than Bezos; it turns 143 this year [2]. Without Bezos, perhaps the paper would be dead right now, but perhaps it would be thriving, since the paywall on their online content was only built after Bezos took over.

I find your view "not even wrong" [4]; your history of the issue is so shallow that I can't even critique it without first establishing the historical context.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#222

Post by looping__lui »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #221
looping__lui wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in another comment: I think you get cause and effect wrong - and that is imho a big issue and makes the entire discussion really annoying. The destruction of the social safety net in the US allows companies to act differently in the US than in other countries. So: Amazon pays above minimum wage, gives more leave to its employees than legally required, has stricter safety standards than legally required…

Careful with your "you guys". I'm a leftist, and I advocate for health care as a human right. In the USA, labor rights were earned by literally committing armed rebellion against corporate "company towns" [0], as in the West Virginia coal wars [1]. Without this, the USA would not have weekends or eight-hour workdays. Even if Amazon did not exist, Facebook would still need a lot of computers and Google would still hav…

Why don’t you have free health care, free education and that stuff? Are you honestly citing a 100 year old riot as a proof the American people want it? Obviously they 1) don’t or 2) want it but can’t have it.

I mean, at least we have established that it’s not Amazon but “the system and everybody else” is the problem.

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#223

Post by Johnjonjoan »

bhupy wrote: post #220
Johnjonjoan wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like it makes no sense to say the UK is at stage one because London is ahead. You need to stop being so pedantic. I get you guys want to compare but you're beating a dead horse.

The difference is that the UK is a unitary State[1], and as such its COVID strategy is dictated at the UK-level. The sub-national units are not sovereign. The US and the EU are federations[2][3], and their sub-national units are sovereign. Like the EU, the US’s COVID strategy has been left to the States[4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation#Federations [3] ht…

The post I was replying to clearly said that the issue was size not governance. But even with regards to that point I really don't understand how it affects what I said.

My point was that you can't say even a country is in a certain stage because the outbreaks are much more local than that. London is a month ahead of some parts of the country. So its just as incorrect to say the UK is at a certain stage as it is to say it about the EU and USA.

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#224

Post by CryptoPunk »

Twixes wrote: post #219
CryptoPunk wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mega-franchiser didn't owe you a better job. Your situation was shitty, in that you were left with no options but low-pay work, but the fact that the mega-franchiser stepped in to take advantage of that situation, by hiring you, didn't make your situation any more shitty.

The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.

Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee.

Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploitive interaction. You're misattributing his shitty situation to the employer, when it in fact existed independently of the employment contract.

His shitty situation was that he didn't have a valuable skill to offer. He had one that was worth little, and the franchiser paid him for his skills accordingly.

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#225

Post by bhupy »

Johnjonjoan wrote: post #223
bhupy wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the UK is a unitary State[1], and as such its COVID strategy is dictated at the UK-level. The sub-national units are not sovereign. The US and the EU are federations[2][3], and their sub-national units are sovereign. Like the EU, the US’s COVID strategy has been left to the States[4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation#Federations [3] ht…

The post I was replying to clearly said that the issue was size not governance. But even with regards to that point I really don't understand how it affects what I said. My point was that you can't say even a country is in a certain stage because the outbreaks are much more local than that. London is a month ahead of some parts of the country. So its just as incorrect to say the UK is at a certain stage as it is to s…

I misunderstood you, agreed.

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#226

Post by dmoy »

jachee wrote: post #200
dmoy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I'm not seeing anything in there that's saying number of deaths per day is rising. Can you help me navigate to where that is shown?

Try here: https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19PublicDashboard/Cov...

Ok so deaths per day is actually not increasing

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#227

Post by vadym909 »

kevindong wrote: post #194
vadym909 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be really surprised if these were real- '401(k), health, vision, and dental benefits'. Anyone can offer 401k without matching, medical without contributing to the premium.

Amazon publishes this page detailing the benefits + their per-paycheck costs [0]. The prices for the coverage received seem very reasonable. [0]: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us

Ah ok- I stand corrected - the medical is pretty reasonable. The 401k match takes 3 years to vest.

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#228

Post by TomMckenny »

wutbrodo wrote: post #208
TomMckenny wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not addressing the extremely wise decision that a government make it financially possible for people not to spread disease. Nor disputing that the vast majority of people are willing to do this under these extreme circumstance. I'm addressing the assumption, wrapped in theories about incentives, that everyone (strangely except any persons expounding the theory) is eager to quit work for "welfare" at the first opp…

> I'm addressing the assumption, wrapped in theories about incentives, that everyone (strangely except any persons expounding the theory) is eager to quit work for "welfare" at the first opportunity Again, the GP comment didn't say or imply anything like this. You're just accusing random commenters of irrelevant thoughtcrime based on trying to fit into every square peg into the round hole of the same vacuous politica…

If the top comment is a genuine question with neutral tone then so is the similarly phrased "When will Republicans start mass arrests of journalist?" I don't explicitly state a value judgement and I can follow up with "you can't blame them for acting in their self interest". Yet claiming it is a neutral question would obviously be mistaken.

Likewise the claim that "following incentives is excusable" includes, among other hidden assumptions, that it is actually happening and that there is actually an incentive. It is obfuscation in both cases. It certainly does not make the question an economic one.

I don't see anything above accusing anyone of thoughtcrime. I assume this is a shibboleth used to dismiss political opponents, end conversation and instruct fellow travelers what opinion to have on the mater. At any rate, I'd be more concerned about thought police from a leader who purges anyone who disagrees with him[1] than a random internet voice.

[1]The most recent being: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-live-cover...

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#229

Post by jachee »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #224
Twixes wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.

Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploit…

What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial?

How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them?

How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage?

How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?

Re: Amazon asks workers sheltering at home to return or request leave

#230

Post by CryptoPunk »

jachee wrote: post #229
CryptoPunk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploit…

What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial? How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them? How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage? How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?

They are keeping their wages low by avoiding mandatory pay rises that come with statutory overtime.

So to reiterate: they offer low wages, and their actions are consistent with that objective.

Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so.

So my point stands. You seem to not have even addressed it, and instead made an appeal to emotion by repeatedly referencing the low pay the employer insisted on providing.

>>How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?

This is the only potentially abusive and fraudulent practice you cited, and I would support class-action litigation to punish employers who engage in it, and publicly funded advocates and watchdogs to assist low-wage workers who find themselves facing these kinds of practices.

The argument that low-pay jobs - that those working them willingly accepted - is by definition exploitation is, OTOH, an economic fallacy that misattributes the cause of low-pay and promotes regulatory restrictions on contract liberty that gravely harm society.

Post reply on HN