Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

221–230 of 431 posts

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

#221

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

[flagged]

The post office offers amazing service and its workers have been a key part of the labour movement.

Also next day delivery is almost never an option where I live so I don't bother with it.

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

#222
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.

The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.

Completely. There are lots of laws already on the books but there is nobody actually enforcing them. Everyone from Uber to door dash to Amazon are profitably evading their responsibilities to their employees by miss categorizing them as contractors.

This is bad for the employees, bad for society and bad for competitor companies who are playing by the rules.

The solution is fairly obvious. Invest in bodies to proactively enforce the laws we already have.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.

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.

[deleted]

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's political suicide for Republicans. Left leaning Democrats like Bernie are all for it.

What's to stop your local city government from increasing taxes to hire a doctor and provide them with a building and staff in order to provide medical services to locals residents? It seems to me that the problem is that everyone wants a federal solution to healthcare and the United States is generally structured to limit federal power. Fire departments are funded locally generally speaking, it didn't take a federal…

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/pdf/health/pool_... ("For a risk pool to remain viable, it must be of sufficient size and comprised of a broad cross section of risks.")

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

#225
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's political suicide for Republicans. Left leaning Democrats like Bernie are all for it.

Not enough far left leaning Dems to make Bernie a reality.

1.8 million voters over the age of 55 die every year in the US. 4 million voters turn 18. We're just arguing time horizon and cohort turn out rates. Bernie was just too early after Reagan, globalization, and deregulation.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/01/1-generation...

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generat...

https://archive.is/iRyQE

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/07/09/the-polit...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/29/gen-z-mil...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/28/millennia...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/04/03/millennia...

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

#226

Is this a theory, or proven? It makes a LOT of sense to do what Amazon is doing here. Why would you want to have a ton of depreciating vehicles on your balance sheet? Why would you want the maintenance burden? No need to worry about all the regional differences with vehicle/transport law - you allow people who are based in that region to do it (better). One could also argue this is good for the economy, in that there…

"outsource anything that doesn't make the beer taste better" as Jeff Bezos put it.

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

#227

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.

For unions, workers are the profit center. For corporations, workers are the expense.

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

#228

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

[flagged]

> Let's see how important union strength is when you don't receive next-day deliveries.

That doesn't happen now, I haven't seen next-day since the start of COVID.

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

#229

I'd be willing to accept a 0.25% less return annually on the S&P index if workers had meaningfully better existences. It might even increase returns if workers could be more productive by having dignified lives. This is the best way to frame thinking about things in our current macroeconomic environment.

.25% is nothing. That's the problem.

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

#230
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.

The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.

This stuff follows the law though. Its not illegal, not even close.

Not even sure how you would go about making it illegal. What, paying money to another company is illegal? You can't contract out work? It doesn't make any sense.

Post reply on HN