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

231–240 of 431 posts

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

#231

Post by Zetice »

pc86 wrote: post #185
Zetice wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> that should be the "basic social interaction" Well, it's not. If "living your life" involves being rude to people and ignoring even the most basic social courtesies, you're an asshole. Part of the service people pay for when they go anywhere is not dealing with rude employees, and yes ignoring basic social courtesies is rude. If you're in Europe you get to have the European social courtesies of minimal interaction,…

My friend you have not visited the northeastern part of the US if you think not actively smiling while serving fast food is abnormal.

Further it is rude in no part of the world to not be cheerful, and the fact that you require this of people who are paid unlivable wages shows a distinct lack of compassion or empathy.

They’ll smile when you pay them what they’re worth.

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

#232

Post by supertrope »

fma wrote: post #212
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.

Yep...This isn't really new to anyone that has any exposure to the business world that deals with actual good/services. Amazon had some program where they'd give a loan to business operator money to lease trucks, buy uniforms, etc and you get routes. The terms work out such that you make a certain amount money, almost guaranteed. To them, it's a form of insurance. You deliver their goods. They track your performance.…

> If a truck driver makes Amazon look bad, they will pressure you to fire them...even it's not their employee.

This right here should get Amazon.com classified as a joint employer. A franchise model is suppose to delegate HR decisions to the local owner.

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

#233

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

The real fix is to just stop tying benefit requirements to who the employer is and what the employee's full time status is. A lot of these problems go away with just universal healthcare, and providing benefits beyond pay via society rather than via companies.

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

#234

Post by CJefferson »

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #218
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.

[flagged]

The Unionised Royal Mail seems to manage next day delivery fine. Does any country have a unionised mail service where you wait 3 weeks, or even 1 week, for packages?

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

#235

Post by seanmcdirmid »

esalman wrote: post #204
nitwit005 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real fix is to stop tying various benefits to employment, so there'd be no need to worry about who is full time or part time, or who they work for. Unfortunately, changing most of those programs is political suicide, particularly anything health care related.

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

Bernie isn't a Democrat.

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

#236

Post by umeshunni »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #225
taude wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

Except that people also age out of far left ideas. The 18 year old who's like "hell yeah, ownership is theft, raise the taxes" feels differently when they turn 35 and have to pay those taxes.

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

#237

Post by toomuchtodo »

umeshunni wrote: post #236
toomuchtodo wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

Except that people also age out of far left ideas. The 18 year old who's like "hell yeah, ownership is theft, raise the taxes" feels differently when they turn 35 and have to pay those taxes.

Third citation in my comment addresses your argument. Hard to become conservative when you have nothing to lose.

https://archive.is/iRyQE/f34b0a039aef880774f7d7d1dac5c0f5545...

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

#238

Post by supertrope »

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.

Even this doesn’t work. A drug tax earmarked for school funding can be followed with a coincidental cut to school funding in the same amount. Money is fungible.

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

#239

Post by petsfed »

coldtea wrote: post #60
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. As a Canadian cousin over here, if you can't tell the difference between a smile/a polite "Hi, how can I…

> Is there something "weird" about that? No, absolutely not, and you can put down the superiority complex. There is something weird though. Getting service from those minimum wage workers is not enough: people also demand their fake pleasure to serve and sympathy.

This is it in a nutshell. I could always put on my game face when things were going bad at home, but if you caught me after another customer calls me stupid or lazy (for having the job I did, during a recession, instead of, I don't know, being on welfare, I guess?), then the facade started to slip. I'm not really inclined to assume good intent from yet another rich asshole complaining about over-priced Chinese crap in regards to the $40 printer they're loading into their brand-new Porsche Cayenne.

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

#240

Post by nicechianti »

nitwit005 wrote: post #201
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.

The real fix is to stop tying various benefits to employment, so there'd be no need to worry about who is full time or part time, or who they work for. Unfortunately, changing most of those programs is political suicide, particularly anything health care related.

and fix immigration so there are fewer illegals reaping those benefits
Post reply on HN