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

271–280 of 431 posts

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

#271

Post by whalesalad »

Buttons840 wrote: post #254
whalesalad wrote: post #49

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…

> there are hundreds of small business popping up all over the country to become these service partners [of one company] Sounds like a monopoly to me.

a monopoly implies domination and zero competition. where do you get that sense?

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

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

AlbertCory wrote: post #267
deelowe wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the US uses the common law system. Laws are written and the courts then interpret them. The courts should be telling these yahoos that these actions are against the intent of the law.

> courts then interpret them. correct. They interpret what the law says , not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.

> They interpret what the law says, not what it "intends."

Within the bounds of the viable interpretations of the words actually written into the law, courts are, in fact, often guided by their reading of legislative intent in choosing which of the superficially viable interpretations is correct.

The idea that interpreting what the laws say precludes interpreting what legislators mean seems to implicitly invoke the idea that any given set of words has only one tenable interpetation to start with, so you never need to look to external context to resolve meaning.

This is a not-too-unpopular conceit, but its quite wrong.

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

#273

Post by the_lego »

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.

[flagged]

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

#274

Post by pc86 »

Zetice wrote: post #231
pc86 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nowhere did I say anyone needed to be cheerful, only that ignoring basic social courtesy is rude. Going up the thread a bit, we're talking about "no greeting, no thank you, no smile" - now I can't speak for @coldtea but IMO all it takes to not be rude is one of those things. A single "hello" or "good morning/afternoon/whatever," a single thank you, literally any form of acknowledgement. Nobody is talking about making people dance or "actively smiling" except the people trying to willfully misrepresent others' opinions.

My point, and I think @coldtea's point, is that if you basically ignore customers, you're rude and shouldn't be in a customer service position. I grew up in the northeast US and it was rare to have any customer service interaction where you received no greeting, no thank you, nothing - precisely because it's rude, and most people aren't.

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

#275

Post by dragonwriter »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #235
esalman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bernie isn't a Democrat.

He's a three term Senator elected to that body as an Independent that has always caucused with the Democrats (as he did in the House befor that), is currently given by the Senate Democrats the position of Chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and was the #2 Democrat in the last two Presidential nominating contests.

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

#276

Post by PawgerZ »

legitster wrote: post #264
skyyler wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your analogy, the husband has a fiduciary responsibility to keep beating his wife. It's kind of a bad analogy. If the situation was that the husband was obligated to beat his wife, forcing him to pay for a referee to control how hard he beat his wife would be a good thing. Obviously it would be better if he just stopped beating his wife, but the guys in suits upstairs would be pretty upset about that... So let's l…

I don't follow. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to be terrible to employees?

If thats where the uncaptured profit is, then yes.

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

#277

Post by AlbertCory »

dragonwriter wrote: post #272
AlbertCory wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> courts then interpret them. correct. They interpret what the law says , not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.

> They interpret what the law says, not what it "intends." Within the bounds of the viable interpretations of the words actually written into the law, courts are, in fact, often guided by their reading of legislative intent in choosing which of the superficially viable interpretations is correct. The idea that interpreting what the laws say precludes interpreting what legislators mean seems to implicitly invoke the i…

"quite wrong" -- no, you're wrong.

"legislative intent" is in fact deeply controversial among judges. What counts as "intent"? Something a bill sponsor said, but other sponsors disagreed with?

the only certain thing is what the bill says, and the fact that it passed.

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

#278

Post by AlbertCory »

deelowe wrote: post #270
AlbertCory wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> courts then interpret them. correct. They interpret what the law says , not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.

I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Laws are written fairly broadly all the time and it's left up to the courts to determine the specifics.

Patent claims are also written broadly, deliberately by the lawyers. There's a whole part of every trial where "claim construction" takes place, and I personally helped with many of those briefs when in Google Legal.

The briefs never argue "what the inventor intended." They argue about what the claims and the spec says and what those words mean. That can, indeed, leave room for argument, and that's why both sides write briefs.

"Courts interpreting laws" are the same way -- what legislators thought they were voting for is irrelevant, let alone what they would think today.

That's what "rule of law" means: a citizen can determine what's legal and what isn't.

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

#279

Post by scoofy »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #6
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 solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.

I think the real issue is the political problem that most people like the exploitation that is happening. When ride-sharing laws were changed in California to protect hired drivers, the counter ballot initiative passed easily.

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

#280

Post by Buttons840 »

whalesalad wrote: post #271
Buttons840 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are hundreds of small business popping up all over the country to become these service partners [of one company] Sounds like a monopoly to me.

a monopoly implies domination and zero competition. where do you get that sense?

Well, if there are hundreds of companies doing deliveries for Amazon, then isn't "doing deliveries for Amazon" it's own industry? If hundreds of companies don't form an "industry", then I don't know what does.

In the industry of "companies doing delivery for Amazon", Amazon has a dominant position. They can destroy any one company, or destroy the entire industry on a whim.

Post reply on HN