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

291–300 of 431 posts

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

#291

Post by ROTMetro »

stale2002 wrote: post #230
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #6

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.

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.

Simple. If your contracted out work employs more than XYZ number of employees then those contractors must provide benefits/meet employment requirements/etc on the same level as a company with the (aggregate of all contract providers headcount for the contracted service type) employee headcount.

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

#292

Post by ROTMetro »

supertrope wrote: post #232
fma wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, sounds like the legal term of 'distinction without a difference'.

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

#293

Post by ROTMetro »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #233
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.

We have socialized healthcare in the USA, we just deliver it at the emergency room, the worst possible place. The more we get people to realize that we already have this the more we can reduce the resistance to expanding it in a sane way. America 100% has socialized medicine. Go to the emergency room and you will be treated.

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

#294

Post by BaseballPhysics »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #260
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked plenty of food service in my life. You're making the mistake of overrepresenting the worst behavior. All of those things are out of line in American society. I don't think you should read so much into my hobby either.

I don’t think you should be telling others to “get a grip,” because their experience differs from your own, but here we are. Perhaps don’t make such obnoxious assumptions if you don’t want to be treated that way in kind. I’m also skeptical of the extent of your actual experience if you think this behavior is “out of line” in American society. It was quite routine in mine. The first time I saw someone throw food at th…

> I don’t think you should be telling others to “get a grip,” because their experience differs from your own, but here we are.

You tried to attached the American cultural norm of manners and courtesy to their history of black slavery.

"Get a grip" is a pretty mild response to something so absurd, hyperbolic, and flat out insulting.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

Buttons840 wrote: post #280
whalesalad wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by [deleted] »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #294
bugglebeetle wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you should be telling others to “get a grip,” because their experience differs from your own, but here we are. Perhaps don’t make such obnoxious assumptions if you don’t want to be treated that way in kind. I’m also skeptical of the extent of your actual experience if you think this behavior is “out of line” in American society. It was quite routine in mine. The first time I saw someone throw food at th…

> I don’t think you should be telling others to “get a grip,” because their experience differs from your own, but here we are. You tried to attached the American cultural norm of manners and courtesy to their history of black slavery. "Get a grip" is a pretty mild response to something so absurd, hyperbolic, and flat out insulting.

[deleted]

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

#297

Post by finite_depth »

vkou wrote: post #285
geodel wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the top few percent for income in the US, and live in California (one of the highest tax states), and I happily pay them. Well, thats not surprising but at same time not default for most people. Universities have been leaning left since at least 60's and 70's . If all the people who attended university remained influenced by those ideas over the years. Most of the people with higher income and influential positi…

Education is incredibly strongly correlated with not voting republican.

Although at this point that might be more class/intelligence signalling than any principled belief in social welfare. You don't have to support the poor to realize that it's a bad idea to support a mad death cult full of people who are toxic to your career.

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

#298

Post by finite_depth »

mikecoles wrote: post #259
toomuchtodo wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third citation in my comment addresses your argument. Hard to become conservative when you have nothing to lose. https://archive.is/iRyQE/f34b0a039aef880774f7d7d1dac5c0f5545...

It's not hard when you have the will and work ethic.

I'm well off and I work considerably less hard than many people making close to minimum wage. I'm treated better, trusted more, respected more, and have much more flexibility in my work.

Will and work ethic are weakly necessary for success, but they are not at all sufficient for it. (not successful) -> (not work ethic) is denying the antecedent: (successful) -> (work ethic) is, if not always true, at least often true, but that doesn't imply its converse.

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

#299

Post by feedsmgmt »

Around here they use multiple different local companies and make them compete against one another. And there's no guarantee of contract renewal so they can just keep dropping whoever costs more. It ends up being super toxic for the employees and the service quality reflects that. I stopped using Amazon.

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

#300

Post by Jcowell »

m463 wrote: post #262
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.

That might help with health insurance, but what about worker safety, or reasonable hours, resting, etc?

It makes the fight for those much easier when you’re not worrying about your family getting sick or in an accident and bankrupting you
Post reply on HN