31–40 of 119 posts
It also makes sense for Amazon to push hard into drone delivery for NYC as a response, which I also support.
Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…
The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like injury and accidents. The idea is already baked into the premise of the video, rather than propose a neutral question to the viewer; ala, at what level are a client responsible for the contractor's health and wellbeing. Why don't they ask this for tradies and plumbers?
Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route. This should be interesting from a legal perspective.
It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.
Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route. This should be interesting from a legal perspective.
Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side. This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in…
That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
noted, comrade. Don't worry, your wealth will serve the working class future very well.
I certainly hope so, it’s just a tool, and I can’t take it with me. Would you hoard a hammer or your toolbox? Or let anyone use it who needed it? Do the Amish hoard wealth? Measure impact, outcomes, and improvements in quality of life. Numbers in a database or spreadsheet are none of those. To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success (great book on this topic literally called “Die with Zero” by…
great comment. However, you could say that about alot of horrible people as well!
I live in a place where alot of those that claim the title 'Democratic Socialist' seem more drawn to 20th-century style identity politics rather than a philosophy of 'the world is complex and we need ethical and competent people to use the power of government to solve problems that markets don't solve', which is a way I might encapsulate my views.
Accepting the premise of my framing, how do you square the two?
But… what does it do?! I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?
The act basically makes Amazon responsible for these subcontractors. BTW, they are not only ones who do this, UPS and Fedex have similar setups. The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have…
But… what does it do?! I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?
The act basically makes Amazon responsible for these subcontractors. BTW, they are not only ones who do this, UPS and Fedex have similar setups. The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have…
Source? Is it actually physically "impossible", or simply a race to the bottom dynamic?
Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…
This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier.
This happens with FedEx/UPS as well.