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

301–310 of 431 posts

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

#301

Post by alberth »

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.

> ” This behavior of legal loopholes to discount workers should be made illegal.”

It comes down to priorities.

In the US at least, regulators are very pro jobs & job creation.

People employed contributor to society in many ways (eg purchase goods, taxes, lower crime, etc).

Which means, US wants to make it easy for someone to create a company so they can hire a people.

Now if the business that’s created to employee people is a subcontractor for a Mega Corp, the US regulators don’t care. Because again, it comes down to priorities - which is pro job creation.

Note: I’m not anti-unions. I’m just trying to depict it comes down to what’s highest priorities for regulators. And pro job creation / making it easy to create a company, is pretty high on this list.

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

#302

Post by dragonwriter »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #283
dragonwriter wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can try and get the Democrat nomination for president, they don't limit it to card carrying Democrats. Bernie Sanders identifies as a Democratic Socialist. You can, of course, call him whatever you want, but it won't make him identify himself differently.

> Anyone can try and get the Democrat nomination for president,

Yes, and lots of people do.

People who aren’t accepted by other Democrats as part of the team don’t end up with large blocks of convention delegates and a major role in shaping the rules going forward due to that.

> they don't limit it to card carrying Democrats

No such thing exists, unless you are talking about people who pay membership fees to the DNC, but that's a pretty narrow definition.

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

#303

Post by skyyler »

Draiken wrote: post #266
legitster wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not directly, only by proxy. Profit is king. At Amazon scales, you weigh in how much money you'll save by breaking laws and eventually getting a slap on the wrist fine versus all other alternatives. Unsurprisingly it's often much cheaper to be terrible to your employees and replace them endlessly, than it is to not be terrible. Especially once you make unionization nigh impossible.

Yep. You understand it.

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

#304

Post by parineum »

vkou wrote: post #245
parineum wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [0] See, for example, the J&J case, which was an even more generous form of the same. I think you have seen a very simplified view of that situation, likely provided by the opposing lawyers. J&J has agreed to give that company 2 billion dollars and the bankruptcy filing would, essentially, be forcing the lawsuit against them to be settled for 2 billion dollars and then, most importantly to J&J, the matter wouldn't…

> They are trying to limit being perpetually sued for the same issue. Why shouldn't they be perpetually sued for the same issue, until they've fully paid their debt to society, and every person they've harmed is made whole?

I made no argument that they shouldn't, that's just what they are doing.

I replied to point out that the attempts to limit their liability to 2 billion dollars has, so far, failed.

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

#305

Post by Amezarak »

CSMastermind wrote: post #219
esalman wrote: post #204

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…

Hospitals and public health systems owned and operated by city and county governments are not actually unusual in the US. They're fairly common.

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

#306

Post by taude »

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.

Especially once they get some of that Greatest Transfer of Wealth, ever.

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

#307

Post by nocoiner »

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.

Congress had the right idea when they made ERISA pension liabilities joint liabilities among controlled companies. Of course, that’s probably one of the factors that contributed to the decline of private sector pensions, but I think some new joint liability laws would be a great idea.

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

#308

Post by notyourwork »

cassepipe wrote: post #129
notyourwork wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are all humans. Irrespective of their income level. Not sure what minimum wage has to do with whether or not being polite and pleasant conversation is exchanged.

Well if I don't like my job and I am only doing it in order to feed myself being nice to you when I am tired and want to go home and it's only 15:00 is work . I get that some people are naturally nice and some others are not and find excuses not to be but all of cashiers in the supermarket I go to give you tired unconvincing robotic "Good morning/evening" and "Goodbye" and you can tell they are tired of it. Also they…

It sounds like you and I were raised differently. In the end, it is all about stepping out of yourself and understanding the reality of the person in front of you. That is a two way street.

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

#309

Post by notyourwork »

alvarezbjm-hn wrote: post #102
notyourwork wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are all humans. Irrespective of their income level. Not sure what minimum wage has to do with whether or not being polite and pleasant conversation is exchanged.

Economic hardships cause emotional distress, and you can't rationalize feelings. Your civil expectations probably match your income level, but not that below you. E.g. Not getting enough sleep because your poor neighborhood is a ruckus provokes bad mood, chronically.

My civil expectations match what I expect from other people and how I treat people in the world. Has nothing to do with my income and is based on how I was raised by my parents to treat people you interact with in the world.

I've done hard labor (construction, landscaping), I've done food service (sandwich shop) and I've done lots of white collar office work. Wealthy people can be nice and decent to people who have a much smaller income AND vice versa.

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

#310

Post by cmh89 »

sokoloff wrote: post #290
muttled wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading your comment, I had the thought "I wonder if California's done it?" Turns out they've tried it 10 times. I'd imagine there's a lot of money being thrown against the initiative by for-profit insurance companies, which is an industry with a lot of cash to buy laws. https://stateofreform.com/featured/2023/05/california-seeks-...

That reads like they've tried to try it 9 or 10 times. They haven't even gotten to the point of finding out what all might turn out differently in a US state than in an EU country surrounded by other EU countries, all with roughly similar approaches to public health care.

I work in public health at a state government, in a western state. The biggest hurdle I see is that America has freedom of movement and residency. If my state creates truly affordable health care, we will of course have refugees from conservative states coming here for medical care.

We'll probably end up with a public option of some kind that will somewhat function like health insurance but who knows.

Post reply on HN