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

351–360 of 431 posts

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

#351

Post by parineum »

FireBeyond wrote: post #332
parineum wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somewhat. There's not a whole lot that can actually be done. Georgia Pacific was faced with 62,000+ claims. They went through this same process. Spun off their subsidiary. "Pledged" to fund it with an "initial" billion dollars, and that GP would fund all claims. Never happened. They actually only funded $175M. Less than $3,000 per claimant for asbestos related injuries. That is, less than $3,000 before legal fees . A…

Great. That's not currently happening in the J&J case. You spoke as if it had already happened. It has not and is not trending that way.

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

#352

Post by telotortium »

ceejayoz wrote: post #344
telotortium wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "only to residents who've lived here longer than x" would raise equal protection constitutional issues States seem to apply residency consideration all the time to college tuition and taxes, among others. Why would equal protection be an issue here? Austin, TX can't implement this on its own without state support, but cities don't have any federal constitutional rights apart from their containing states, so that's…

> States seem to apply residency consideration all the time to college tuition and taxes, among others. Why would equal protection be an issue here? Because you're either going to have to pick some fairly short period of time - a year or less - which won't be that much of an obstacle to folks seeking healthcare (especially if private healthcare remains available in that interim period), or you'll run afoul of Zobel v…

Yes, that is a trade-off.

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

#353

Post by zer8k »

taude wrote: post #207
esalman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not enough far left leaning Dems to make Bernie a reality.

This post really indicates how deep the mainstream misinformation networks have penetrated the minds of the American.

The "real" Republican party, consisting of younger voters, is by-and-large populist. Majority of them are pro-gay (though, anti-trans), pro legalization of weed, pro gun, and pro free healthcare.

The problem is that the real Republican party consists of 80 year old neoliberal sacks of garbage. These are the people making the laws. The Democrats are not different. It may seem to be a cliche that "both parties are the same" but when you observe effected policy vs proposed policy both parties fall along the neoliberal line almost perfectly. What we have a neoliberal gerontocracy. Not a democracy.

This is why internally there's a struggle for the R's to keep young voters. The same problem D's are having. While the D's are blowing their own foot off going too far off to the left socially, the R's are blowing their own foot off sticking to their dogmatic 1960s neoliberal policies.

It's far more complicated than left/right dynamics. Its absurd to me how much misinformation CNN/Fox/MSNBC/NPR put out about this. If anyone on the left actually wandered to their nearest blue collar bar and asked people what they thought on "the issues" you'd probably find they are more "liberal" than you were let on by your favorite misinformation artist.

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

#354

Post by outside1234 »

cebert wrote: post #347
esalman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Republican Party has been becoming more of a populist party. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start backing such policies or universal income as we deal with several societal and economic changes.

… but only for folks who “deserve it” (aka white)

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

#355

Post by outside1234 »

muttled wrote: post #284
sokoloff wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are US states more populous than some European countries. Maybe a city can’t do it, but plenty of states could. It’s just damn expensive to try.

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-...

The problem with doing it at the state level is that then all the sick will move to that state. Which won’t work from a risk pool perspective

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

#356

Post by jholman »

parineum wrote: post #136
polygamous_bat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a single product that kills people, you aren't legally allowed to put all your liabilities and none of your assets into another (non-shell, by your definition) company to get out of your liabilities. [0] What's happening here is quite similar. [0] See, for example, the J&J case, which was an even more generous form of the same.

> [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…

According to Matt Levine (in his Jan 31st column), this is an incorrect summary of the J&J case (though a correct summary of Texas Two-step in general), because according to J&J's proposal, LTL could draw on up to $61.5 BILLION dollars of J&J's value to backstop the talc suits, a value agreed to be far more than any plausible sum of the claims. According to Levine, the purpose was for the settlements to be orderly.

I have no horse in the race, and no ability to assess the law. I just thought it was a pretty interesting claim, and in general my experience has been that Levine seems pretty savvy. Though he hasn't given an update on the July 28th ruling, so shrug.

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

#357

Post by mlinhares »

cebert wrote: post #347
esalman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Republican Party has been becoming more of a populist party. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start backing such policies or universal income as we deal with several societal and economic changes.

Populism is mostly separating people in two groups, "the people" and "the elites" and saying you're from "the people". You don't actually have to do anything for the people, just convince them you're with them (hence all the populists winning elections out there, like Trump).

Odds Republicans would ever do something like this with the current party are nil, a large part of republican donors are big businesses that would never back anything that empowers workers.

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

#358

Post by FireBeyond »

parineum wrote: post #351
FireBeyond wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat. There's not a whole lot that can actually be done. Georgia Pacific was faced with 62,000+ claims. They went through this same process. Spun off their subsidiary. "Pledged" to fund it with an "initial" billion dollars, and that GP would fund all claims. Never happened. They actually only funded $175M. Less than $3,000 per claimant for asbestos related injuries. That is, less than $3,000 before legal fees . A…

Great. That's not currently happening in the J&J case. You spoke as if it had already happened. It has not and is not trending that way.

It's pretty close to identical. Especially when you consider it's the same law firm.

GP tried to limit their liabilities. Court said 'no'. GP said, "Okay, fine. We'll put an initial $1B in the pot and GP will fund all lawsuit payouts against Best Wall" (emphasis mine).

All agreed.

Then GP decided that after review, they were only going to put $175M in Best Wall's bank account, which could pay off a few of the lawsuits, and then finalized its bankruptcy.

When plaintiffs and others came to GP to get it to honor its commitment, they said "Best Wall is a fully independent entity with no legal connection to GP. So... no."

Let's not act like J&J is trying to be in any way 'fair' about making sure claimants are taken care of.

When the judge initially dismissed their bankruptcy filing, they updated the number and refiled within hours. That's taking the piss.

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

#359

Post by ipaddr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #344
telotortium wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "only to residents who've lived here longer than x" would raise equal protection constitutional issues States seem to apply residency consideration all the time to college tuition and taxes, among others. Why would equal protection be an issue here? Austin, TX can't implement this on its own without state support, but cities don't have any federal constitutional rights apart from their containing states, so that's…

> States seem to apply residency consideration all the time to college tuition and taxes, among others. Why would equal protection be an issue here? Because you're either going to have to pick some fairly short period of time - a year or less - which won't be that much of an obstacle to folks seeking healthcare (especially if private healthcare remains available in that interim period), or you'll run afoul of Zobel v…

You structure it as paying into a plan. For each year lived in the state you get 20% coverage (upto 5 years) which would smooth out the cost and provide fairness to poorer local residents.

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

#360

Post by jholman »

whalesalad wrote: post #137
rootusrootus wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a smart business move from an economic point of view? Aside from some regional differences in vehicle/transport law (which I bet are not as different as you'd expect, a lot of this is federalized), this should cost Amazon more , not less . The scale works to their advantage. Having subcontractors is strictly more expensive since there's an extra layer of profit.

> which I bet are not as different as you'd expect, a lot of this is federalized I've lived in 5 different states over the course of my life. The operating environment varies substantially. Local ordinances vary greatly. Fuel costs. Climate (vehicles in Phoenix are not exposed to rust, salt, etc while here in Michigan they are). Local labor laws, unemployment costs, insurance costs and restrictions. It's literally co…

Delivery is Amazon's core competency, IMO.

By which I mean, their superior quality of delivery is the reason I buy stuff from them.

The worst Amazon driver is better in every way than the best Fedex or UPS, and I'm loathe to dignify Canada Post by even mentioning them.

Post reply on HN