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

381–390 of 431 posts

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

#381

Post by StockHuman »

sharts wrote: post #363
outside1234 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would seem unlikely that all sick people would move just for one perk. Most people do not take moving as a light decision. Also most people that actually do move would likely have jobs with taxable wages that helps to subsidize things. The real risk population is maybe the homeless sick that migrate. But those tend to be in a different category entirely (e.g mental illness, addiction, trafficking etc.)

Well sharts, most people don’t take dying too lightly either. Free care for the gravely infirm would be, to a point, the only perk that mattered at the exclusion of all others. Likewise with the possibility of total bankruptcy.

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

#382

Post by IggleSniggle »

sharts wrote: post #366
sokoloff wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They haven’t actually tried it. The last time it was yanked from being voted on because politicians make promises to get elected and are then told by their donors not to dip into their profit pools. But in many ways California already has it if you qualify based on income (Medi-Cal / Medicaid). It actually works well which is why it won’t be made available to everyone. Stock prices and profit margins would drop too m…

If you want consumers that spend more money on your products, you need consumers with more money. To some degree, an inefficient healthcare system stands in the way of every other industry's profits. A suitably ambitious middle manager at a large company could probably make a dent. A CEO of such a company might actually capture some of that inefficiency.

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

#383

Post by chefandy »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #370
chefandy wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a productive tactic-- it leads people to believe the situation isn't as bad as it is. The only people who get actually free care at the ER are too poor for debt collectors to bother harassing. There's no reality in which giving someone a bill for tens of thousands of dollars constitutes socialized medicine just because they don't have to pay upfront.

We pay for a socialized healthcare system already, we just pay the same amount again of private overhead on top of an already socialized system. Our system is just a huge waste at this point.

We certainly waste more money than we'd spend on socialized health care. I've heard plenty of people argue that we don't need socialized health care because hospitals are required to treat people without upfront payment. Those two things are only tangentially related and tying them together in that context doesn't seem like a great position to argue from.

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

#384

Post by mcpackieh »

bbwbsb wrote: post #265
mcpackieh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses have policies that you're supposed to do this for the same reason that businesses have policies that you're not supposed to spit on people; basic human decency needs to be encoded because some minority of people won't go for it otherwise. Being pleasant to strangers even when you're having a bad day is basic human decency, and of course it's supposed to go both ways. If I'm a customer at a burger shop and…

Reading what you wrote, I'm concerned that you may be suggesting that all disclosures of negative emotions to strangers are verboten. I worry, because my spouse had a rough upbringing and it's taken a lot for her to feel comfortable expressing how she feels in a candid way. I strongly desire that people feel comfortable expressing how they feel without judging themselves as burdensome, inappropriate, needy, selfish,…

> Reading what you wrote, I'm concerned that you may be suggesting that all disclosures of negative emotions to strangers are verboten.

I'm glad to alleviate your concern then: No.

What should be considered verboten is using strangers as your punching bag because you're having a bad day for reasons unrelated to them.

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

#385

Post by cassepipe »

notyourwork wrote: post #308
cassepipe wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

""" In every single person there's a Slim Shady lurking He could be working at Burger King, spittin' on your onion rings """

Given long enough doing robotic work under what you seem unfair/dehumanizing conditions, the Slim Shady may come out. But who knows maybe you are a different breed, good for you.

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

#386

Post by parineum »

FireBeyond wrote: post #358
parineum wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lawsuit…

I don't know what you're trying to explain. You cited J&J in your original post as a company who got away with it, they didn't, you were mistaken. They're trying but are not successful. The situation, as of today, is that J&J (through their subsidiary), will be able to be sued an held liable for any negative health effects from their products.

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

Nobody is. The legal system, however, is currently doing it's part to keep them fair.

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

Who cares, they can file whatever they want. The bankruptcy was dismissed because the company they created was not in danger of insolvency at all because they're wholly owned and funded by J&J who is not insolvent. That's what _should_ have happened in the GP case and what _is_ happening in the J&J case.

Your cynicism is completely unwarranted yet you seem very inclined to keep it up.

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

#387

Post by seanmcdirmid »

chefandy wrote: post #383
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay for a socialized healthcare system already, we just pay the same amount again of private overhead on top of an already socialized system. Our system is just a huge waste at this point.

We certainly waste more money than we'd spend on socialized health care. I've heard plenty of people argue that we don't need socialized health care because hospitals are required to treat people without upfront payment. Those two things are only tangentially related and tying them together in that context doesn't seem like a great position to argue from.

> I've heard plenty of people argue that we don't need socialized health care because hospitals are required to treat people without upfront payment.

This is why countries like Switzerland require everyone to buy insurance. The system doesn't work if everyone freeloads.

(I guess we would still call Switzerland socialized, since the insurance prices are heavily regulated, everyone is basically in the same risk pools, and subsidies are given to those who don't meet thresholds)

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

#388

Post by vkou »

ffhhttt wrote: post #374
finite_depth wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

White college graduates are almost evenly split between the parties..

And what does the white highschool dropout split look like?

Obama lost the white non-college educated vote by 26 points to Romney, by the way.

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

#389

Post by dfadsadsf »

StockHuman wrote: post #381
sharts wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem unlikely that all sick people would move just for one perk. Most people do not take moving as a light decision. Also most people that actually do move would likely have jobs with taxable wages that helps to subsidize things. The real risk population is maybe the homeless sick that migrate. But those tend to be in a different category entirely (e.g mental illness, addiction, trafficking etc.)

Well sharts, most people don’t take dying too lightly either. Free care for the gravely infirm would be, to a point, the only perk that mattered at the exclusion of all others. Likewise with the possibility of total bankruptcy.

This problems is mostly solved for in state vs out of state tuition. Just institute 12-15 month waiting period or 3 months waiting period with full time job.

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

#390

Post by edmundsauto »

mdasen wrote: post #349
88913527 wrote: post #138

I'd be willing to accept a 0.25% less return annually on the S&P index if workers had meaningfully better existences. It might even increase returns if workers could be more productive by having dignified lives. This is the best way to frame thinking about things in our current macroeconomic environment.

I think the issue is that it might not be a small difference. Most companies don't make that much money on a profit per employee basis. https://i.imgur.com/SF6RGxX.png Amazon makes $21,000/employee per year and that's just the direct employees, not including all the subcontracted stuff like this. Walmart makes $6,000/employee per year. Walmart might be an easier example to pick on because they have fewer subcontracte…

This assumes there isn't a situation where worker output is static. I think there's an argument that treating workers better would increase their job satisfaction and overall attitude. When workers are happier, they are better at their jobs - this could nudge up sales and margins.

My hypothesis as to why companies don't do this is 1) smart ones ARE doing this (see FAANG), 2) it's harder to measure whereas cost savings are a great way to focus on short term.

Post reply on HN