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

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:10 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #400

AlbertCory wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"

I don't think anyone said that laws were being interpreted wrongly? The claim was that some laws have multiple tenable interpretations. So for those laws you can have multiple distinct options, none of which are wrong ways to read the text. The thing called "wrong" was the idea that laws never do this.

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:58 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #403

AlbertCory wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you think this is an important point. Judges exist to determine what is the correct way to read the law. They don't always get it right, but that doesn't mean anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense.

> I guess you think this is an important point. I don't really want to get into the importance of it here. But I do think it's true , so I replied when you called that specific point wrong. > GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense. Which comment? I don't see it.

Post by oneTbrain23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 9:43 AM UTC

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.

Post by saikia81 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 11:30 AM UTC

icedistilled wrote: post #269

ryandrake wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of investors are not willing to accept anything less than "the highest possible returns legally achievable". Therefore,, everything that can legally be thrown under the bus in exchange for profit eventually gets thrown under the bus. Including workers' pay and conditions, product quality, customer service, customer privacy and security, every manageable cost. The minute one company re…

"the vast majority of investors are not willing to accept anything less than "the highest possible returns legally achievable"" One important correction because they definitely aren't getting the highest return by those antics Fixed: "the vast majority of investors are not willing to accept anything but the highest expected return when only considering easily quantified first order short term effects" That's an impor…

Post by cudgy » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 2:16 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #348

Dr_Birdbrain wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, I see a huge difference between high-end health plans (for example, at places like Meta, which include IVF coverage) and middle-of-the-road plans (like my employer provides) and bare-minimum plans (like MediCal). Which plan would we be talking about for government coverage? I assume barebones plans. In that case, it still matters who you work for, because some employers still provide much better coverag…

He didn't say anything about government coverage. He said to stop tying coverage to employment. Doing the latter doesn't mean we have to switch to government coverage. Instead of your employer paying you $S salary per year + paying $M per year for the premiums for whatever group plan they use they would pay you $S + $M salary and you would buy whatever health insurance you wanted directly.