Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

oneTbrain23 wrote: post #406

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.

Thesw workers already agreed to Amazon employment contract. If they are not happy they can quit and join high paying programming jobs by Apple or Meta...assuming they can code. Instead, they wish to renegade on their employment contracts and blackmail Amazon (which indirect jack our price) via a cartel known as union. Union tactics are usually very straightforward....we want more....in exchange we dont go on strike t…

Why do you think the answer to labor issues it to get everyone to learn how to code?

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

#412

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

epivosism wrote: post #173

tech_ken wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the problem is that the labor "market" has many weird inefficiencies not found in the usual "buyer X selling widget Y" model of the free market. For example, the poorer you are the less elasticity you have in your labor "product"; by the mere necessity of paying rent and buying food you have to accept virtually any offer that comes your way. On the other hand, employers often negotiate from a position of substant…

I agree that this is a theoretical weakness. In the US currently, though, it seems that this rarely ever comes into play. i.e. in SF the city gives anyone money to survive for food/etc. w/out working. I think truly not having options is very rare in the 1st world in general. If you think this is an active issue here, I'm open to looking further into it. So I agree that while exploitation by monopolies is possible (in…

The free market has options and then showing something that was designed in SF precisely because the free market fails people is not a very good argument for the free market.

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

#413

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:32 PM 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.

IIRC there are provisions in the NLRA that address situations like this. If Amazon primarily directs the activities of the workers, not the contractor company, if Amazon can dismiss individual employees then they're consider a kind of joint employer and can still be unionized against.

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

#414

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:38 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #267

deelowe wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the US uses the common law system. Laws are written and the courts then interpret them. The courts should be telling these yahoos that these actions are against the intent of the law.

> courts then interpret them. correct. They interpret what the law says , not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.

Legislative intent is a factor in statutory interpretation. You start with the text of the law and read it using the statutory interpretation statue. If it's still unclear then you look at legislative intent and previous interpretations to fill in the blanks.

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

#415

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

nicechianti wrote: post #240

nitwit005 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real fix is to stop tying various benefits to employment, so there'd be no need to worry about who is full time or part time, or who they work for. Unfortunately, changing most of those programs is political suicide, particularly anything health care related.

and fix immigration so there are fewer illegals reaping those benefits

Uh yeah, you're just being a nativist. The US has absurdly low immigration limits(Canada a county a 10th the size accepts the same number of permanent residents each year)and the 'benefits' are compensation for the job they worked.

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

#416

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

cmh89 wrote: post #310

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.

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.

This is a challenge. It would be unconstitutional to out right ban individuals from getting the benefits, but maybe a waiting period would be constitutional(i.e. must be a resident for 1 year to sign up).

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

#417

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:47 PM UTC

ffhhttt wrote: post #372

sharts wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices could probably drop if the market was saturated with doctors. And the best way to do that would be eliminating medical-school debt.

I thought the limited number of residencies was the real bottleneck?

Both

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

#418

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

ffhhttt wrote: post #372

sharts wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices could probably drop if the market was saturated with doctors. And the best way to do that would be eliminating medical-school debt.

I thought the limited number of residencies was the real bottleneck?

Both are important. The high cost of medical school means people are only going to try and go for the specialties that pay the most (surgery, oncology, radiology, etc) leaving a shortage of Drs in other specialties like primary care/family medicine.

Primary care reimbursement rates also need to be raised and we need more preventative treatments that insurance is required to pay for.

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

#419

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 7:15 PM UTC

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…

"They are trying to limit being perpetually sued for the same issue"

Isn't that what class actions are for?

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

#420

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #7

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.

These aren't contractors like Uber drivers. They are corporations that are contractors of Amazon, and the drivers are employees of those companies. How would this possibly be a legal issue?

They are companies who's employees wear Amazon uniforms, drive Amazon branded vans, deliver packages only for Amazon, Amazon determines the routes and performance metrics for the employees, Amazon can dismiss the employees without waiting for approval from the companies management.

These employees are Amazon employees in all but name.