Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

421–430 of 431 posts

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

#421
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the employees of the contractor companies ultimately work for only one company - Amazon - that means they should be treated like employees of Amazon. This is the same situation when independent contractors have only one client.

Why? A company hiring another company like this seems perfectly reasonable to me. There is no argument to be made about contractor vs employee status because the employees are still full time employees. Why should they have to be an employee of a single corporate parent? When companies like Amazon buy other companies and vertically integrate, people complain. When Amazon contracts with vendors instead, people complai…

Yeah, you're just wrong. It's not like Amazon is doling out work to local delivery companies out of the goodness of their heart.

They're setting up these companies as part of their DSP program to limit their liability. They're following the chicken industries playbook(which shouldn't be legal either) by requiring the DSP use Amazon equipment, with a loan from Amazon, pay back by revenue from Amazon.

They're also using this as part of an anti-unionization strategy. One of their DSPs recently unionized and Amazon just cancelled their contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/24/amazon-deliv...

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

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to be rude here, but I highly recommend you do a little more research on the common law system and how it works. At it's core, common law states that laws are interpreted over time and these interpretations become the official law of the land. There is no requirement that every conceivable form of infraction be enumerated within the law itself. Patents are something else entirely and not relevant to this d…

I don't know what your legal credentials are (are you a lawyer?). I had an article cited in an amicus brief to SCOTUS for the CLS Bank case, plus a shorter one in Law360. What have you published? Aside from that, I helped with numerous claim construction briefs. I highly recommend you educate yourself about the distinction between common law and statutory law, since you seem confused: > A clarification of the term "c…

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about labor laws and there have been prior instances where interpretations of labor law, the intent of the law, and how contractors were treated trumped what was written in the contracts (e.g. permatemps).

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

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a very dedicated Sanders supporter, and to say he "was nearly President" in 2016 is just not true. Yes, by the end of the primary he'd gained a lot of steam, but that was the end of the primary. Sanders was in a pretty hopeless situation delegate-wise by Super Tuesday, and only briefly polled within even ten points of Clinton. He was closer in 2020. But in 2020, Democratic primary voters got a very simple choice…

Clinton won 2016 in large part because of her overwhelming majorities in deeply red states which wasn’t that helpful during the elections. Also because the Democratic primaries were objectively and transparently rigged. IIRC wasn’t Sanders polling better against Trump than Clinton? Then again most conceivable candidates probably would have…

Of the states that Bernie won, only seven were solidly Democratic-voting (Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Democrats Abroad). Five more are dem-leaning swing states, or were at the time (Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire). The other 11 are solidly Republican: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and West Virginia, and Alaska. If anything, it was Bernie, not Clinton, who overperformed in Republican-leaning areas.

That's largely because both the 2016 and 2020 generals, and the 2016 and 2020 primaries, were highly split along racial and educational lines. Black voters voted overwhelmingly for moderates in primaries and Democrats in the generals in all three contests, while white voters tended towards the more radical candidates in both primaries and the general (although the Bernie -> Trump vote gets exaggerated, it certainly existed, and his massive upset in Michigan foreshadowed Clinton's weakness there).

> Also because the Democratic primaries were objectively and transparently rigged.

Well, in terms of delegates, sure. But Bernie didn't win the vote, either. Clinton beat him by 12 points, not all that much different from the margin Biden was beating him in '20 prior to him dropping out.

> IIRC wasn’t Sanders polling better against Trump than Clinton? Then again most conceivable candidates probably would have…

The polling was a wash, ish, between the two. But of course the polling was also wrong in undersampling critical demographic groups that probably preferred Sanders to Clinton (although I'll note that Clinton won the primary in Pennsylvania, which she ultimately and decisively lost).

With the benefit of hindsight, maybe Democrats would have done a lot of things differently. (I certainly would have - I was so frustrated after Bernie lost that I ultimately voted third-party, although I might not have had I lived in a competitive state.) But certainly conventional wisdom at the time for virtually anyone in the know was that Trump was very unlikely to win, even as his popularity endured through things it never should have, and I don't necessarily blame them for mis-reading an electorate whose simmering frustration was suddenly at a boil.

My point being that Bernie being right does not mean he was, even with the benefit of hindsight, the correct electoral choice, nor does it mean there's some silent majority of Democrats who want progressive action but aren't voting for it.

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

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well into my 30s, in the top few percent for income in the US, and live in California (one of the highest tax states), and I happily pay them. I'm alive today because of their benefits, and I'd be the worst kind of hypocrite to pull the ladder up after me. People's objection to social safety nets mostly isn't their desire to keep their money. It's a perception that the people who need those safety nets are lazy b…

Yeah, the sad fact is that people who received the fewest benefits and outside help are people more likely to reject a social safety network. What's sad is that these are the people who are most likely to benefit from this progressive change. It's suggested that they fear that a (small) fraction of people are lazy and parasitical and will manipulate and abuse these systems. In some ways, I'm more cynical, and believe…

This sort of "suffering is a virtue" thinking is, unfortunately, VERY deeply rooted in American (and more broadly, Anglo-Protestant) culture. It's good old fashioned Calvinism wrapped in capitalism.

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

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well into my 30s, in the top few percent for income in the US, and live in California (one of the highest tax states), and I happily pay them. I'm alive today because of their benefits, and I'd be the worst kind of hypocrite to pull the ladder up after me. People's objection to social safety nets mostly isn't their desire to keep their money. It's a perception that the people who need those safety nets are lazy b…

You're an exception. Plenty of people are just fine with pulling up the ladder after them. Second generation immigrants don't like immigration, people that benefited from free tuition want to make schools paid and so on. It's really insane if you stop to think about it long enough: our whole society is based on the fact that we have each other, and yet, we can't spare a dime for our fellows because we're on a short l…

I am an exception, yes. But I think the reason I'm an exception - the fact that I've experienced, very directly, very personally, and very nearly fatally - the insane hell that is American poverty - is important.

People aren't opposed to helping people who need it. They just don't understand that people need it.

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

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If everyone in the US was in the same risk pool, and we had some good rules in place to prevent insurance company fuckery like denying legitimate claims based on spurious accusations that are difficult to prove wrong or preexisting conditions, then it probably wouldn't matter that it was private. But at that point, why make it private? If we acknowledge that insurance is so fundamental to existence that we require people to buy it, and the individual mandate says that we do, why add stockholders into the mix? At least make it a gov-owned private company like the fed if people are worried about executive dexterity.

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

#427
post #349

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…

> 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.

Workers who are paid and treated better will be healthier both physically and mentally, and will be happier to come to work. That will improve their productivity. It's not zero-sum.

They will also have more money to spend at places such as their employer, although that results in a Tragedy of the Commons scenario. Each individual business gets back only a fraction of that increased buying power.

(Yes, yes, inflation, etc., etc.)

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

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we're done here.

It would only take seconds for you to link the comment if it actually existed. I accept your "done here" with performative lack of capitalization.

you had the last word there. Happy now?

Reply stupidly to this and you can have it again.

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

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what your legal credentials are (are you a lawyer?). I had an article cited in an amicus brief to SCOTUS for the CLS Bank case, plus a shorter one in Law360. What have you published? Aside from that, I helped with numerous claim construction briefs. I highly recommend you educate yourself about the distinction between common law and statutory law, since you seem confused: > A clarification of the term "c…

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about labor laws and there have been prior instances where interpretations of labor law, the intent of the law, and how contractors were treated trumped what was written in the contracts (e.g. permatemps).

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Contracts? What does that have to do with it and when did those come up?

Before, you were "not trying to be rude" about "common law," and I just demonstrated that common law has nothing to do with labor laws. Common law is judge-written law developed over centuries, as those references I gave you lay out.

Labor laws are statutory law, sometimes modified by administrative rulings. As I said at the start of this, laws are construed by judges, much like patent claims are. Whether Amazon's indirect contractors are "employees" or not comes down to judges' constructions of the relevant laws, which in turn is influenced by the briefs submitted by each side. That's why California has had voter initiatives to change the laws.

So what is the dispute, again?

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

#430
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a Canadian cousin over here, if you can't tell the difference between a smile/a polite "Hi, how can I help you?"/a "have a nice day", and an actual conversation involving smalltalk, then you clearly don't know about what you're criticising. That's literally his point, the whole friendly-service-with-a-smile thing is forced on them by their managers/corporate, it's not from a sincere desire to have an actual conve…

> That's literally his point, the whole friendly-service-with-a-smile thing is forced on them by their managers/corporate, Courtesy with customers is forced on them? My god! The next thing you'll tell me they're expected not to curse at their co-workers, too! What kind of world is this?! > it's not from a sincere desire to have an actual conversation with customers. Once again, and as I already said in the very text…

So would you expect that kind of attitude from your doctor and complain if you don't get it? Your lawyer? A police officer pulling you over? A judge? Your boss? Don't think so. So yes, with that (which is admittedly an assumption) in mind I don't think it's any kind of jump to say you think service industry workers are beneath you.

Verbal abuse and general surliness isn't the only alternative to the false sincerity and you immediately jumping to the opposite end of the spectrum is frankly just arguing in bad faith. It can just be a neutral interaction, you can require your employees to have have common courtesy and be polite without being completely servile and obsequious.

"That'll be 10.97, cash or card?" "Cash, here you go" "2.18 is your change" "Thanks" "No problem"

Post reply on HN