Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#51

Post by DangitBobby »

slicktux wrote: post #33
figmert wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.

That’s a rather splenetic response. On paper their contractor requires them to run an Amazon route and wear Amazon logo. Therefore, it’s not Amazon. I’m asking honest question that any court law will ask; cynicism is not part of the scales in court but rather objectivity.

This is why they want to fix the paper to say Amazon is making them do it.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#53

Post by FatherOfCurses »

chii wrote: post #32
EugeneG wrote: post #12

Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…

The people making propaganda (and yes, this is propaganda) knows that people are not rational but emotional. The video targets emotions - that amazon shirks responsibility is an emotional appeal. The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like…

Equating Amazon with a general home construction contractor is quite a stretch.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#54

Post by DangitBobby »

richwater wrote: post #50
pandanube wrote: post #2

This guy cant stop winning, can we clone him and get one for each state?

Anyone can balance a budget by just delaying pension contributions. It's not impressive. What happens next year?

You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#55

Post by podgietaru »

I'm surprised to see so much of the rhetoric here being about what the concrete difference is... It is relatively easy to look that up, no?

As far as I can see from a literal 5 second google search:

- Liability for Injury at work is no longer on Amazon

- Liability for injuries caused by Amazon workers get shifted to the Worker, rather than Amazon (despite the fact that some of the conditions leading to that may come from Amazon themselves)

- It is harder to negotiate, as Amazon's official position is that "They do not work for us"

- It is easier to stop employment of sub-contractors.

The video already mentions this, but the idea of sub-contracting is that you are responsible for your own hours, routes, etc. This is clearly not the case for these workers.

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#56

Post by dartharva »

stackskipton wrote: post #40
EugeneG wrote: post #12

Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the as…

So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#57

Post by dartharva »

tptacek wrote: post #14
jtbayly wrote: post #9

But… what does it do?! I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?

It requires Amazon to directly employ delivery drivers in New York City and sets up a licensing scheme for last-mile delivery.

Isn't that.. worse? Putting local businesses out of jobs and instead consolidating all of them directly under the company's umbrella?

Re: It's time Amazon played by the same rules as everyone else [video]

#59

Post by EugeneG »

stackskipton wrote: post #40
EugeneG wrote: post #12

Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers? There are insinuat…

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the as…

But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own.

You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue...

Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?

Post reply on HN