Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
1–10 of 431 posts
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#2This 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.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#3[dead]
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#4Good thing we pay so much tax to the government to address things like this.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#5This 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.
[deleted]
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#6This 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.
The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#7This 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?
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#8This 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.
"Shell company" isn't a legal term and has varying definitions, but generally is a company that only exists on paper and doesn't do anything. These companies deliver products for Amazon.
Make sense to whom? People that have no experience with running a business and hiring subcontractors?
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#9This 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.
The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.
Absolutely. The courts are supposed to be the last vestige of common sense. It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense.
Re: Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.
Absolutely. The courts are supposed to be the last vestige of common sense. It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense.
> It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense.
See also: [0], sometimes it may not be judges "dropping the ball" but rather playing the ball for their own benefits.
However we spin it, corruption in the US is a larger problem than we like to pretend it is.
[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...