6 ms·

I hate to get pedantic, but with the misuse of terms for the purpose of demagoguing against those with more capital, I feel compelled to point out that an emplo

I hate to get pedantic, but with the misuse of terms for the purpose of demagoguing against those with more capital, I feel compelled to point out that an employment relationship is wholly contractual, and therefore not a "tyranny", and perfectly consistent with a completely democratic society. Maybe the author means "egalitarian" or some other concept tangentially related to democracy. Voluntarily formed hierarchies are perfectly consistent with a free and democratic society. But points to the author on hitting people's emotional buttons with her victim/outrage politics.

trendia 9y ago
This is my disagreement with the article as well. I agree with the author that Amazon Fulfillment should need to give employees adequate breaks, but I don't agree that the rules make Amazon a government: they don't have law enforcement, a court system, the power to make laws, an army, etc. At least a majority of these are necessary to be considered a government.
- ctulek 9y ago
  If the government backs your inhuman activities, you practically have all these institutions at your disposal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cphoover 9y ago
Haven't read the article... but my response to you is that not every "contractual" agreement is voluntary. Think people working minimum wage jobs to feed their children, or children working in sweatshops in asia. I get what you are saying... that it is a click bait title, but the fact remains that the late-stage capitalistic hierarchies that form are not totally unlike other labor systems (indentured servitude/slavery) that we have generally deemed as immoral.
- GhostVII 9y ago
  How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Really, the company giving the person their minimum wage job is more 'moral' than the other companies in the area, because the other companies offered an even worse job, or didn't offer one at all.
  - subway 9y ago
    I mean, I guess giving up and letting your family or yourself starve is an option. For a lot of folks in low wage positions, the mere act of looking for an alternative puts their current wages in jeopardy. Their employer may decide they're now disloyal and sack them. They bring home less money because they have to spend unpaid time searching for a new gig -- they'd do it outside of work hours, but at some point you have to sleep and feed the kids, right?
    - GhostVII 9y ago
      Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.
        Jabanga 9y ago
        You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?
nxsynonym 9y ago
Yeah, I don't understand the need to compare the structure of a business to the structure of a countries government in the first place. Employment relationships are contractual, and completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person or company to receive that income. The working conditions mentioned in the article are insane, but you "vote" by choosing not to work for that company. I also take issue with "Like Louis XIV’s government, the typical American workplace is kept private from those it governs." What world is the author living in where normal governments disclose 100% of the information they hold or receive?
- namlem 9y ago
  Eh I don't know if I would describe all employment contracts as completely voluntary. There are plenty of workers without the ability to change jobs easily. If you're broke, have kids, and have few skills, it's very hard to change careers.
  - nxsynonym 9y ago
    Difficult to change yes, but you are not obligated or physically forced to stay with any one country. If it were a true dictatorship, as the article claims, you would have no say in where you apply, what you accept, when you decide to leave, etc.
    - inb4dangshitban 9y ago
      Oh. Right. And a family with kids, probably with some debt is going to get ID's (cost) and all the riddiculous paperwork (more cost), get passports (even more cost) pack up, switch countries (COOOOOST) and magically be allowed to work there even though they are not citizens? Right. People voluntarily work at places where you have to piss yourself because you can't have a bathroom break. I don't even.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person Would chattel slavery be voluntary too if the slaves had a degree of choice over which master used them?
jinjin2 9y ago
A better example would be schools, which are definitely run as tyrannies, and where the students are legally compelled to stay in place. Democratic schools do exist, but they are few and far in between.
- valuearb 9y ago
  That's only true of Public schools, Charter and Private schools give parents the ability to take their kids elsewhere if they are ill-served. Obviously children don't usually get a say, but they usually don't have a say in anything until they become adults.
fallingfrog 9y ago
Tyranny is not black and white. Just because this is not North Korea does not mean that we are free, and just because a relationship is contractual does not mean it's fair. There are fantastic, gigantic power imbalances in this country, and this is one of them- and if people point out a moral problem it does not mean they are playing the victim, whining, or hitting emotional buttons. You can justify sharecropping with the argument you just made. Not only that but you just gave any government the right to impose any restriction on its citizens so long as they are able to leave- that's totally absurd.
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  Besides, why is it that democracy in government is common sense but workplace democracy is just crazy talk?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Probably because also "democracy in government" is also BS, but harmless (people get to chose between two same-ish parties, with most options that affect the majority of them being the same, and some token items where they differ so that each can catch the appropriate demographic). If that wasn't the case, a country could potentially change hugely from government to government, but most of what they do is small stuff, and all converge towards the benefits of corporations and mega-interests.
    - fallingfrog 9y ago
      That's true, but if we had daily, practical experience with democracy on a day to day basis- then maybe on a large scale our system would become less dysfunctional. Hey, I can dream :)

trendia 9y ago

This is my disagreement with the article as well. I agree with the author that Amazon Fulfillment should need to give employees adequate breaks, but I don't agree that the rules make Amazon a government: they don't have law enforcement, a court system, the power to make laws, an army, etc. At least a majority of these are necessary to be considered a government.

ctulek 9y ago
If the government backs your inhuman activities, you practically have all these institutions at your disposal.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cphoover 9y ago

Haven't read the article... but my response to you is that not every "contractual" agreement is voluntary. Think people working minimum wage jobs to feed their children, or children working in sweatshops in asia. I get what you are saying... that it is a click bait title, but the fact remains that the late-stage capitalistic hierarchies that form are not totally unlike other labor systems (indentured servitude/slavery) that we have generally deemed as immoral.

GhostVII 9y ago
How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Really, the company giving the person their minimum wage job is more 'moral' than the other companies in the area, because the other companies offered an even worse job, or didn't offer one at all.
- subway 9y ago
  I mean, I guess giving up and letting your family or yourself starve is an option. For a lot of folks in low wage positions, the mere act of looking for an alternative puts their current wages in jeopardy. Their employer may decide they're now disloyal and sack them. They bring home less money because they have to spend unpaid time searching for a new gig -- they'd do it outside of work hours, but at some point you have to sleep and feed the kids, right?
  - GhostVII 9y ago
    Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?

nxsynonym 9y ago

Yeah, I don't understand the need to compare the structure of a business to the structure of a countries government in the first place. Employment relationships are contractual, and completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person or company to receive that income. The working conditions mentioned in the article are insane, but you "vote" by choosing not to work for that company. I also take issue with "Like Louis XIV’s government, the typical American workplace is kept private from those it governs." What world is the author living in where normal governments disclose 100% of the information they hold or receive?

namlem 9y ago
Eh I don't know if I would describe all employment contracts as completely voluntary. There are plenty of workers without the ability to change jobs easily. If you're broke, have kids, and have few skills, it's very hard to change careers.
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  Difficult to change yes, but you are not obligated or physically forced to stay with any one country. If it were a true dictatorship, as the article claims, you would have no say in where you apply, what you accept, when you decide to leave, etc.
  - inb4dangshitban 9y ago
    Oh. Right. And a family with kids, probably with some debt is going to get ID's (cost) and all the riddiculous paperwork (more cost), get passports (even more cost) pack up, switch countries (COOOOOST) and magically be allowed to work there even though they are not citizens? Right. People voluntarily work at places where you have to piss yourself because you can't have a bathroom break. I don't even.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person Would chattel slavery be voluntary too if the slaves had a degree of choice over which master used them?

jinjin2 9y ago

A better example would be schools, which are definitely run as tyrannies, and where the students are legally compelled to stay in place. Democratic schools do exist, but they are few and far in between.

valuearb 9y ago
That's only true of Public schools, Charter and Private schools give parents the ability to take their kids elsewhere if they are ill-served. Obviously children don't usually get a say, but they usually don't have a say in anything until they become adults.

fallingfrog 9y ago

Tyranny is not black and white. Just because this is not North Korea does not mean that we are free, and just because a relationship is contractual does not mean it's fair. There are fantastic, gigantic power imbalances in this country, and this is one of them- and if people point out a moral problem it does not mean they are playing the victim, whining, or hitting emotional buttons. You can justify sharecropping with the argument you just made. Not only that but you just gave any government the right to impose any restriction on its citizens so long as they are able to leave- that's totally absurd.

fallingfrog 9y ago
Besides, why is it that democracy in government is common sense but workplace democracy is just crazy talk?
- coldtea 9y ago
  Probably because also "democracy in government" is also BS, but harmless (people get to chose between two same-ish parties, with most options that affect the majority of them being the same, and some token items where they differ so that each can catch the appropriate demographic). If that wasn't the case, a country could potentially change hugely from government to government, but most of what they do is small stuff, and all converge towards the benefits of corporations and mega-interests.
  - fallingfrog 9y ago
    That's true, but if we had daily, practical experience with democracy on a day to day basis- then maybe on a large scale our system would become less dysfunctional. Hey, I can dream :)