3 ms·

We should stop vilifying companies that provide unsustainable wages. Providing above market wages erodes your competitive advantage. Systematically eroding your

We should stop vilifying companies that provide unsustainable wages. Providing above market wages erodes your competitive advantage. Systematically eroding your competitive advantage will kill your company. It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism. In so doing, it will level the playing field so companies no longer have to choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'increasing existential risk'. 'Public shaming' should be used an agent for change -- not to satiate some inner desire for justice. In this case, we can't expect these companies to change on their own accord regardless of the shaming. So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I'm okay with killing companies if they're not providing a living wage. This is the polite method (public shaming) to affect change. > So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company. Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.
- smallgovt 8y ago
  My point is you're not killing the company. These companies are alive and well. You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just not going to work. It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    See my sibling comment where they shamed Disney into paying $15/hour. This action is required until enough representatives are elected to office who can fix public policy. Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer pockets and into Amazon's pocket.
    - smallgovt 8y ago
      Yea, I agree unions can solve this problem. Unfortunately, a lot of these workers are independent contractors which weakens a union's efficacy. In any case, the solution here is not to shame/vilify the company. You need to apply real economic/legal pressure.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - mmt 8y ago
        > a lot of these workers are independent contractors My understanding was that, though the "Flex" delivery workers could be independent contractors (where allowed, similar to the ride hailing situation), that's not possible for the fulfillment workers. That is, they're contractors from Amazon's POV, but they're still employees of a contracting company (aka body shop [1]). I'm not sure how unionizing would work in that situation, but I imagine at least something must be possible if there always must be (at least) an employer. [1] at least in tech. not sure if that bit of slang gets used elsewhere.
cliffordthedog 8y ago
> It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism Which is what Sander's is suggesting. We shouldn't shame them. We should encourage the workers to unionize and fight for their rights.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I'm okay with killing companies if they're not providing a living wage. This is the polite method (public shaming) to affect change. > So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company. Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.

smallgovt 8y ago
My point is you're not killing the company. These companies are alive and well. You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just not going to work. It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  See my sibling comment where they shamed Disney into paying $15/hour. This action is required until enough representatives are elected to office who can fix public policy. Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer pockets and into Amazon's pocket.
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    Yea, I agree unions can solve this problem. Unfortunately, a lot of these workers are independent contractors which weakens a union's efficacy. In any case, the solution here is not to shame/vilify the company. You need to apply real economic/legal pressure.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mmt 8y ago
      > a lot of these workers are independent contractors My understanding was that, though the "Flex" delivery workers could be independent contractors (where allowed, similar to the ride hailing situation), that's not possible for the fulfillment workers. That is, they're contractors from Amazon's POV, but they're still employees of a contracting company (aka body shop [1]). I'm not sure how unionizing would work in that situation, but I imagine at least something must be possible if there always must be (at least) an employer. [1] at least in tech. not sure if that bit of slang gets used elsewhere.

cliffordthedog 8y ago

> It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism Which is what Sander's is suggesting. We shouldn't shame them. We should encourage the workers to unionize and fight for their rights.