4 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoSee 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 agoYea, 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.