33 ms·

Amazon Keeps Getting Sued for Paying Drivers Less Than Minimum Wage

274 points by elsewhen 6y ago

Frost1x 6y ago
>“Amazon does not tolerate violations of labor laws," Leah Seay, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. "Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct labor violations, we terminate contracts with DSP program participants.” At some point you can't pass blame for repeated violations through contract vehicles. The general population are becoming aware of these practices. Amazon may not have directly committed the violation but they've created and shaped an environment ripe for rampantly abusive labor practices. If Amazon is serious about fixing the problem and committed to good labor practices, stop contracting out services and take control of the issue. Set policies in place with teeth that remove managers and middle managers caught pushing such work conditions. Don't just leverage cheaper labor from labor abuse until it gets public attention and then terminate a contract set in place to pass blame and responsibility. Are you really outsourcing labor or are you outsourcing the risks associated with abuses of labor needed to meet your demands?
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  The latter, and this is the accepted practice in modern corporations. How many times have the Gap or Apple been caught using child labor, only to terminate the contract and move on? If they don’t push these boundaries they’re considered irresponsible fiduciaries and may be replaced. Amazon is just playing in the same broken system.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    At some point we have to admit that the richest corporations and people in the world, with the most power to change the system, are not just playing in the system but are a part of what makes it broken. From their perspective the system is not broken at all — it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is to make shareholders (themselves) fabulously rich at the expense of laborers. On one side of the equation we have people being paid poverty wages, on the other side we have the richest man in the world with the power to change that. This isn’t a coincidence or just a strange, second-order, unintended byproduct of the system. It’s cause and effect. It’s what the system was designed explicitly to do. The system is in fact working to spec.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But on the Amazon side of the fence, they are using their power to change that; they pay all employees at least $15, and are lobbying to get the federal minimum wage raised to that level from $7.25. So this can't just be a simple story of a company paying as little as they can get away with. Something's gone wrong to make them not care about (or not think they're responsible for) these delivery drivers.
      - aboringusername 6y ago
        They don't care. The only reason they have an interest/stake at $15 min wage is so they can crush anyone who might challenge them. Essentially solidify their position. A rival might not be able to afford that so they let everyone go, or Amazon gobbles them up for dinner. There's always an ulterior motive when lobbying is involved.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'm not really sure how to engage with this. Surely you're not saying that it's bad to pay $15, or that Amazon ought to cut everyone's wages to make room for their competitors.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        It's bad to require competitors to pay $15. This is the thing that regularly gets lost in the minimum wage debates. Some jobs suck more than others. Amazon warehouse jobs suck kind of a lot. You spend all day standing up and doing manual labor. Because that's what it takes to make unskilled work produce $15/hour in value. You pass a law requiring competitors to do the same and the ones who were paying $10/hour but workers had more down time, will have to make them more like Amazon jobs. In other words, will have to make them suck more. There are a lot of people for whom that is not a good trade off. For a 20 year old who can physically do the Amazon job, it might be a good choice in order to make more money. For a 60 year old who can't physically do the Amazon job, taking away the less demanding job they can do is really screwing them over.
  - syshum 6y ago
    They "terminate" the contract with a "supplier" who often it just a holding company or "contractor" in a 5 level deep shell game, and the "new" contractor is a name on a form but the same factory is making the same product with the same labor inside a week...
  - salawat 6y ago
    The greatest lie ever perpetuated in the United States corporate system is that a company's fiduciary duty justifies or excuses malbehavior. You do not get to formulate sketchy ways of doing business because you must make shareholders money. They invested, and took a risk. They don't always get to win. Losses are not something that should be unfathomable. The fact that people haven't done that great a job at rooting this stuff out sooner is a bit on the mystifying side only up until you realize the folks we'd count on to do it are having their checks paid by the people getting investigated.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > How many times have the Gap or Apple been caught using child labor, only to terminate the contract and move on? If they don’t push these boundaries they’re considered irresponsible fiduciaries and may be replaced. Strange how these companies keep getting hoodwinked into profiting immensely from slave labor. I mean, how could a billion or trillion dollar company know whether or not its supply chain uses slaves to produce the goods they sell? It seems like the only way to know if slaves produced their goods is to get caught red-handed by someone else. How do these underfunded NGOs and regulators catch the companies innocently profiting from slave labor?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Are you really outsourcing labor or are you outsourcing the risks associated with abuses of labor needed to meet your demands? The same thing companies do when they go to a different state within the US with weaker labor and environmental laws. And the same thing individuals do when choosing to purchase products at cheaper prices from places with weaker labor/environmental laws. Blaming individual companies for regulatory arbitrage is a fruitless endeavor.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > At some point you can't pass blame for repeated violations through contract vehicles. At what hypothetical point is this? I'm pretty sure you can do this indefinitely, which is why they do it.
- 34679 6y ago
  The whole thing seems to be a corporatized version of a carny game. Amazon is behind the counter, promising gullible passersby top prizes if they can toss a ring over a bottle. "Watch me, I'll show you how easy it is!" But instead of young couples on dates being taken for $20 a pop on promises of large stuffed animals, they're luring in new business owners with promises of riches. The problem is, it's a rigged game. Amazon know it, otherwise they'd do this work themselves.
  - stonecraftwolf 6y ago
    Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal. spoiler warning The MC is a conman, given new life and a job resuscitating the postal service after a corporation has taken over and gutted the Clacks (in-world version of the Telegraph). The MC meets the financial architect who masterminded the takeover of the Clacks and is struck with immediate recognition: this guy is just like him, only infinitely better at it. He plays three card Monty with entire companies, and the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake is massive. If you do it with enough money, it’s not a crime anymore, it’s just business.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      Yep, and if the punishment is typically fines that take a small percentage of your profit, why wouldn't you turn around and keep doing it.
    - artificial 6y ago
      The Moist von Lipwig trilogy is fantastic. Have you seen the TV movie?
      - stonecraftwolf 6y ago
        Holy sh*t there’s a movie?? Thank you for making my day!
        artificial 6y ago
- kkielhofner 6y ago
  It's amazing to me that people often accept these kinds of "explanations" from corporations; as though it was some unintended eventuality, mistake, etc. Not to mention the sheer gall of repeated corporate responses when caught like these that are ridiculous even at face value. Most people don't seem to notice these "mistakes" are always to the benefit of the corporation. NEVER to the benefit of the customer, employee, etc.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    It's rude to call someone incompetent at their job. Unless they overlooked corruption, in which case it's rude to call them competent at their job. How odd.
- chha 6y ago
  The problem here as seen from Amazon's point of view isn't that someone broke the rules, it's that they were busted for doing so. Same with Apple and any other corp where a contractor violates the rules; you punish them for being discovered, not for breaking the rules in the first place.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > If Amazon is serious about fixing the problem and committed to good labor practices, stop contracting out services and take control of the issue. Set policies in place with teeth that remove managers and middle managers caught pushing such work conditions. We can see from Amazon's actions, and lack of actions, that they're as committed to not breaking labor laws as they are committed to not committing fraud and IP & trademark infringement by selling counterfeit items on their marketplace. That is to say, it's all rhetoric and PR. After all of this time, and reading countless words from Amazon promising to fix it, I still cannot report to Amazon that I received a counterfeit item from them via their return process, and Amazon drivers are still making less than minimum wage.
blfr 6y ago
It's such a horrible company. Starting with the ugly website full of counterfeits and fake reviews all the way to grinding humans down in their warehouses, delivery service, while bilking subcontractors[1]. Somehow they managed to deliver the highlight reel of all the flaws of capitalism while never turning a profit. Complete with the faint defence offered by fans. "B-b-but their massively overpriced cloud service that looks good on my resume." Sad. "And I can save three minutes buying toiler paper that I then spend watching crap on their complimentary video service!" Pathetic. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon-next-day-delivery-deaths https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon...
- 0goel0 6y ago
  Counterfeits is what pushed me over the edge. I just could not trust that the product I'll get is what I paid for. Ended up cancelling my account and never looked back. Been shopping locally as much as possible since last summer
  - djbebs 6y ago
    Ive actually been doing the opposite and moving away from local/small suppliers into the amazon eco system. I had a terrible experience with small businesses and i will not be going back. I never had any trouble canceling or refunding any order on Amazon. I literally sent back for a replacement a drone 3 times, and not once did they ever cause me any grief. But the first time i try to cancel an order that hadnt even been paid or shipped yet i get pushback? No. Bad customer service has to have consequences.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I agree. I understand that a small business can't compete with amazon on price and service at the same time, and I don't expect this. but it seems that most of them choose to match the price and make up the difference with terrible service/shipping. I would be happy to pay a bit more to support a small business, but I'm not gonna pay the same amount of money for an online retail experience that's worse in every other way.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AdrianB1 6y ago
I had some doubts that this is Amazon's problem, but the fact that they drive vans with Amazon logo, wear Amazon uniforms and are trained by Amazon employees convinced me this is just a pathetic attempt by Amazon to hide these practices, push the risk and move the blame on contractor companies. This is as bad as it goes.
- barbazoo 6y ago
  It's a bit more subtle where I live but rest assured, even the unmarked van, the yellow vest, it's pretty obvious even without the Amazon logo.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    Well, at some point you cannot blame a store for the postal services abuse on their own workers, but in Amazon's case this is their service, not an completely independent external service. These are the 2 sides of the problem and this tells who is responsible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pharmakom 6y ago
Amazon needs to pay more for their use of public infrastructure. The amount of traffic from delivery vehicles has dramatically increased in the past 10 years, and the ludicrous performance targets that they set for their drivers encourages dangerous driving. Congestion and accidents are a predictable consequence.
- mc32 6y ago
  They add traffic but reduce your traffic. The other complaint is valid.
  - pharmakom 6y ago
    Unlimited free next day delivery offsets this, but I see your point.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Everyone should pay for road usage and congestion. Variable rate tolling and license plate readers are the solution.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    Or taxes. Common infrastructure surely is a gold use for them.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Tolls are taxes.
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        Tolls are fees.
        dylan604 6y ago
        depends on what dictionary you use. Merriam-Webster says it is a tax. macOS dictionary does not define toll as tax, but says it is a synonym.
throway-amzn555 6y ago
Throwaway because I have written some of the software behind this program. The problem is that Amazon has set up a system where labor abuses are the only way to succeed, while keeping their hands clean. Amazon hires Delivery Service Providers (DSPs) on contracts. These contracts are for a specific number of 'routes' on a given day. They have a handful of DSPs for each delivery station, and they even help people start DSP companies by giving them loans for vans, access to better deals, etc. But the DSP is an independent company that can operate however it wants to, on paper. The DSPs then hire delivery drivers, each an independent contractor themselves typically. The drivers get a route of 200-ish packages and follow the step-by-step navigation Amazon's provided app tells them[0] to do. The drivers are supposed to work for up to 10 hours then bring back whatever is leftover. Problem: Amazon rewards the DSPs that have the fewest missed deliveries, pay them more per route. The DSPs that get the most pay are the ones who have learned how to get their drivers to work longer without complaint, take no breaks, keep driving, keep delivering. The ones who abuse. Amazon does not reward the abuses, they just reward the effects of the abuses. Amazon can say "We don't tolerate that", but they absolutely do. What they actually don't tolerate is DSPs whose drivers complain. Every DSP operator out there is telling their drivers: you keep your mouths shut or you're out. This isn't an accidental design. The people in charge of this program are sociopaths. And Amazon's senior leadership has rewarded these sociopaths for building this very low-cost delivery system. There's a Leadership Principle called "Deliver Results", but there isn't one called "Be Ethical". [0](And let's set aside the part about 'workers following step-by-step instructions Amazon gives them are somehow not actually employees', which is bullshit.)
- yrgulation 6y ago
  Thanks for sharing. "And Amazon's senior leadership has rewarded these sociopaths" I'm too small to make a dent, but rest assured, I am "rewarding" them back with my wallet. Never again shopping on Amazon. I simply can't justify saving a few £ knowing that the people delivering / manipulating what I buy are abused. I read quite frequently about the issue and unless we protest with our wallets this abuse will continue.
  - superflit 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blackoil 6y ago
As much as it is a problem of Amazon and its algorithm. It also shows how dysfunctional is USA despite being richest nation. I believe that the fact that they find people to do this job at the price, is a fundamental problem.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  I really want to see how the US being the richest is calculated. Not that I doubt it, but simple metrics like GDP per capita have obvious problems. For one, if two women instead of taking care of their own families take care of the others for pay, GDP has increased (and the government took money from both). Those two families, however, just lost money (taxes on income) while having inferior care and losing 1-2 hours of care a day (travel time). Maximizing GDP can be negative to well-being and it’s possible that untracked labor such as traditional wives in other countries could actually be a gain for their populace over a higher GDP nation. I think how to measure wealth in real terms is difficult. (This is all setting aside that Wall St is cooked book stew at this point and much of US wealth depends on that fabrication.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - RobAtticus 6y ago
    >I really want to see how the US being the richest is calculated. I don't think it's really a mystery. When people say this, they are referring to the fact that the US has the largest GDP (total, not per capita) in the world. Of course there are pros/cons to this measure. That said, while your hypothetical is true, I'm not sure it's realistic for all the reasons you said; it wouldn't make any sense for the parties involved.
    - bopbeepboop 6y ago
      I didn’t know that — I knew it was a measure, but not necessarily that it’s the measure most people mean. > I'm not sure it's realistic for all the reasons you said; it wouldn't make any sense for the parties involved. I would argue that a major economic viewpoint is exactly this has happened — women entered the workforce to do jobs that replaced the role they traditionally did at home, which boosted GDP but crashed a bunch of untracked value. I’ve had several economists explain that to me as the source of growing worker discontentment: they give more labor for less value delivered to them, but it makes the number bigger on the books. You say it doesn’t make sense for the parties involved, but that’s only true of the two families: the government gets extra tax revenue if the families make that exchange. People outside those families have an incentive to force them into that position because those people benefit from the families loss. I think if you added a couple steps to my scenario (and some information fuzziness), you could see it happening in the real world. I overly distilled the point to highlight the absurdity.
drpgq 6y ago
Is this indicative of demand for jobs below the minimum wage?
- klyrs 6y ago
  There's demand for murder-for-hire, too. So what?
  - rcoveson 6y ago
    So, with murder-for-hire, the contract stipulates that somebody gets murdered. In paying somebody $6/hour to deliver packages, the contract requires that people's package get delivered. I think we can agree that the negative side-effects of the sub-minimum-wage-package-delivery arrangement are subtler.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      I met a guy just the other day selling cigarettes by a bus stop for half price, no tax. There's clearly demand for cigarettes at those prices, right? Does it matter that they were stolen from a small business a few blocks away? The common theme here is that the enterprise is against the law, and "there's demand for that" is no excuse to break the law. The reason for the law is more "subtle" but theft is theft. Of course, the dude selling cigarettes will probably be lucky to make $100 a day, but he's risking jail time. The folks stealing wages from delivery drivers are stealing way more than that, but they'll pay some fines and settle some lawsuits which almost certainly won't overwhelm their profits. Or -- let's say it's more subtle. So what?
      - rcoveson 6y ago
        I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal that the law should be changed. Whether or not we agree, that's the thing to address. Not "is breaking the law, in general, okay", which is silly. I also think it's wrong to equate the proposal that minimum wage law should be changed because there is demand for jobs at a certain wage with the proposal that murder-for-hire should be allowed because there is demand for it. Minimum wage laws are barely 100 years old in the US, while laws against murder are as old as law itself. I'd venture to say that you could describe punishments for murder to any civilization in history and they would at least understand why you would propose such a thing. Minimum wage law, not so much. If some newcomer to my 18th century town is willing to work on my farm for a season for nothing but room and board, and you tell me that that relationship is exploitative and should be illegal, I'd call you insane. I think a better comparison we could make is the sale of heroin. That's another instance where two consenting adults enter into an agreement that is currently, but not historically, illegal. It's also an instance where many argue that the relationship is exploitative, despite being voluntary. The similarities with minimum wage law are, from my perspective, deeper and more resonant.
nolite 6y ago
From Fight Club: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
- ike0790 6y ago
  one of many great quotes from Fight Club.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  People criticize this logic... But it's absolutely correct. If it doesn't come out with results you like, then the inputs are wrong. Specifically, settlement amounts are probably too low. People who claim all safety related issues should get a recall are just wrong. If there is a 1 in a billion chance my car explodes and kills me, then a recall should not be done, because my chances of dying on the way to the dealer to have the repair done are higher.
  - hypersoar 6y ago
    We shouldn't expect corporations to be so recklessly amoral. I'm all in favor of higher costs for doing shit like this, but the humans making the decisions bear moral responsibility for them. When they bury critical safety issues, they should be held accountable whether or not this particular financial calculus went their way. Are there serious "people who claim all safety-related issues should get a recall"? That's not the only other available position. Not every safety incident needs to lead to a recall, but that doesn't prevent good-faith judgements on whether or not one is necessary. The fact that we assume this won't happen demonstrates how catastrophically awry we've allowed the artificial construct of a corporation to run.
    - guerrilla 6y ago
      Imagine if we had the "Nutrition Facts" equivalent for failure rates (and supply chain while we're at it.) That'd be an interesting world.
Klwohu 6y ago
When I read a story like this about some huge company "getting sued" I have to laugh. Does anybody think that Amazon and their killer attack attorneys are scared of small time civil suits? Legislators won't do anything to harm Amazon and the odd minor fine is just part of the ongoing expense of running a monopoly.
SMAAART 6y ago
That's interesting because: > What is the pay rate at Amazon?: $15 an hour is the Amazon minimum wage—although you can make more based on your location and the shift you choose. Source: https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/faqs https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/faqs
dfhjgkljhf44 6y ago
Plausible deniability will work fine for Bezos until he's less popular than a republican president.
koolba 6y ago
> Though Amazon's delivery drivers operate Amazon-emblazoned vans, wear Amazon uniforms, and are trained by Amazon employees, they are technically not employed directly by Amazon but by small contractors, known as "delivery service partners," that operate out of Amazon warehouses around the country. After a certain point you have to call it a duck.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  Could I open an online business, not sell on Amazon, and contract my deliveries to these contractors?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Animats 6y ago
Wage theft needs to be treated as theft. Jail. It's easy to detect "time-shaving", what with everyone having a trackable cell phone today. If time at work exceeds time on the clock for multiple employees, that shows wage theft. The Wage and Hour Division of the US Department of Labor should be able to demand triple damages for wage theft. 2/3 goes to the employee, and 1/3 goes to enforcement efforts. This never happens in union shops, by the way.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>This never happens in union shops, by the way. While that exact problem many never happen (and I have by doubts about even that statement) unions are not the panacea of all virtue nor are they the solution to all labor problems
  - Rule35 6y ago
    No, it's just that in a union the crime flows the other way.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Not "never", but when it does happen, they've got vastly more resources to hold their employer accountable. Moreover, if a single employee notices it happening, they can report it to their steward, and then word gets out to all employees to double-check their paychecks. Source: this happened to folks in a union I belonged to.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Should the reverse be treated the same way? That is, being on the clock but not working? I work a low wage job and have seen co-workers go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid having to actually work. Time theft is estimated at $400 billion per year, much higher than unpaid wages.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    No, it should not. If an employer has an issue with the way an employee conducts themselves during working hours they can discuss it with the employee and take disciplinary action if needed. That discipline can include reduction in wages, withholding wage increases or bonuses or firing. Plenty of options for an employer to deal with the situation. If an employer denies legal wages they are thieves and should be held accountable by law enforcement for theft, just like any mugger or burglar would.
c3534l 6y ago
> Amazon does not tolerate violations of labor laws," Leah Seay, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. "Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct labor violations, we terminate contracts with DSP program participants. That is NOT a no-tolerance policy. They're literally saying they tolerate some violations so long as its not so bad. Amazon is responsible for this and I'm guessing it stems from a work culture that sees some abuse as inevitable or okay in small amounts. Its not okay. You can't violate worker rights just some of the time and think you're being responsible. This is well outside acceptable business norms in the US. The fact that the official spokesperson thought it was okay that to publicly admit they sweep violations under the rug so long as it doesn't become too bad speaks volumes to Amazon's toxic and amoral work culture.
dcow 6y ago
What is different about a salaried setup (yearly rate) and a daily rate position? If we are willing to ban daily pay because of its clear potential to result in abusive situations where employees are over worked and under paid, then why are we willing to allow salaried positions? I would sure love remittance for all the overtime I’ve worked as a salaryman.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
legulere 6y ago
What holds true for software also holds true for companies: there is no problem that can’t be solved with indirection. You want to profit from illegal stuff but not be responsible? Let an intermediary do it for you. If I buy a product extremely cheap, I also will be liable if it was a stolen product. Why is the same not true for Amazon?
known 6y ago
Sounds like Wage slavery :(

274 points by elsewhen 6y ago

>“Amazon does not tolerate violations of labor laws," Leah Seay, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. "Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct labor violations, we terminate contracts with DSP program participants.” At some point you can't pass blame for repeated violations through contract vehicles. The general population are becoming aware of these practices. Amazon may not have directly committed the violation but they've created and shaped an environment ripe for rampantly abusive labor practices. If Amazon is serious about fixing the problem and committed to good labor practices, stop contracting out services and take control of the issue. Set policies in place with teeth that remove managers and middle managers caught pushing such work conditions. Don't just leverage cheaper labor from labor abuse until it gets public attention and then terminate a contract set in place to pass blame and responsibility. Are you really outsourcing labor or are you outsourcing the risks associated with abuses of labor needed to meet your demands?

adamcstephens 6y ago
The latter, and this is the accepted practice in modern corporations. How many times have the Gap or Apple been caught using child labor, only to terminate the contract and move on? If they don’t push these boundaries they’re considered irresponsible fiduciaries and may be replaced. Amazon is just playing in the same broken system.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  At some point we have to admit that the richest corporations and people in the world, with the most power to change the system, are not just playing in the system but are a part of what makes it broken. From their perspective the system is not broken at all — it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is to make shareholders (themselves) fabulously rich at the expense of laborers. On one side of the equation we have people being paid poverty wages, on the other side we have the richest man in the world with the power to change that. This isn’t a coincidence or just a strange, second-order, unintended byproduct of the system. It’s cause and effect. It’s what the system was designed explicitly to do. The system is in fact working to spec.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But on the Amazon side of the fence, they are using their power to change that; they pay all employees at least $15, and are lobbying to get the federal minimum wage raised to that level from $7.25. So this can't just be a simple story of a company paying as little as they can get away with. Something's gone wrong to make them not care about (or not think they're responsible for) these delivery drivers.
    - aboringusername 6y ago
      They don't care. The only reason they have an interest/stake at $15 min wage is so they can crush anyone who might challenge them. Essentially solidify their position. A rival might not be able to afford that so they let everyone go, or Amazon gobbles them up for dinner. There's always an ulterior motive when lobbying is involved.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'm not really sure how to engage with this. Surely you're not saying that it's bad to pay $15, or that Amazon ought to cut everyone's wages to make room for their competitors.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        It's bad to require competitors to pay $15. This is the thing that regularly gets lost in the minimum wage debates. Some jobs suck more than others. Amazon warehouse jobs suck kind of a lot. You spend all day standing up and doing manual labor. Because that's what it takes to make unskilled work produce $15/hour in value. You pass a law requiring competitors to do the same and the ones who were paying $10/hour but workers had more down time, will have to make them more like Amazon jobs. In other words, will have to make them suck more. There are a lot of people for whom that is not a good trade off. For a 20 year old who can physically do the Amazon job, it might be a good choice in order to make more money. For a 60 year old who can't physically do the Amazon job, taking away the less demanding job they can do is really screwing them over.
- syshum 6y ago
  They "terminate" the contract with a "supplier" who often it just a holding company or "contractor" in a 5 level deep shell game, and the "new" contractor is a name on a form but the same factory is making the same product with the same labor inside a week...
- salawat 6y ago
  The greatest lie ever perpetuated in the United States corporate system is that a company's fiduciary duty justifies or excuses malbehavior. You do not get to formulate sketchy ways of doing business because you must make shareholders money. They invested, and took a risk. They don't always get to win. Losses are not something that should be unfathomable. The fact that people haven't done that great a job at rooting this stuff out sooner is a bit on the mystifying side only up until you realize the folks we'd count on to do it are having their checks paid by the people getting investigated.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > How many times have the Gap or Apple been caught using child labor, only to terminate the contract and move on? If they don’t push these boundaries they’re considered irresponsible fiduciaries and may be replaced. Strange how these companies keep getting hoodwinked into profiting immensely from slave labor. I mean, how could a billion or trillion dollar company know whether or not its supply chain uses slaves to produce the goods they sell? It seems like the only way to know if slaves produced their goods is to get caught red-handed by someone else. How do these underfunded NGOs and regulators catch the companies innocently profiting from slave labor?
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Are you really outsourcing labor or are you outsourcing the risks associated with abuses of labor needed to meet your demands? The same thing companies do when they go to a different state within the US with weaker labor and environmental laws. And the same thing individuals do when choosing to purchase products at cheaper prices from places with weaker labor/environmental laws. Blaming individual companies for regulatory arbitrage is a fruitless endeavor.
pessimizer 6y ago
> At some point you can't pass blame for repeated violations through contract vehicles. At what hypothetical point is this? I'm pretty sure you can do this indefinitely, which is why they do it.
34679 6y ago
The whole thing seems to be a corporatized version of a carny game. Amazon is behind the counter, promising gullible passersby top prizes if they can toss a ring over a bottle. "Watch me, I'll show you how easy it is!" But instead of young couples on dates being taken for $20 a pop on promises of large stuffed animals, they're luring in new business owners with promises of riches. The problem is, it's a rigged game. Amazon know it, otherwise they'd do this work themselves.
- stonecraftwolf 6y ago
  Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal. spoiler warning The MC is a conman, given new life and a job resuscitating the postal service after a corporation has taken over and gutted the Clacks (in-world version of the Telegraph). The MC meets the financial architect who masterminded the takeover of the Clacks and is struck with immediate recognition: this guy is just like him, only infinitely better at it. He plays three card Monty with entire companies, and the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake is massive. If you do it with enough money, it’s not a crime anymore, it’s just business.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    Yep, and if the punishment is typically fines that take a small percentage of your profit, why wouldn't you turn around and keep doing it.
  - artificial 6y ago
    The Moist von Lipwig trilogy is fantastic. Have you seen the TV movie?
    - stonecraftwolf 6y ago
      Holy sh*t there’s a movie?? Thank you for making my day!
      - artificial 6y ago
kkielhofner 6y ago
It's amazing to me that people often accept these kinds of "explanations" from corporations; as though it was some unintended eventuality, mistake, etc. Not to mention the sheer gall of repeated corporate responses when caught like these that are ridiculous even at face value. Most people don't seem to notice these "mistakes" are always to the benefit of the corporation. NEVER to the benefit of the customer, employee, etc.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  It's rude to call someone incompetent at their job. Unless they overlooked corruption, in which case it's rude to call them competent at their job. How odd.
chha 6y ago
The problem here as seen from Amazon's point of view isn't that someone broke the rules, it's that they were busted for doing so. Same with Apple and any other corp where a contractor violates the rules; you punish them for being discovered, not for breaking the rules in the first place.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> If Amazon is serious about fixing the problem and committed to good labor practices, stop contracting out services and take control of the issue. Set policies in place with teeth that remove managers and middle managers caught pushing such work conditions. We can see from Amazon's actions, and lack of actions, that they're as committed to not breaking labor laws as they are committed to not committing fraud and IP & trademark infringement by selling counterfeit items on their marketplace. That is to say, it's all rhetoric and PR. After all of this time, and reading countless words from Amazon promising to fix it, I still cannot report to Amazon that I received a counterfeit item from them via their return process, and Amazon drivers are still making less than minimum wage.

blfr 6y ago

It's such a horrible company. Starting with the ugly website full of counterfeits and fake reviews all the way to grinding humans down in their warehouses, delivery service, while bilking subcontractors[1]. Somehow they managed to deliver the highlight reel of all the flaws of capitalism while never turning a profit. Complete with the faint defence offered by fans. "B-b-but their massively overpriced cloud service that looks good on my resume." Sad. "And I can save three minutes buying toiler paper that I then spend watching crap on their complimentary video service!" Pathetic. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon-next-day-delivery-deaths https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon...

0goel0 6y ago
Counterfeits is what pushed me over the edge. I just could not trust that the product I'll get is what I paid for. Ended up cancelling my account and never looked back. Been shopping locally as much as possible since last summer
- djbebs 6y ago
  Ive actually been doing the opposite and moving away from local/small suppliers into the amazon eco system. I had a terrible experience with small businesses and i will not be going back. I never had any trouble canceling or refunding any order on Amazon. I literally sent back for a replacement a drone 3 times, and not once did they ever cause me any grief. But the first time i try to cancel an order that hadnt even been paid or shipped yet i get pushback? No. Bad customer service has to have consequences.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I agree. I understand that a small business can't compete with amazon on price and service at the same time, and I don't expect this. but it seems that most of them choose to match the price and make up the difference with terrible service/shipping. I would be happy to pay a bit more to support a small business, but I'm not gonna pay the same amount of money for an online retail experience that's worse in every other way.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AdrianB1 6y ago

I had some doubts that this is Amazon's problem, but the fact that they drive vans with Amazon logo, wear Amazon uniforms and are trained by Amazon employees convinced me this is just a pathetic attempt by Amazon to hide these practices, push the risk and move the blame on contractor companies. This is as bad as it goes.

barbazoo 6y ago
It's a bit more subtle where I live but rest assured, even the unmarked van, the yellow vest, it's pretty obvious even without the Amazon logo.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  Well, at some point you cannot blame a store for the postal services abuse on their own workers, but in Amazon's case this is their service, not an completely independent external service. These are the 2 sides of the problem and this tells who is responsible.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pharmakom 6y ago

Amazon needs to pay more for their use of public infrastructure. The amount of traffic from delivery vehicles has dramatically increased in the past 10 years, and the ludicrous performance targets that they set for their drivers encourages dangerous driving. Congestion and accidents are a predictable consequence.

mc32 6y ago
They add traffic but reduce your traffic. The other complaint is valid.
- pharmakom 6y ago
  Unlimited free next day delivery offsets this, but I see your point.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Everyone should pay for road usage and congestion. Variable rate tolling and license plate readers are the solution.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  Or taxes. Common infrastructure surely is a gold use for them.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Tolls are taxes.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      Tolls are fees.
      - dylan604 6y ago
        depends on what dictionary you use. Merriam-Webster says it is a tax. macOS dictionary does not define toll as tax, but says it is a synonym.

throway-amzn555 6y ago

Throwaway because I have written some of the software behind this program. The problem is that Amazon has set up a system where labor abuses are the only way to succeed, while keeping their hands clean. Amazon hires Delivery Service Providers (DSPs) on contracts. These contracts are for a specific number of 'routes' on a given day. They have a handful of DSPs for each delivery station, and they even help people start DSP companies by giving them loans for vans, access to better deals, etc. But the DSP is an independent company that can operate however it wants to, on paper. The DSPs then hire delivery drivers, each an independent contractor themselves typically. The drivers get a route of 200-ish packages and follow the step-by-step navigation Amazon's provided app tells them[0] to do. The drivers are supposed to work for up to 10 hours then bring back whatever is leftover. Problem: Amazon rewards the DSPs that have the fewest missed deliveries, pay them more per route. The DSPs that get the most pay are the ones who have learned how to get their drivers to work longer without complaint, take no breaks, keep driving, keep delivering. The ones who abuse. Amazon does not reward the abuses, they just reward the effects of the abuses. Amazon can say "We don't tolerate that", but they absolutely do. What they actually don't tolerate is DSPs whose drivers complain. Every DSP operator out there is telling their drivers: you keep your mouths shut or you're out. This isn't an accidental design. The people in charge of this program are sociopaths. And Amazon's senior leadership has rewarded these sociopaths for building this very low-cost delivery system. There's a Leadership Principle called "Deliver Results", but there isn't one called "Be Ethical". [0](And let's set aside the part about 'workers following step-by-step instructions Amazon gives them are somehow not actually employees', which is bullshit.)

yrgulation 6y ago
Thanks for sharing. "And Amazon's senior leadership has rewarded these sociopaths" I'm too small to make a dent, but rest assured, I am "rewarding" them back with my wallet. Never again shopping on Amazon. I simply can't justify saving a few £ knowing that the people delivering / manipulating what I buy are abused. I read quite frequently about the issue and unless we protest with our wallets this abuse will continue.
- superflit 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

blackoil 6y ago

As much as it is a problem of Amazon and its algorithm. It also shows how dysfunctional is USA despite being richest nation. I believe that the fact that they find people to do this job at the price, is a fundamental problem.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
I really want to see how the US being the richest is calculated. Not that I doubt it, but simple metrics like GDP per capita have obvious problems. For one, if two women instead of taking care of their own families take care of the others for pay, GDP has increased (and the government took money from both). Those two families, however, just lost money (taxes on income) while having inferior care and losing 1-2 hours of care a day (travel time). Maximizing GDP can be negative to well-being and it’s possible that untracked labor such as traditional wives in other countries could actually be a gain for their populace over a higher GDP nation. I think how to measure wealth in real terms is difficult. (This is all setting aside that Wall St is cooked book stew at this point and much of US wealth depends on that fabrication.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- RobAtticus 6y ago
  >I really want to see how the US being the richest is calculated. I don't think it's really a mystery. When people say this, they are referring to the fact that the US has the largest GDP (total, not per capita) in the world. Of course there are pros/cons to this measure. That said, while your hypothetical is true, I'm not sure it's realistic for all the reasons you said; it wouldn't make any sense for the parties involved.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    I didn’t know that — I knew it was a measure, but not necessarily that it’s the measure most people mean. > I'm not sure it's realistic for all the reasons you said; it wouldn't make any sense for the parties involved. I would argue that a major economic viewpoint is exactly this has happened — women entered the workforce to do jobs that replaced the role they traditionally did at home, which boosted GDP but crashed a bunch of untracked value. I’ve had several economists explain that to me as the source of growing worker discontentment: they give more labor for less value delivered to them, but it makes the number bigger on the books. You say it doesn’t make sense for the parties involved, but that’s only true of the two families: the government gets extra tax revenue if the families make that exchange. People outside those families have an incentive to force them into that position because those people benefit from the families loss. I think if you added a couple steps to my scenario (and some information fuzziness), you could see it happening in the real world. I overly distilled the point to highlight the absurdity.

drpgq 6y ago

Is this indicative of demand for jobs below the minimum wage?

klyrs 6y ago
There's demand for murder-for-hire, too. So what?
- rcoveson 6y ago
  So, with murder-for-hire, the contract stipulates that somebody gets murdered. In paying somebody $6/hour to deliver packages, the contract requires that people's package get delivered. I think we can agree that the negative side-effects of the sub-minimum-wage-package-delivery arrangement are subtler.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I met a guy just the other day selling cigarettes by a bus stop for half price, no tax. There's clearly demand for cigarettes at those prices, right? Does it matter that they were stolen from a small business a few blocks away? The common theme here is that the enterprise is against the law, and "there's demand for that" is no excuse to break the law. The reason for the law is more "subtle" but theft is theft. Of course, the dude selling cigarettes will probably be lucky to make $100 a day, but he's risking jail time. The folks stealing wages from delivery drivers are stealing way more than that, but they'll pay some fines and settle some lawsuits which almost certainly won't overwhelm their profits. Or -- let's say it's more subtle. So what?
    - rcoveson 6y ago
      I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal that the law should be changed. Whether or not we agree, that's the thing to address. Not "is breaking the law, in general, okay", which is silly. I also think it's wrong to equate the proposal that minimum wage law should be changed because there is demand for jobs at a certain wage with the proposal that murder-for-hire should be allowed because there is demand for it. Minimum wage laws are barely 100 years old in the US, while laws against murder are as old as law itself. I'd venture to say that you could describe punishments for murder to any civilization in history and they would at least understand why you would propose such a thing. Minimum wage law, not so much. If some newcomer to my 18th century town is willing to work on my farm for a season for nothing but room and board, and you tell me that that relationship is exploitative and should be illegal, I'd call you insane. I think a better comparison we could make is the sale of heroin. That's another instance where two consenting adults enter into an agreement that is currently, but not historically, illegal. It's also an instance where many argue that the relationship is exploitative, despite being voluntary. The similarities with minimum wage law are, from my perspective, deeper and more resonant.

nolite 6y ago

From Fight Club: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

ike0790 6y ago
one of many great quotes from Fight Club.
londons_explore 6y ago
People criticize this logic... But it's absolutely correct. If it doesn't come out with results you like, then the inputs are wrong. Specifically, settlement amounts are probably too low. People who claim all safety related issues should get a recall are just wrong. If there is a 1 in a billion chance my car explodes and kills me, then a recall should not be done, because my chances of dying on the way to the dealer to have the repair done are higher.
- hypersoar 6y ago
  We shouldn't expect corporations to be so recklessly amoral. I'm all in favor of higher costs for doing shit like this, but the humans making the decisions bear moral responsibility for them. When they bury critical safety issues, they should be held accountable whether or not this particular financial calculus went their way. Are there serious "people who claim all safety-related issues should get a recall"? That's not the only other available position. Not every safety incident needs to lead to a recall, but that doesn't prevent good-faith judgements on whether or not one is necessary. The fact that we assume this won't happen demonstrates how catastrophically awry we've allowed the artificial construct of a corporation to run.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    Imagine if we had the "Nutrition Facts" equivalent for failure rates (and supply chain while we're at it.) That'd be an interesting world.

Klwohu 6y ago

When I read a story like this about some huge company "getting sued" I have to laugh. Does anybody think that Amazon and their killer attack attorneys are scared of small time civil suits? Legislators won't do anything to harm Amazon and the odd minor fine is just part of the ongoing expense of running a monopoly.

SMAAART 6y ago

That's interesting because: > What is the pay rate at Amazon?: $15 an hour is the Amazon minimum wage—although you can make more based on your location and the shift you choose. Source: https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/faqs https://www.amazondelivers.jobs/faqs

dfhjgkljhf44 6y ago

Plausible deniability will work fine for Bezos until he's less popular than a republican president.

koolba 6y ago

> Though Amazon's delivery drivers operate Amazon-emblazoned vans, wear Amazon uniforms, and are trained by Amazon employees, they are technically not employed directly by Amazon but by small contractors, known as "delivery service partners," that operate out of Amazon warehouses around the country. After a certain point you have to call it a duck.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
Could I open an online business, not sell on Amazon, and contract my deliveries to these contractors?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Animats 6y ago

Wage theft needs to be treated as theft. Jail. It's easy to detect "time-shaving", what with everyone having a trackable cell phone today. If time at work exceeds time on the clock for multiple employees, that shows wage theft. The Wage and Hour Division of the US Department of Labor should be able to demand triple damages for wage theft. 2/3 goes to the employee, and 1/3 goes to enforcement efforts. This never happens in union shops, by the way.

syshum 6y ago
>>This never happens in union shops, by the way. While that exact problem many never happen (and I have by doubts about even that statement) unions are not the panacea of all virtue nor are they the solution to all labor problems
- Rule35 6y ago
  No, it's just that in a union the crime flows the other way.
klyrs 6y ago
Not "never", but when it does happen, they've got vastly more resources to hold their employer accountable. Moreover, if a single employee notices it happening, they can report it to their steward, and then word gets out to all employees to double-check their paychecks. Source: this happened to folks in a union I belonged to.
missedthecue 6y ago
Should the reverse be treated the same way? That is, being on the clock but not working? I work a low wage job and have seen co-workers go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid having to actually work. Time theft is estimated at $400 billion per year, much higher than unpaid wages.
- standardUser 6y ago
  No, it should not. If an employer has an issue with the way an employee conducts themselves during working hours they can discuss it with the employee and take disciplinary action if needed. That discipline can include reduction in wages, withholding wage increases or bonuses or firing. Plenty of options for an employer to deal with the situation. If an employer denies legal wages they are thieves and should be held accountable by law enforcement for theft, just like any mugger or burglar would.

c3534l 6y ago

> Amazon does not tolerate violations of labor laws," Leah Seay, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. "Where we find repeated violations, or an inability to correct labor violations, we terminate contracts with DSP program participants. That is NOT a no-tolerance policy. They're literally saying they tolerate some violations so long as its not so bad. Amazon is responsible for this and I'm guessing it stems from a work culture that sees some abuse as inevitable or okay in small amounts. Its not okay. You can't violate worker rights just some of the time and think you're being responsible. This is well outside acceptable business norms in the US. The fact that the official spokesperson thought it was okay that to publicly admit they sweep violations under the rug so long as it doesn't become too bad speaks volumes to Amazon's toxic and amoral work culture.

dcow 6y ago

What is different about a salaried setup (yearly rate) and a daily rate position? If we are willing to ban daily pay because of its clear potential to result in abusive situations where employees are over worked and under paid, then why are we willing to allow salaried positions? I would sure love remittance for all the overtime I’ve worked as a salaryman.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

legulere 6y ago

What holds true for software also holds true for companies: there is no problem that can’t be solved with indirection. You want to profit from illegal stuff but not be responsible? Let an intermediary do it for you. If I buy a product extremely cheap, I also will be liable if it was a stolen product. Why is the same not true for Amazon?

known 6y ago

Sounds like Wage slavery :(