4 ms·

> To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. It's true that botto

> To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. It's true that bottom-rung Amazon workers are low-skilled and not in a very strong bargaining position. But they still need certain aptitudes, competencies and physical fitness levels to be able to carry out the work effectively, which means they will have options other than working for Amazon. Your claim is effectively that there is a limitless supply of people who are competent/able-bodied enough to do the job Amazon needs, but at the same time so desperate for any kind work that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment. This just doesn't hold water, and nobody in this thread has provided solid evidence for it. People just keep implying this is the case and assuming it to be self-evident. > Two responses to this: > 1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now? Companies are subject to local, state and federal labor laws everywhere they operate, and governments, regulators and courts everywhere are perpetually looking at what needs to be done to bring about reasonable improvements in pay and conditions for workers. This article [1] describes changes in NY and California to bring about criminal prosecutions for wage theft. Criminal liability also applies in some places for workplace health and safety breaches. Could/should more be done? Sure. But your suggestion that companies like Amazon operate free of any regulatory oversight or consequence is false. > 2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars. Can you cite an example of this with Amazon or a similarly large company? As far as I know this is false, when it comes to labor laws. Companies that continue to commit the same breaches face increasingly severe penalties, and in some cases the potential for criminal prosecution against the company operators. > Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money You're trying to prove your point by looking at just one factor in isolation of all the others. Sure, companies exist to make money. But they need to think about legal issues, employee retention, brand/reputation/media coverage, company culture, management self-respect... Your last sentence is just gross. It's fascinating when people need to resort to vile imagery to get their point across. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors-treating-wage-theft-as-a-crime-in-these-states https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors...

pavel_lishin 6y ago
I'm not going to respond to everything, because I honestly don't want to keep this discussion going forever, so let me pick just one thing: > Can you cite an example of this with Amazon or a similarly large company? As far as I know this is false, when it comes to labor laws. Companies that continue to commit the same breaches face increasingly severe penalties, and in some cases the potential for criminal prosecution against the company operators. I'm not sure how this breaks down exactly, but this asserts that there are at least 12 violations directly related to employment issues, and 68 safety violations - but I think that rolls in both workplace safety issues, and aviation issues: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/amazoncom https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/amazoncom Since the year 2000, they've apparently been fined 100 million dollars. Last year, they had an income of 22 BILLION dollars. As an analogy, this means that if I were Mr. Amazon and stole $20 from one of my employees, my fine would be half a penny, except that fine includes every other illegal thing I'd gotten caught doing that year. I don't have any numbers on criminal prosecution. > Your last sentence is just gross. It's fascinating when people need to resort to vile imagery to get their point across. Well, if it helps you feel better, it doesn't seem like anything I say helps get my point across.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  Sincere thanks for the link to the list of cases, it's useful info. > As an analogy, this means that if I were Mr. Amazon and stole $20 from one of my employees, my fine would be half a penny, except that fine includes every other illegal thing I'd gotten caught doing that year. That's no analogy. You're implying that every last cent of revenue earned by Amazon amounts to theft. Sure, take that line of rhetoric if you want, but it's not a serious discussion of the issues and doesn't do anything to help address any real problems for workers. Taking the most recent case - the $61.7M fine handed down in Feb this year - that fine amounted to 100% of the money they were found to have withheld from drivers. Which means the claim that Amazon can deliberately and continuously underpay and mistreat workers, write off any fines and "costs of doing business" and face no significant consequences is false. $61M is a lot of money for anyone, even Amazon, they gained nothing from it, and indeed would have lost a whole lot more money defending the case, as well as in their reputation among potential workers. If I haven't made this clear already, I'm not for one second claiming that Amazon is free of any wrongdoing, that pay and conditions for Amazon workers are always adequate, or that the economic system and regulatory oversight mechanisms always function well. I'm just pushing back on the claims that every last thing that Amazon ever does amounts to gravely sinister assault on perpetually defenceless victims, and that they never face consequences for wrongdoing. Things can still be bad without having to be quite that bad.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

I'm not going to respond to everything, because I honestly don't want to keep this discussion going forever, so let me pick just one thing: > Can you cite an example of this with Amazon or a similarly large company? As far as I know this is false, when it comes to labor laws. Companies that continue to commit the same breaches face increasingly severe penalties, and in some cases the potential for criminal prosecution against the company operators. I'm not sure how this breaks down exactly, but this asserts that there are at least 12 violations directly related to employment issues, and 68 safety violations - but I think that rolls in both workplace safety issues, and aviation issues: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/amazoncom https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/amazoncom Since the year 2000, they've apparently been fined 100 million dollars. Last year, they had an income of 22 BILLION dollars. As an analogy, this means that if I were Mr. Amazon and stole $20 from one of my employees, my fine would be half a penny, except that fine includes every other illegal thing I'd gotten caught doing that year. I don't have any numbers on criminal prosecution. > Your last sentence is just gross. It's fascinating when people need to resort to vile imagery to get their point across. Well, if it helps you feel better, it doesn't seem like anything I say helps get my point across.

tomhoward 6y ago
Sincere thanks for the link to the list of cases, it's useful info. > As an analogy, this means that if I were Mr. Amazon and stole $20 from one of my employees, my fine would be half a penny, except that fine includes every other illegal thing I'd gotten caught doing that year. That's no analogy. You're implying that every last cent of revenue earned by Amazon amounts to theft. Sure, take that line of rhetoric if you want, but it's not a serious discussion of the issues and doesn't do anything to help address any real problems for workers. Taking the most recent case - the $61.7M fine handed down in Feb this year - that fine amounted to 100% of the money they were found to have withheld from drivers. Which means the claim that Amazon can deliberately and continuously underpay and mistreat workers, write off any fines and "costs of doing business" and face no significant consequences is false. $61M is a lot of money for anyone, even Amazon, they gained nothing from it, and indeed would have lost a whole lot more money defending the case, as well as in their reputation among potential workers. If I haven't made this clear already, I'm not for one second claiming that Amazon is free of any wrongdoing, that pay and conditions for Amazon workers are always adequate, or that the economic system and regulatory oversight mechanisms always function well. I'm just pushing back on the claims that every last thing that Amazon ever does amounts to gravely sinister assault on perpetually defenceless victims, and that they never face consequences for wrongdoing. Things can still be bad without having to be quite that bad.