> When a company has a bigger revenue than most contries' gdp they shouldn't play by the same rules, they need to be held to a different set of standards. This

> When a company has a bigger revenue than most contries' gdp they shouldn't play by the same rules, they need to be held to a different set of standards. This is the part where it stops making sense to me. I don't see why it's morally more just for a mom and pop shop to abuse workers than it is for a big corporation. If it's wrong to treat workers poorly, it should be wrong for everyone to treat workers poorly. This logic implies that the amount you're "allowed" to abuse your workers is on a sliding scale with income. Big corporations should be nice to workers, small businesses are allowed to not be nice to workers, so are businesses in poor countries allowed to be outright awful to their workers? It sounds like the start of a justification for slavery in third world countries. You can make the argument that Amazon can afford it, and mom and pop shops can't, but I don't find that a convincing argument. It bears the same issues as above. If we establish a sliding scale, we can't simply ignore the implications at the extremes. Personally, I think we just need to raise the bar across the board. It's bad when Amazon does it, and it's bad when small businesses do it. Small businesses shouldn't get a break on labor violations.