9 ms·

This is more or less how it should be. If Amazon isn't going to offer a good enough deal, then companies shouldn't move packages for them. As more and more peop

by D13Fd 5y ago

This is more or less how it should be. If Amazon isn't going to offer a good enough deal, then companies shouldn't move packages for them. As more and more people figure it out, other delivery companies will stop working with Amazon as well, although it may be that the deals work out better in places with lower cost-of-living, easier delivery routes (due to climate, geography, etc.), or other advantages. If some other delivery company can figure out how to make it work economically, then they can do the work instead. If nobody is interested in trying to make it work, Amazon will have to either improve the deal it offers or go back to using FedEx/UPS/USPS.

subhro 5y ago
Good points. But, with Amazon taking the lion’s share of online sales, how much of delivery is left outside of Amazon? I am not advocating for Amazon, just wondering if this move is sustainable for the employees while Amazon gets (theoretically) strong armed.
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  If they "sell" 20,000 cheap knockoffs smartphones, but no one ships them, did they really sell them? Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry
  - viro 5y ago
    Do you have the money still?
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      Legally yes. Amazon isn't entitled to money for products they don't deliver.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Even if 1% of the customers fail to demand a refund, this is profitable
        wongarsu 5y ago
        If Amazon sells something they know they can't deliver, if even 0.1% of affected customers start pressing for fraud charges this becomes very unprofitable
  - La1n 5y ago
    >Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry This is also why dock-workers unions have historically been very powerful. https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodess_berkeley_0028E_18228.pdf https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodes...
- madsbuch 5y ago
  What is online sales worth when products can't be delivered? It takes some time, but things will balance. If Amazon is not able to get the product to the consumers, the consumer will leave for the competition that is a bit more expensive, but can.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  If Amazon's deal is bad and nobody else offers delivery work, companies will just leave the delivery business. Neither the equipment nor the skill set is highly specialized, so switching to something more profitable is comparatively easy.
  - ConceptJunkie 5y ago
    If you have the skills and/or capital to do that, yes. I suspect a lot of delivery companies enter into this deal because it's a way to get up and running, and earning money, quickly, without a whole lot of capital or expertise. The downside of doing this is that your beholden to Amazon. The downside of not doing this is that you might not have a job. I'm certainly not defending Amazon in any way, but trying to understand why so many people are in this position, and this seems like a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the answer might be, except that no one is going to like it in the short term.
- verisimilitude 5y ago
  I've thought along those lines as well. I don't know if this helps clarify, but I did learn, for example, FedEx is actually quite strong without Amazon: "Last year [2018], Amazon accounted for 1.3 percent of FedEx’s total revenue." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/business/fedex-amazon-shipping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/business/fedex-amazon-shi...
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Amazon always shunned FedEx (used them as an option of last resort) because, unlike UPS, they refused to make changes that would be short-term beneficial but make their future outlook dependent on the whims of their biggest client.
MattGaiser 5y ago
I suspect Amazon delivery will turn into Tyson and its chicken growers. Just keep selling the business to a new group of people who cannot leave because of their substantial investment in equipment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cdstyh 5y ago
  And forcing them to upgrade their equipment unnecessarily in order to keep them in debt.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  Perhaps somewhat similar to Uber and Lyft, their business model may be relying on a continuous supply of innocents.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  At least they haven't turned into Subway yet: all Amazon delivery partners must purchase Amazon gasoline.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    As far as I know, Uber hasn't done this which tells me that the logistics of it are horrible.
    - Y_Y 5y ago
      Or maybe the same shady plutocrats that control Uber have all the gas stations, so it doesn't even matter.
hiccuphippo 5y ago
Or Amazon can just buy them and make it work.
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  They don't have to. Amazon has a sweetheart deal going on, there is no downside. Amazon outsources the insurance, health, org, and most of the business risk to these sole supplier contractors. They can choke them to death and just say, "Welp, time to fund another one" until they get the results they want. Only Amazon can determine which results are acceptable due to these arrangements.
- mnd999 5y ago
  That would make the drivers Amazon employees so they'd no longer be able to use the "it's not us, it's the delivery firms" defense.
tablespoon 5y ago
> This is more or less how it should be. If Amazon isn't going to offer a good enough deal, then companies shouldn't move packages for them. Not really. These companies are basically committing suicide, because Amazon is in such a dominant position. The way is should be is that they could have put pressure on Amazon much earlier, instead of being forced into such extreme action. Nothing will change. Amazon will just shift to exploiting a different group of suckers through Amazon Flex, or go back to UPS for awhile until the lessons learned from this dissipate. It's not like there's a club of past & future delivery company operators that meets regularly, to keep the knowledge of how bad it is to work with Amazon alive. As the saying goes: "a sucker is born every minute."
- relax88 5y ago
  > It’s not like there’s a club of past & future delivery company operators that meets regularly Why not? “National Delivery Drivers Union” sounds pretty good to me for a name. If you want to negotiate with leverage against Amazon, you need to actually have the leverage. Why is collective bargaining so weak in this industry?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Why is collective bargaining so weak in this industry? I think because small companies, not workers are the actors here. If the companies themselves got together, it might be interpreted as some kind of illegal cartel. However, it's kind of interesting to consider the idea of a union of small companies (that's permitted only because they're too week vis-a-vis their customers/vendors that they can be explioted, akin to most employee/employer relationships). Also, if you quit the business, why would keep participating in an organization that has no more relevance to you?
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Cartels are illegal, but industry associations are not. It's a fine line, but it can certainly be walked.
HighInquisitor 5y ago
I struggle to grasp how this kind of libertarian vision of the world can possibly be maintained by anyone who actually observes how the world works. No, markets don't self-regulate. Companies won't stop working with Amazon across the board, and those that do will be replaced by companies willing to work for less, because they're full of people willing to work for less. We know that's how this works. We know that people and organizations alike (since they're run by people) under this system don't have libertarian principles, let alone the will power to stand up for them. Most people do not, in fact, feel the sense of righteous indignation needed to make such decisions, nor the ability to freely disassociate from sources of income, because they'll quite literally end up out in the street if they do, so they go along with anything, and rightly so, because survival comes first. The only force that has the ability to stop powerful corporations from exploiting people in this way (hiring those willing to work under terrible conditions, for terrible pay, etc.) is the state, with its monopoly on violence, by quite literally threatening the executives of the corporations with death or prison time for not complying. But the same libertarian-minded people who think the market self-regulates also stand against using state power to control the corporations by force. So here we are. The Profit Motive destroying everything, and a fervent group of people fortunate enough to have the wealth to make independent decisions to disassociate with parties that provide their income lecturing those who don't have that luxury about how they too should make such decisions.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > markets don't self-regulate The linked article is an example of the market self-regulating.
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    I would like this to work, but I think Amazon won't really care. They're big enough to work around the problem. Take advantage of that a bunch of drivers are suddenly without work, find another company willing to work with them, and soon enough things are back to the way they were at the start.
  - tablespoon 5y ago

by D13Fd 5y ago

subhro 5y ago

Good points. But, with Amazon taking the lion’s share of online sales, how much of delivery is left outside of Amazon? I am not advocating for Amazon, just wondering if this move is sustainable for the employees while Amazon gets (theoretically) strong armed.

SQueeeeeL 5y ago
If they "sell" 20,000 cheap knockoffs smartphones, but no one ships them, did they really sell them? Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry
- viro 5y ago
  Do you have the money still?
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Legally yes. Amazon isn't entitled to money for products they don't deliver.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Even if 1% of the customers fail to demand a refund, this is profitable
      - wongarsu 5y ago
        If Amazon sells something they know they can't deliver, if even 0.1% of affected customers start pressing for fraud charges this becomes very unprofitable
- La1n 5y ago
  >Shipping is crucial to Amazon's business model. The last mile problem is the vulnerable jugular of the e-commerce industry This is also why dock-workers unions have historically been very powerful. https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodess_berkeley_0028E_18228.pdf https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/FoxHodes...
madsbuch 5y ago
What is online sales worth when products can't be delivered? It takes some time, but things will balance. If Amazon is not able to get the product to the consumers, the consumer will leave for the competition that is a bit more expensive, but can.
wongarsu 5y ago
If Amazon's deal is bad and nobody else offers delivery work, companies will just leave the delivery business. Neither the equipment nor the skill set is highly specialized, so switching to something more profitable is comparatively easy.
- ConceptJunkie 5y ago
  If you have the skills and/or capital to do that, yes. I suspect a lot of delivery companies enter into this deal because it's a way to get up and running, and earning money, quickly, without a whole lot of capital or expertise. The downside of doing this is that your beholden to Amazon. The downside of not doing this is that you might not have a job. I'm certainly not defending Amazon in any way, but trying to understand why so many people are in this position, and this seems like a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the answer might be, except that no one is going to like it in the short term.
verisimilitude 5y ago
I've thought along those lines as well. I don't know if this helps clarify, but I did learn, for example, FedEx is actually quite strong without Amazon: "Last year [2018], Amazon accounted for 1.3 percent of FedEx’s total revenue." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/business/fedex-amazon-shipping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/business/fedex-amazon-shi...
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Amazon always shunned FedEx (used them as an option of last resort) because, unlike UPS, they refused to make changes that would be short-term beneficial but make their future outlook dependent on the whims of their biggest client.

MattGaiser 5y ago

I suspect Amazon delivery will turn into Tyson and its chicken growers. Just keep selling the business to a new group of people who cannot leave because of their substantial investment in equipment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cdstyh 5y ago
And forcing them to upgrade their equipment unnecessarily in order to keep them in debt.
rossdavidh 5y ago
Perhaps somewhat similar to Uber and Lyft, their business model may be relying on a continuous supply of innocents.
ethbr0 5y ago
At least they haven't turned into Subway yet: all Amazon delivery partners must purchase Amazon gasoline.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  As far as I know, Uber hasn't done this which tells me that the logistics of it are horrible.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Or maybe the same shady plutocrats that control Uber have all the gas stations, so it doesn't even matter.

hiccuphippo 5y ago

Or Amazon can just buy them and make it work.

cartoonworld 5y ago
They don't have to. Amazon has a sweetheart deal going on, there is no downside. Amazon outsources the insurance, health, org, and most of the business risk to these sole supplier contractors. They can choke them to death and just say, "Welp, time to fund another one" until they get the results they want. Only Amazon can determine which results are acceptable due to these arrangements.
mnd999 5y ago
That would make the drivers Amazon employees so they'd no longer be able to use the "it's not us, it's the delivery firms" defense.

tablespoon 5y ago

> This is more or less how it should be. If Amazon isn't going to offer a good enough deal, then companies shouldn't move packages for them. Not really. These companies are basically committing suicide, because Amazon is in such a dominant position. The way is should be is that they could have put pressure on Amazon much earlier, instead of being forced into such extreme action. Nothing will change. Amazon will just shift to exploiting a different group of suckers through Amazon Flex, or go back to UPS for awhile until the lessons learned from this dissipate. It's not like there's a club of past & future delivery company operators that meets regularly, to keep the knowledge of how bad it is to work with Amazon alive. As the saying goes: "a sucker is born every minute."

relax88 5y ago
> It’s not like there’s a club of past & future delivery company operators that meets regularly Why not? “National Delivery Drivers Union” sounds pretty good to me for a name. If you want to negotiate with leverage against Amazon, you need to actually have the leverage. Why is collective bargaining so weak in this industry?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Why is collective bargaining so weak in this industry? I think because small companies, not workers are the actors here. If the companies themselves got together, it might be interpreted as some kind of illegal cartel. However, it's kind of interesting to consider the idea of a union of small companies (that's permitted only because they're too week vis-a-vis their customers/vendors that they can be explioted, akin to most employee/employer relationships). Also, if you quit the business, why would keep participating in an organization that has no more relevance to you?
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Cartels are illegal, but industry associations are not. It's a fine line, but it can certainly be walked.

HighInquisitor 5y ago

I struggle to grasp how this kind of libertarian vision of the world can possibly be maintained by anyone who actually observes how the world works. No, markets don't self-regulate. Companies won't stop working with Amazon across the board, and those that do will be replaced by companies willing to work for less, because they're full of people willing to work for less. We know that's how this works. We know that people and organizations alike (since they're run by people) under this system don't have libertarian principles, let alone the will power to stand up for them. Most people do not, in fact, feel the sense of righteous indignation needed to make such decisions, nor the ability to freely disassociate from sources of income, because they'll quite literally end up out in the street if they do, so they go along with anything, and rightly so, because survival comes first. The only force that has the ability to stop powerful corporations from exploiting people in this way (hiring those willing to work under terrible conditions, for terrible pay, etc.) is the state, with its monopoly on violence, by quite literally threatening the executives of the corporations with death or prison time for not complying. But the same libertarian-minded people who think the market self-regulates also stand against using state power to control the corporations by force. So here we are. The Profit Motive destroying everything, and a fervent group of people fortunate enough to have the wealth to make independent decisions to disassociate with parties that provide their income lecturing those who don't have that luxury about how they too should make such decisions.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> markets don't self-regulate The linked article is an example of the market self-regulating.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  I would like this to work, but I think Amazon won't really care. They're big enough to work around the problem. Take advantage of that a bunch of drivers are suddenly without work, find another company willing to work with them, and soon enough things are back to the way they were at the start.
- tablespoon 5y ago