6 ms·

Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for abortions and other treatments

29 points by vinni2 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago
Probably not once it becomes illegal to do so (or doing so for employees becomes taxed at a punitive rate) in states they operate in. The war on abortion has always targeted indirect participants, they aren't going to stop doing that once they’ve been given the go-ahead to criminally punish the direct ones.
pyuser583 5y ago
Is this taxed?
_-david-_ 5y ago
They can pay $4000 a year for this but not for what the pro union people are asking for?
- UncleEntity 5y ago
  Probably cheaper than maternity leave.
- olliej 5y ago
  You mean they can pay up to $4000 a year in medical transport costs? Warehouses are often remote, and specialists are often even further than regional hospitals. Flights, etc add up if you have a medical condition that requires multiple specialist visits. Shame on the BBC for intentionally sensationalizing this by deliberately pulling out abortion, when all that's happened is Amazon hasn't decided that it gets to choose what medical care its employees get. An equivalent title, which will hopefully illustrate why your reaction is not reasonable, and is more a deliberately induced by BBC's choice of headline: "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for cancer and other treatments" "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for heart surgery and other treatments" "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for organ donation and other treatments"
tomohawk 5y ago
gross
- olliej 5y ago
  They're paying for travel to medical treatment, given warehouses are frequently a long way from hospitals that seems like a reasonable benefit?
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    I dont know of any medical treatment that kills a patient that's deemed acceptable except for abortion.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Here's some medical ethics literature for you to expand what you know then: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/
    - olliej 5y ago
      Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.
      - ryan93 5y ago
        Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?
        runamok 5y ago
        Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
olliej 5y ago
So while the BBC went for the sensationalist angle, from the article, Amazon is paying for travel travel for any healthcare, which seems reasonable especially when their warehouses are frequently remote. The headline has pulled out abortion specifically for the clicks, all that's happening is Amazon isn't making its employee's healthcare choices for them.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Abortion is special in that the Texas law (which is about to be approved by the Supreme Court) opens them up to lawsuits. So it's not just for the clicks. Abortion is a kind of healthcare which is illegal to provide in some places. If Amazon commits itself to defying those laws, that's a very big deal.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Yes, I get that Texas wants to be a regressive theocracy with sharia law that extends beyond its state boundary, but I suspect that the SC justices know not to ruin their bankrolls days by breaking interstate commerce.
crmd 5y ago
Can Texans sue Amazon under that batshit crazy “facilitating abortion” law?
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
jskxjc 5y ago

29 points by vinni2 5y ago

Probably not once it becomes illegal to do so (or doing so for employees becomes taxed at a punitive rate) in states they operate in. The war on abortion has always targeted indirect participants, they aren't going to stop doing that once they’ve been given the go-ahead to criminally punish the direct ones.

pyuser583 5y ago

Is this taxed?

_-david-_ 5y ago

They can pay $4000 a year for this but not for what the pro union people are asking for?

UncleEntity 5y ago
Probably cheaper than maternity leave.
olliej 5y ago
You mean they can pay up to $4000 a year in medical transport costs? Warehouses are often remote, and specialists are often even further than regional hospitals. Flights, etc add up if you have a medical condition that requires multiple specialist visits. Shame on the BBC for intentionally sensationalizing this by deliberately pulling out abortion, when all that's happened is Amazon hasn't decided that it gets to choose what medical care its employees get. An equivalent title, which will hopefully illustrate why your reaction is not reasonable, and is more a deliberately induced by BBC's choice of headline: "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for cancer and other treatments" "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for heart surgery and other treatments" "Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for organ donation and other treatments"

tomohawk 5y ago

gross

olliej 5y ago
They're paying for travel to medical treatment, given warehouses are frequently a long way from hospitals that seems like a reasonable benefit?
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  I dont know of any medical treatment that kills a patient that's deemed acceptable except for abortion.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Here's some medical ethics literature for you to expand what you know then: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/
  - olliej 5y ago
    Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.
    - ryan93 5y ago
      Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?
      - runamok 5y ago
        Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.

olliej 5y ago

So while the BBC went for the sensationalist angle, from the article, Amazon is paying for travel travel for any healthcare, which seems reasonable especially when their warehouses are frequently remote. The headline has pulled out abortion specifically for the clicks, all that's happening is Amazon isn't making its employee's healthcare choices for them.

jfengel 5y ago
Abortion is special in that the Texas law (which is about to be approved by the Supreme Court) opens them up to lawsuits. So it's not just for the clicks. Abortion is a kind of healthcare which is illegal to provide in some places. If Amazon commits itself to defying those laws, that's a very big deal.
- olliej 5y ago
  Yes, I get that Texas wants to be a regressive theocracy with sharia law that extends beyond its state boundary, but I suspect that the SC justices know not to ruin their bankrolls days by breaking interstate commerce.

crmd 5y ago

Can Texans sue Amazon under that batshit crazy “facilitating abortion” law?

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

jskxjc 5y ago