5 ms·

I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety. Does this mean that it's OK if someone working for an unsuccessful, failing business gets hurt on the

I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety. Does this mean that it's OK if someone working for an unsuccessful, failing business gets hurt on the job? Or even "less worse"?

adamwk 3y ago
That it’s unacceptable for a rich company to have poor working conditions does not imply it is acceptable for a failing company to have poor working conditions.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Then why make reference to it? Why not just say, "Having unsafe working conditions for employees is unacceptable. Period." ? It's just the same old typical Bernie Sanders sh*t, I guess...
  - aryanmann 3y ago
    I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety. It's not a very strong idea but it's somewhat persuasive. I'm guessing just saying "Having unsafe working conditions is unacceptable" would lead to the question "A lot of companies have unsafe working conditions, why investigate just Amazon?"
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety. Thing is, they have made more investments. It should come as no surprise that trucking is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. All of the shipping companies with available injury data show up equally dangerous. Sanders hasn't revealed anything shocking. It is well understood that driving is just plain dangerous. We can clearly see heavy investment in things like self-driving technology has been made at Amazon; something which could improve workplace conditions – maybe even eliminate the workplace entirely, removing all possible danger to the ultimate degree. They have invested unsuccessfully, perhaps, but that is the nature of investment. Investment does not guarantee yield. Many (most?) investments will fail. I'm guessing Sanders thinks the audience believes in magic?
- randomdata 3y ago
  While that is true, the original quote suggests that because Amazon is rich they should be able to offer one of the safest workplaces. That does imply that if you are not rich then there is less expectation on you to offer a safe workplace.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety. Ironically, there's actually a good chance that the high stock price is partially influenced by increased profits from a lack of strict safety processes.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Not likely. Amazon posted very little profit in the first quarter, yet the stock price is higher than the time when they were seeing record profits. The most likely reason for their high stock price is due to their investments in the future and stockholders believing that those investments will prove to be worthwhile. Investments that include things that will help with workplace safety, like vehicle autonomy, if they prove worthwhile. After all, putting workers out on the dangerous roads to deliver goods is a large part of why Amazon is a dangerous place to work. But there is no guarantee of success here. In the in air of "If only Amazon invested in safety, they could be one of the safest workplaces in America!", the mistake Sanders seems to be making, perhaps on purpose, is suggesting that making an investment will always produce results. In the real world, investments often fail.

I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety. Does this mean that it's OK if someone working for an unsuccessful, failing business gets hurt on the job? Or even "less worse"?

adamwk 3y ago

That it’s unacceptable for a rich company to have poor working conditions does not imply it is acceptable for a failing company to have poor working conditions.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Then why make reference to it? Why not just say, "Having unsafe working conditions for employees is unacceptable. Period." ? It's just the same old typical Bernie Sanders sh*t, I guess...
- aryanmann 3y ago
  I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety. It's not a very strong idea but it's somewhat persuasive. I'm guessing just saying "Having unsafe working conditions is unacceptable" would lead to the question "A lot of companies have unsafe working conditions, why investigate just Amazon?"
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety. Thing is, they have made more investments. It should come as no surprise that trucking is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. All of the shipping companies with available injury data show up equally dangerous. Sanders hasn't revealed anything shocking. It is well understood that driving is just plain dangerous. We can clearly see heavy investment in things like self-driving technology has been made at Amazon; something which could improve workplace conditions – maybe even eliminate the workplace entirely, removing all possible danger to the ultimate degree. They have invested unsuccessfully, perhaps, but that is the nature of investment. Investment does not guarantee yield. Many (most?) investments will fail. I'm guessing Sanders thinks the audience believes in magic?
randomdata 3y ago
While that is true, the original quote suggests that because Amazon is rich they should be able to offer one of the safest workplaces. That does imply that if you are not rich then there is less expectation on you to offer a safe workplace.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

> I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety. Ironically, there's actually a good chance that the high stock price is partially influenced by increased profits from a lack of strict safety processes.

randomdata 3y ago
Not likely. Amazon posted very little profit in the first quarter, yet the stock price is higher than the time when they were seeing record profits. The most likely reason for their high stock price is due to their investments in the future and stockholders believing that those investments will prove to be worthwhile. Investments that include things that will help with workplace safety, like vehicle autonomy, if they prove worthwhile. After all, putting workers out on the dangerous roads to deliver goods is a large part of why Amazon is a dangerous place to work. But there is no guarantee of success here. In the in air of "If only Amazon invested in safety, they could be one of the safest workplaces in America!", the mistake Sanders seems to be making, perhaps on purpose, is suggesting that making an investment will always produce results. In the real world, investments often fail.