7 ms·

These aren't contractors like Uber drivers. They are corporations that are contractors of Amazon, and the drivers are employees of those companies. How would

These aren't contractors like Uber drivers. They are corporations that are contractors of Amazon, and the drivers are employees of those companies. How would this possibly be a legal issue?

fouc 3y ago
The fact that the employees of the contractor companies ultimately work for only one company - Amazon - that means they should be treated like employees of Amazon. This is the same situation when independent contractors have only one client.
- kova12 3y ago
  We all ultimately work for IRS
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Why? A company hiring another company like this seems perfectly reasonable to me. There is no argument to be made about contractor vs employee status because the employees are still full time employees. Why should they have to be an employee of a single corporate parent? When companies like Amazon buy other companies and vertically integrate, people complain. When Amazon contracts with vendors instead, people complain too. I don't think there is any legitimate point to this and it's just "I hate Amazon."
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    Yeah, you're just wrong. It's not like Amazon is doling out work to local delivery companies out of the goodness of their heart. They're setting up these companies as part of their DSP program to limit their liability. They're following the chicken industries playbook(which shouldn't be legal either) by requiring the DSP use Amazon equipment, with a loan from Amazon, pay back by revenue from Amazon. They're also using this as part of an anti-unionization strategy. One of their DSPs recently unionized and Amazon just cancelled their contract. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/24/amazon-delivery-service-partner-anti-union-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/24/amazon-deliv...
Analemma_ 3y ago
Because courts are supposed to see through flimsy fictions like this. These companies are not in an ordinary vendor/customer relationship: they are controlled completely by Amazon, they do not and cannot serve customers other than Amazon, their conditions and working hours are set by Amazon, etc. They are Amazon subsidiaries in all but name, and their treatment by the law should reflect that.
- snoman 3y ago
  Tell that to every government contractor. Many companies (that I'd wager you wouldn't take issue with) exist due to the contracts they have with a single government organization.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - somsak2 3y ago
    that kind of setup is actually fairly rare -- most of the work done in this sector is by large companies that have tens to hundreds of concurrent contracts from various government agencies. speaking from experience
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > Many companies (that I'd wager you wouldn't take issue with) exist due to the contracts they have with a single government organization. But the government doesn't tell those companies "you cannot work for anyone but us." The government doesn't tell those companies "your employees must work these hours" (it may say "we require coverage for X period of time"). And so on.
patmorgan23 3y ago
They are companies who's employees wear Amazon uniforms, drive Amazon branded vans, deliver packages only for Amazon, Amazon determines the routes and performance metrics for the employees, Amazon can dismiss the employees without waiting for approval from the companies management. These employees are Amazon employees in all but name.

These aren't contractors like Uber drivers. They are corporations that are contractors of Amazon, and the drivers are employees of those companies. How would this possibly be a legal issue?

fouc 3y ago

The fact that the employees of the contractor companies ultimately work for only one company - Amazon - that means they should be treated like employees of Amazon. This is the same situation when independent contractors have only one client.

kova12 3y ago
We all ultimately work for IRS
fallingknife 3y ago
Why? A company hiring another company like this seems perfectly reasonable to me. There is no argument to be made about contractor vs employee status because the employees are still full time employees. Why should they have to be an employee of a single corporate parent? When companies like Amazon buy other companies and vertically integrate, people complain. When Amazon contracts with vendors instead, people complain too. I don't think there is any legitimate point to this and it's just "I hate Amazon."
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Yeah, you're just wrong. It's not like Amazon is doling out work to local delivery companies out of the goodness of their heart. They're setting up these companies as part of their DSP program to limit their liability. They're following the chicken industries playbook(which shouldn't be legal either) by requiring the DSP use Amazon equipment, with a loan from Amazon, pay back by revenue from Amazon. They're also using this as part of an anti-unionization strategy. One of their DSPs recently unionized and Amazon just cancelled their contract. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/24/amazon-delivery-service-partner-anti-union-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/24/amazon-deliv...

Analemma_ 3y ago

Because courts are supposed to see through flimsy fictions like this. These companies are not in an ordinary vendor/customer relationship: they are controlled completely by Amazon, they do not and cannot serve customers other than Amazon, their conditions and working hours are set by Amazon, etc. They are Amazon subsidiaries in all but name, and their treatment by the law should reflect that.

snoman 3y ago
Tell that to every government contractor. Many companies (that I'd wager you wouldn't take issue with) exist due to the contracts they have with a single government organization.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- somsak2 3y ago
  that kind of setup is actually fairly rare -- most of the work done in this sector is by large companies that have tens to hundreds of concurrent contracts from various government agencies. speaking from experience
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Many companies (that I'd wager you wouldn't take issue with) exist due to the contracts they have with a single government organization. But the government doesn't tell those companies "you cannot work for anyone but us." The government doesn't tell those companies "your employees must work these hours" (it may say "we require coverage for X period of time"). And so on.

patmorgan23 3y ago

They are companies who's employees wear Amazon uniforms, drive Amazon branded vans, deliver packages only for Amazon, Amazon determines the routes and performance metrics for the employees, Amazon can dismiss the employees without waiting for approval from the companies management. These employees are Amazon employees in all but name.