3 ms·

Amazon's model for package delivery is to hire "contractor" companies who then hire workers to drive around Amazon-marked vehicles to deliver nothing but Amazon

Amazon's model for package delivery is to hire "contractor" companies who then hire workers to drive around Amazon-marked vehicles to deliver nothing but Amazon packages, working under a long list of rules imposed by Amazon. These workers are effectively Amazon employees, but don't get the ordinary protections that would be afforded to workers hired directly by Amazon. Compared to other delivery drivers they have less training, higher turnover (less experience), higher delivery quotas, harsher schedules, worse pay/benefits, less job security, and no collective bargaining. This puts downward pressure on every other package delivery company, but those companies (and national postal services) can't legally mistreat their employees in the same ways Amazon can. This gives Amazon an uncompetitive advantage by reducing their costs below their competitors' costs, in a way that is unlawful and would be impossible if existing labor laws were vigorously enforced. However, they have thus far managed to evade legal responsibility in many (but not all) jurisdictions.

gottorf 2y ago
I get your point about misclassifying de facto employees as contractors, and also wanting as a society to avoid a race to the bottom in this type of stuff, but the fact remains that the delivery workers are voluntarily choosing to work with the compensation and under the conditions described. I presume that despite all the downsides you listed, it was the best possible option for them. > This puts downward pressure on every other package delivery company If in fact turnover is as high as you say, it would seem that it actually wouldn't be competitive over the long run; the overall customer experience would be worse and eventually Amazon would run out of people to work for them. I think you're saying that this is the labor equivalent of the anti-competitive practice of dumping, but I'm not sure if it translates exactly.

gottorf 2y ago

I get your point about misclassifying de facto employees as contractors, and also wanting as a society to avoid a race to the bottom in this type of stuff, but the fact remains that the delivery workers are voluntarily choosing to work with the compensation and under the conditions described. I presume that despite all the downsides you listed, it was the best possible option for them. > This puts downward pressure on every other package delivery company If in fact turnover is as high as you say, it would seem that it actually wouldn't be competitive over the long run; the overall customer experience would be worse and eventually Amazon would run out of people to work for them. I think you're saying that this is the labor equivalent of the anti-competitive practice of dumping, but I'm not sure if it translates exactly.