3 ms·

Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run

Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route. This should be interesting from a legal perspective.

figmert 2mo ago
It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.
- slicktux 2mo ago
  That’s a rather splenetic response. On paper their contractor requires them to run an Amazon route and wear Amazon logo. Therefore, it’s not Amazon. I’m asking honest question that any court law will ask; cynicism is not part of the scales in court but rather objectivity.
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    This is why they want to fix the paper to say Amazon is making them do it.
  - ncallaway 2mo ago
    Does Amazon require the contractor to have the contractors drivers wear Amazon branded vests? What if the DSP is a single-person company? Then the DSP and the driver are the same person. In that case, is it Amazon or the DSP requiring the driver to wear Amazon livery?
stackskipton 2mo ago
Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side. This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-life-ruined-Amazon-delivery-driver-crash-lawsuit.html https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
- gruez 2mo ago
  >This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...) That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
  - bena 2mo ago
    Yeah, but this time it was. And if it is, they should be on the hook, yes?
    - gruez 2mo ago
      No. Companies should be on the hook if that's the law says they're on the hook, not because some politician put out a youtube video. This is rule of law 101. As for changing the law so they're on the hook, I'm against this specific proposal for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.
      - bena 2mo ago
        So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical. Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes. I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages in the state. You'd shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's what the law says".
        gruez 2mo ago
        >So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have conceivably arranged it over craigslist or whatever.
enragedcacti 2mo ago
While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7681691&GUID=D08D0790-75EA-4AE7-9069-60134974B02B https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...

figmert 2mo ago

It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.

slicktux 2mo ago
That’s a rather splenetic response. On paper their contractor requires them to run an Amazon route and wear Amazon logo. Therefore, it’s not Amazon. I’m asking honest question that any court law will ask; cynicism is not part of the scales in court but rather objectivity.
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  This is why they want to fix the paper to say Amazon is making them do it.
- ncallaway 2mo ago
  Does Amazon require the contractor to have the contractors drivers wear Amazon branded vests? What if the DSP is a single-person company? Then the DSP and the driver are the same person. In that case, is it Amazon or the DSP requiring the driver to wear Amazon livery?

stackskipton 2mo ago

Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side. This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-life-ruined-Amazon-delivery-driver-crash-lawsuit.html https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)

gruez 2mo ago
>This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...) That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
- bena 2mo ago
  Yeah, but this time it was. And if it is, they should be on the hook, yes?
  - gruez 2mo ago
    No. Companies should be on the hook if that's the law says they're on the hook, not because some politician put out a youtube video. This is rule of law 101. As for changing the law so they're on the hook, I'm against this specific proposal for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.
    - bena 2mo ago
      So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical. Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes. I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages in the state. You'd shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's what the law says".
      - gruez 2mo ago
        >So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible? If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have conceivably arranged it over craigslist or whatever.

enragedcacti 2mo ago

While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7681691&GUID=D08D0790-75EA-4AE7-9069-60134974B02B https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...