3 ms·

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 e

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.
        bena 2mo ago
        You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task. I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service. I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc. Things are different from me personally hiring a single ride to the airport and me operating a transportation company to shuttle people to and from the airport. If someone paid me to find them a ride to the airport and the person I hired to do the job wound up running over a kid, then I would be liable. Because then I've taken on the responsibility of vetting the driver.
        gruez 2mo ago
        >You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task. I thought the issue was that you want Amazon to be on the hook for damages, not that they didn't do enough vetting? You can do all the vetting you want, but people still can crash into kids. >I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc. If you're trying to imply nobody gets rides from craigslist and therefore we don't need to worry about this edge case, limos (think for weddings and stuff) are frequently by 1-2 man operations.
- everforward 2mo ago
  Others can cause damage, but your odds of being hit by an Amazon driver are dramatically higher than most other companies because of the number of drivers they run. They found a sort of loophole in the law. It's supposed to be self-regulating in a way, because being enormous means a lot of drivers and a lot of accidents so businesses get very picky about who is allowed to drive and how they drive. That falls apart when there's a bajillion drivers but they're made up of thousands of separate "delivery contractors" running fly-by-night businesses that the owners fully expect to die at some point and so don't leave any cash in and don't put improvements into. E.g. I hear Walmart's trucking side is actually fairly nice and difficult to get into. They pay relatively well for the work and it's a cushier kind of trucking (more local, I think), which means everyone wants to work there and they have exacting standards for their drivers. They don't want insurance payouts. Amazon seems notably different because it is _weirdly_ common to hear a story that goes something like "Amazon driver gets arrested for driving double the speed limit while high". The kind of thing that would trigger fleet-wide drug tests at most businesses, but is sort of a normal hum over at Amazon.

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.
      - bena 2mo ago
        You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task. I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service. I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc. Things are different from me personally hiring a single ride to the airport and me operating a transportation company to shuttle people to and from the airport. If someone paid me to find them a ride to the airport and the person I hired to do the job wound up running over a kid, then I would be liable. Because then I've taken on the responsibility of vetting the driver.
        gruez 2mo ago
        >You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task. I thought the issue was that you want Amazon to be on the hook for damages, not that they didn't do enough vetting? You can do all the vetting you want, but people still can crash into kids. >I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc. If you're trying to imply nobody gets rides from craigslist and therefore we don't need to worry about this edge case, limos (think for weddings and stuff) are frequently by 1-2 man operations.
everforward 2mo ago
Others can cause damage, but your odds of being hit by an Amazon driver are dramatically higher than most other companies because of the number of drivers they run. They found a sort of loophole in the law. It's supposed to be self-regulating in a way, because being enormous means a lot of drivers and a lot of accidents so businesses get very picky about who is allowed to drive and how they drive. That falls apart when there's a bajillion drivers but they're made up of thousands of separate "delivery contractors" running fly-by-night businesses that the owners fully expect to die at some point and so don't leave any cash in and don't put improvements into. E.g. I hear Walmart's trucking side is actually fairly nice and difficult to get into. They pay relatively well for the work and it's a cushier kind of trucking (more local, I think), which means everyone wants to work there and they have exacting standards for their drivers. They don't want insurance payouts. Amazon seems notably different because it is _weirdly_ common to hear a story that goes something like "Amazon driver gets arrested for driving double the speed limit while high". The kind of thing that would trigger fleet-wide drug tests at most businesses, but is sort of a normal hum over at Amazon.