4 ms·

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Co

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the assets sold off to Joes Delivery Company, the part deus" and it starts all over again. This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier. This happens with FedEx/UPS as well.

dartharva 2mo ago
So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?
- ncallaway 2mo ago
  Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees. They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business. They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicle specific to Amazon deliveries. Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
  - dartharva 2mo ago
    > Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries? I don't know, can they not? If that is the case then it's definitely problematic.
    - ncallaway 2mo ago
      My understanding (based on my memory of a leaked DSP contract that I’m having trouble finding again) is that if you’re a branded DSP, then you must lease the vehicle from Amazon, and you may not use the Amazon vehicle for any purposes other than Amazon deliveries. My memory is the DSP itself is not required to be exclusive to Amazon, but an Amazon branded vehicle can’t be used for purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
    - jimmydddd 2mo ago
      This has a lot to do with the analysis. How much control does Amazon have over the company. That's why they point out in the video that the drivers have to wear Amazon vests (and get punished if they don't), work Amazon directed hours, drive Amazon routes, deliver only Amazon packages, etc.
EugeneG 2mo ago
But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own. You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue... Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
- stackskipton 2mo ago
  > Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own. I wouldn't say subcontracting is a bad thing always. It depends on reason for subcontracting and in this case, I'd call it bad since subcontracting is clearly to avoid liability for what is critical business function. >Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Yes they are. It is enough? Not always. States are always trying to balance allowing protecting general public but not strangling small businesses. It doesn't always work out. >Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)? This law would impact all those companies if they move their drivers into subcontractor. Amazon is getting called out because they are BIGGEST users of this system but no, they are not only ones.

dartharva 2mo ago

So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?

ncallaway 2mo ago
Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees. They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business. They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicle specific to Amazon deliveries. Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
- dartharva 2mo ago
  > Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries? I don't know, can they not? If that is the case then it's definitely problematic.
  - ncallaway 2mo ago
    My understanding (based on my memory of a leaked DSP contract that I’m having trouble finding again) is that if you’re a branded DSP, then you must lease the vehicle from Amazon, and you may not use the Amazon vehicle for any purposes other than Amazon deliveries. My memory is the DSP itself is not required to be exclusive to Amazon, but an Amazon branded vehicle can’t be used for purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
  - jimmydddd 2mo ago
    This has a lot to do with the analysis. How much control does Amazon have over the company. That's why they point out in the video that the drivers have to wear Amazon vests (and get punished if they don't), work Amazon directed hours, drive Amazon routes, deliver only Amazon packages, etc.

EugeneG 2mo ago

But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own. You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue... Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?

stackskipton 2mo ago
> Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own. I wouldn't say subcontracting is a bad thing always. It depends on reason for subcontracting and in this case, I'd call it bad since subcontracting is clearly to avoid liability for what is critical business function. >Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Yes they are. It is enough? Not always. States are always trying to balance allowing protecting general public but not strangling small businesses. It doesn't always work out. >Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)? This law would impact all those companies if they move their drivers into subcontractor. Amazon is getting called out because they are BIGGEST users of this system but no, they are not only ones.