4 ms·

> I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? I assure you I did not force them to stri

> I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? I assure you I did not force them to strike, my learnëd friend. This might be shocking to you, but even poor people can think for themselves. > why blame them either even if they were exploiting the workers. ............because they're fucking exploiting them? Did you think "exploit" means "pat on the back" or something?

lsaferite 13y ago
Not that I agree with Amazon's employment tactics regarding warehouse workers, but the definition of exploit is not negative in connotation. I would expect any employer to fully 'exploit' their workforce. exploit (v) - make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
- nollidge 13y ago
  The connotation is often there: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit?r=75&src=ref&... Dictionary.com unabridged: > 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers. Collins English Dictionary: > 2. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
  - f00_ 13y ago
    If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point. There are various reasons for Amazon to pay the wages they do and keep the conditions they do, there are also reasons for the workers to want better wages/conditions. There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with, and you shouldn't try to. In the end it's a financial transaction between the employees and their employer. It makes great economic sense for the employer to try to maximize it's income, and it has the side effect of worsening the lives of the employees, who, in good sense, come to the conclusion they need more than they currently have, and proceed to negotiate with Amazon. Amazon doesn't want to pay them more because it would cut into their income, so they try to dismiss it. The workers proceed to strike to force Amazon into a bad position. I would say neither are at fault. There is no morality to be shone upon the situation, different parties have different interests to protect.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      > If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point. My argument doesn't come down to semantics. @lsaferite brought up definitions and so I responded to that. Weird how you use words like "force" when talking about the workers' actions, but not Amazon's. Funny how it's "great economic sense" for Amazon to maximize their income, but not for the workers to maximize theirs. Also: > There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with I have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that.
      - f00_ 13y ago
        Your definition of exploit differed from his and you tried to disprove his... The workers are forcing Amazon to change the contract, it has negative connotations but that is what's happening > have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that. There is no one "right" party in the situation, and trying to determine one is foolish. And I suppose it could be called a moral judgement, in regards to discourse regarding morals, but that isn't the "situation".
        nollidge 13y ago
        > you tried to disprove his You can't "disprove" a definition for a word. "Exploit" can mean simply "make productive use of", or it can have sinister connotations. Since I was the one to first use it (in this thread at least), I was merely pointing out that my usage was valid. @lsaferite made the semantic point and I responded to it, but your implication that the word's definition is the crux of my argument is inane. > trying to determine one is foolish You can go ahead and keep saying this over and over and over (and, if you wish, over), but that doesn't make it true. You think you're above the responsibility of moral judgment, but what you're actually doing is placing your moral judgment somewhere in between the two parties. This is still a moral judgment. Just because your determination is that both parties are somewhat aggrieved doesn't mean you're being fair or above it all. You think your judgment is special and enlightened because it's centrist? It's not. You're just a schmuck with an opinion like the rest of us.
adharmad 13y ago
You should read ESR's blog on fast food strikers: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5034 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5034
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - adharmad 13y ago
    You will fit right in /r/politics.
yaeger 13y ago
>Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? They are also not primarily striking because of the working conditions as you apparently seem to think. They are striking for more money. Plain and simple. And here comes the kicker you also apparently don't seem to know/grasp. They are being paid what they currently earn not because Amazon willingly pays them slave wages just because, they are being paid what is normal in the logistics industry! The union says the workers are working in the retail industry and should therefore earn more. THAT'S why they are striking. They are in disagreement over what industry the workers should belong to which will directly affect their pay. Amazon does not choose how much or how little they pay their workers. They pay what the tariff dictates. The current question right now is what tariff shall be used. And that is the outrageous thing about this whole deal. That has not been the first strike about this very topic nor will it apparently have been the last. Instead of finally getting a judge to answer the question, once and for all, to what industry the workers belong to, they pull one strike after another with the customer getting the short end. Both sides should finally quit their antics and get the official ruling and then all this hoopla about pay can stop. And once they stage their next strike solely because of working conditions, then you are allowed to come back and white knight for the workers all you want.

lsaferite 13y ago

Not that I agree with Amazon's employment tactics regarding warehouse workers, but the definition of exploit is not negative in connotation. I would expect any employer to fully 'exploit' their workforce. exploit (v) - make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

nollidge 13y ago
The connotation is often there: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit?r=75&src=ref&... Dictionary.com unabridged: > 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers. Collins English Dictionary: > 2. to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
- f00_ 13y ago
  If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point. There are various reasons for Amazon to pay the wages they do and keep the conditions they do, there are also reasons for the workers to want better wages/conditions. There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with, and you shouldn't try to. In the end it's a financial transaction between the employees and their employer. It makes great economic sense for the employer to try to maximize it's income, and it has the side effect of worsening the lives of the employees, who, in good sense, come to the conclusion they need more than they currently have, and proceed to negotiate with Amazon. Amazon doesn't want to pay them more because it would cut into their income, so they try to dismiss it. The workers proceed to strike to force Amazon into a bad position. I would say neither are at fault. There is no morality to be shone upon the situation, different parties have different interests to protect.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    > If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point. My argument doesn't come down to semantics. @lsaferite brought up definitions and so I responded to that. Weird how you use words like "force" when talking about the workers' actions, but not Amazon's. Funny how it's "great economic sense" for Amazon to maximize their income, but not for the workers to maximize theirs. Also: > There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with I have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that.
    - f00_ 13y ago
      Your definition of exploit differed from his and you tried to disprove his... The workers are forcing Amazon to change the contract, it has negative connotations but that is what's happening > have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that. There is no one "right" party in the situation, and trying to determine one is foolish. And I suppose it could be called a moral judgement, in regards to discourse regarding morals, but that isn't the "situation".
      - nollidge 13y ago
        > you tried to disprove his You can't "disprove" a definition for a word. "Exploit" can mean simply "make productive use of", or it can have sinister connotations. Since I was the one to first use it (in this thread at least), I was merely pointing out that my usage was valid. @lsaferite made the semantic point and I responded to it, but your implication that the word's definition is the crux of my argument is inane. > trying to determine one is foolish You can go ahead and keep saying this over and over and over (and, if you wish, over), but that doesn't make it true. You think you're above the responsibility of moral judgment, but what you're actually doing is placing your moral judgment somewhere in between the two parties. This is still a moral judgment. Just because your determination is that both parties are somewhat aggrieved doesn't mean you're being fair or above it all. You think your judgment is special and enlightened because it's centrist? It's not. You're just a schmuck with an opinion like the rest of us.

adharmad 13y ago

You should read ESR's blog on fast food strikers: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5034 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5034

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- adharmad 13y ago
  You will fit right in /r/politics.

yaeger 13y ago

>Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? They are also not primarily striking because of the working conditions as you apparently seem to think. They are striking for more money. Plain and simple. And here comes the kicker you also apparently don't seem to know/grasp. They are being paid what they currently earn not because Amazon willingly pays them slave wages just because, they are being paid what is normal in the logistics industry! The union says the workers are working in the retail industry and should therefore earn more. THAT'S why they are striking. They are in disagreement over what industry the workers should belong to which will directly affect their pay. Amazon does not choose how much or how little they pay their workers. They pay what the tariff dictates. The current question right now is what tariff shall be used. And that is the outrageous thing about this whole deal. That has not been the first strike about this very topic nor will it apparently have been the last. Instead of finally getting a judge to answer the question, once and for all, to what industry the workers belong to, they pull one strike after another with the customer getting the short end. Both sides should finally quit their antics and get the official ruling and then all this hoopla about pay can stop. And once they stage their next strike solely because of working conditions, then you are allowed to come back and white knight for the workers all you want.