6 ms·

Why don’t their employees quit then and work somewhere better if they have the opportunity? If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is pr

Why don’t their employees quit then and work somewhere better if they have the opportunity? If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is providing a valuable opportunity. Not to mention we seem to be in a worker-favorable economy.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is providing a valuable opportunity. So when are we letting children back in the coalmines?
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  This is a terrible analogy and adds nothing to the conversation. We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. There is a huge chasm between "adult workers making more than a lot of their other opportunities is slightly more cannot unionize as easily using Amazon services" and "put children back in coal mines".
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    >We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. once upon a time, this was not obvious. this modern moral axiom is a result of of hard-won labor organizing over the 19th century. all kinds of exploitative practices were justified with the exact same "the workers are being given an opportunity so they shouldn't complain" argument. it's not an analogy. taking advantage of people because they don't have any other options is the definition of exploitation.
    - ashtonkem 4y ago
      In fact, most of the arguments by GP were also used by those defending now illegal labor practices, including child labor.
  - uncomputation 4y ago
    I disagree. I think it’s a good reminder that if we do not regulate labor, businesses like Amazon will grow more and more nefarious. They already confiscate phones, have a built-in PIP revolving door, use their own employees to vouch for them on Twitter, recruit aggressively to have a never-ending stream of labor, and explicitly violate existing labor laws by setting up a system so competitive their own employees cannot take bathroom breaks and meet quotas, in essence giving them no breaks. You seem to be under the impression that companies have an inherent disdain for child labor, which historically is not true. I think actually society has proven that, as long as we don’t see it, we’re fine with the cost. Also, do you know what stopped children in coal mines? Labor unions.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    This is FinNerd's argumentation taken to it's logical conclusion - he is happy to sacrafice employee protections because X is the best employment avaliable. They or you have not outlined where does this slippery slope stop, or ankowledged nessesity of employee protections. I think you are still not seeing it, because the only protest from your 'but they are children!' - so if we exploit adults with a down's syndome, that's okay? Oh, so disabilities are protected, what if we spesifically target people who need money to pay for cancer treatment, and make them sign a waiver on safety equipment? I mean, they aren't gonna live long either way, it's a win-win!
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    > We aren't going to make children work in mines https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws-weakened-us-industries-teens https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws... Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain?
    - edmundsauto 4y ago
      How does an article about lifting allowed working hours for teenagers in a fast food joint equate to children working in coal mines?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Think about the law they are gonna pass next, its only 1 step away. Also, as long as it's not a literal coalmine you see no risks to children? If it's a factory instead, then we are in the clear?
        edmundsauto 4y ago
        No, I don't think the next step is passing laws to enslave children in coal mines. I am not advocating for child labor at all - just discussing the topic at hand, which in GP's comment was saying this link provided an example of children being made to work in coal mines. It was explicitly not. I do not advocate for children's labor, but I also do not advocate for taking things to extremes in order to make a point. If you feel it's problematic for children to be allowed (not forced - allowed) to work in fast food, we can have that discussion. But talking about it as the missing link for returning to 19th century slave labor conditions, or the conditions currently in China is misleading and not worthy of a conversation.
      - kevingadd 4y ago
        Fast food joints are not safe. You can get seriously injured working a fryer or grill, and a 16 year old is less likely to be able to operate those things safely. Keep in mind also that a 16 year old is almost certainly going to school, so they will be working while already tired. I say this as someone who started working at age 14: Children should not be allowed to work most jobs until they are much older than that.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    I worked up to 60 hours a week (I'd say avg 50) from the time I was 13 years old making $6 an hour. It was backbreaking, grueling labor. But not a coal mine so no risk of black lung, so I guess everything is okay? Or maybe my parents should have taken advantage of economic opportunities that didn't exist (they looked, constantly, for options). This was in the US. Most of the time I did my homework in school, cramming in assignments for second period during first period, then 3rd period hw during second period, etc. Child labor isn't dead, and if you truly think that everyone has the economic opportunities to avoid these circumstance then you don't have the scope of experience needed to accurately assess the state of society. (And no, it wasn't a case of "well if you can't support children you shouldn't have them" The circumstances of the above situation came about long after I was born, though before I was 13)
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Would your family have been better off if the income from your $6/hr job was lost? I presume this work was beneficial to your family somehow, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
      - ineedasername 4y ago
        Is "better off [economically]" you're guide on ethical labor practices? I don't want to read too much into your comment, but that is the implication, in which case any labor practice can be justified so long as someone is willing to do it. That's a rather extreme view.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours in kind. Please note 'economically' was added by you. I genuinely wondered if you and your family would be better off in general, not just economically. Usually economic effects have greater effects on the family outside of the economic outlook. It would be strange indeed if you toiled for years doing something to create a net hurt to your family. I will say if you engaged in some unethical labor practices to help your family while earning those $6, I personally could look past them to some extent. I assume you did this to help your family survive so anything unethical you did was out of necessity. Personally I withhold judgement.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  These kids need a few days in the coal mine.
vkou 4y ago
Why would they quit when they can collectively bargain instead?
_dain_ 4y ago
"just quit and get another job" -- this is frictionless-plane-in-a-vacuum thinking. people have all kinds of life circumstances that means they can't act like perfectly rational economic agents, especially when they are poor. turn it around: why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity?
- mdorazio 4y ago
  > why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity? Because that directly conflicts with making the highest profit possible (still legally). What’s sad in these discussions is that it’s both true that Amazon is a terrible employer and that it often pays more than alternatives for many workers. This seems like a failure of policy (ex. Enforcing living wage standards) and American business well-being at least as much as a failure of Amazon to “do the right thing.” Edit: Cracks me up that I got downvoted for telling the truth about capitalism.
  - lupire 4y ago
    If Jeff Bezos wants to work his staff until their bodies break and delivery trucks crash, the least they can do is the same to his body. Eat the rich.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      As a minimum wage McDonald’s cashier, I refuse to get a raise if that means any of my bosses up through corporate don’t get raises.
  - jasd 4y ago
    I don't understand why we expect Amazon to do the right thing vs we should expect in this case all retailers to do the right thing? Unfortunately as consumers we are always looking for the best deal or the lowest price on everything. Which means retailers need to cut costs every way possible which in turn leads to sucking every ounce out of workers. Let's assume that Amazon did end up making things way better for their workers. That means higher costs and hence higher prices. This will allow other retailers to win markets by setting the best prices. I think we need regulation that applies to all retailers in this case or all industries that hire manual labor vs constantly targeting Amazon for being the bad guy.
uncomputation 4y ago
Say you’re a father. You need to support your family, and there’s an Amazon Fulfillment Center in town. It pays a whole dollar an hour better than the local fruit packing warehouse, which is a huge difference. Amazon is providing me a valuable opportunity! Except now, I’m working myself to the bone trying to fulfill my package counts, peeing in bottles, shitting in bags, constantly stressed about if I can not only meet my quotas, but beat everyone else on the floor with me so that I can get more hours next time. I get back from work miserable, stressed, and probably angry from the constant competition needed to just survive. But this is a valuable opportunity, surely, except for the fact that I’m constantly stressed about work, and now I can’t even complain about how I’m stressed about work because Amazon won’t allow me to have my phone on the floor or say the word “restroom” in their internal chat app. Oh but right, as you say, it’s a worker-favorable economy! Let me go to packing warehouse and try and get even fifty cents closer to Amazon with the leverage I obviously have. I’m sure the guy there is gonna say no problem, here’s a raise. This is the lesson that we already learned in the 1800s with monopolies; they distort reality. It’s useless to argue “if you don’t want to work for them, don’t” because they often pay just better than your local alternatives, but by virtue of their economy bending power, they will exert an insane amount of control and influence until they are either regulated or there is no competition left and I don’t even have the fruit packing warehouse anymore, but the Amazon Oranges Fulfillment Center.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Even as a homeless person showing up with drug addicts while waking up from a ditch, I found opportunities less demeaning than Amazon. If my only option was truly amazon, as a father, I would send my family to go live in the 3rd world and remit enough for them to live on while I live under a tarp rather than work full time at amazon again. Amazon is 10% of retail and retail is only a slice of the economy. If you can't find an alternative to amazon, you aren't looking.
- eftychis 4y ago
  These working conditions should simply be illegal in the U.S. (and the countries it is not already). There is no way around that. If society doesn't demand that then good luck to all of us. I am simply surprised again and again people haven't "broken" and keep putting up with this.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Negotiations exist between two parties in a contractual relationship. Employment isn't a take it or leave it deal, it's give and take between two parties where terms of employment are decided by negotiations between both of them.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  You mean like how I freely negotiate and accept the contract that describes CPUs backdoors (Intel Management Engine) in one of two computer CPU manufacturers in the world?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Or your cellphone contract, or apartment lease, or the terms of use for every web site, or End User License Agreements. They're all totally "meeting of the minds" mutually agreed upon between parties of equal power, open to negotiation by skilled end-users... LOL! Most contracts/agreements that end users are subjected to are far from freely negotiable. They are take-it-or-leave-it rule-making written by some company's legal counsel and enforced by the courts. Agree or don't do business with. I've never been presented with an employment agreement where any of the terms could be negotiated. Salary and benefits? Yes, sometimes. But other terms? No way. I always try, but in every case, you get a stern message from corporate legal basically saying "Sign it unmodified or GTFO." I don't know who these HN Captains of Industry are who negotiate the terms of their employment, but that's the exception, not the rule. Maybe at the VP+ level, these things are negotiable (parties are more equal in power), but at the "5th grunt from the left" level, no way.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      This is the point of unions, because atomized workers don't have much leverage by themselves to negotiate with an entities that have already consolidated their interests and power in the form of corporations. Unions help workers consolidate their interests and power in order to leverage them against the consolidated interests and power of their employers and negotiate better terms of employment.
Lamad123 4y ago
Let them eat foie gras

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is providing a valuable opportunity. So when are we letting children back in the coalmines?

edmundsauto 4y ago
This is a terrible analogy and adds nothing to the conversation. We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. There is a huge chasm between "adult workers making more than a lot of their other opportunities is slightly more cannot unionize as easily using Amazon services" and "put children back in coal mines".
- _dain_ 4y ago
  >We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. once upon a time, this was not obvious. this modern moral axiom is a result of of hard-won labor organizing over the 19th century. all kinds of exploitative practices were justified with the exact same "the workers are being given an opportunity so they shouldn't complain" argument. it's not an analogy. taking advantage of people because they don't have any other options is the definition of exploitation.
  - ashtonkem 4y ago
    In fact, most of the arguments by GP were also used by those defending now illegal labor practices, including child labor.
- uncomputation 4y ago
  I disagree. I think it’s a good reminder that if we do not regulate labor, businesses like Amazon will grow more and more nefarious. They already confiscate phones, have a built-in PIP revolving door, use their own employees to vouch for them on Twitter, recruit aggressively to have a never-ending stream of labor, and explicitly violate existing labor laws by setting up a system so competitive their own employees cannot take bathroom breaks and meet quotas, in essence giving them no breaks. You seem to be under the impression that companies have an inherent disdain for child labor, which historically is not true. I think actually society has proven that, as long as we don’t see it, we’re fine with the cost. Also, do you know what stopped children in coal mines? Labor unions.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  This is FinNerd's argumentation taken to it's logical conclusion - he is happy to sacrafice employee protections because X is the best employment avaliable. They or you have not outlined where does this slippery slope stop, or ankowledged nessesity of employee protections. I think you are still not seeing it, because the only protest from your 'but they are children!' - so if we exploit adults with a down's syndome, that's okay? Oh, so disabilities are protected, what if we spesifically target people who need money to pay for cancer treatment, and make them sign a waiver on safety equipment? I mean, they aren't gonna live long either way, it's a win-win!
- kevingadd 4y ago
  > We aren't going to make children work in mines https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws-weakened-us-industries-teens https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws... Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain?
  - edmundsauto 4y ago
    How does an article about lifting allowed working hours for teenagers in a fast food joint equate to children working in coal mines?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Think about the law they are gonna pass next, its only 1 step away. Also, as long as it's not a literal coalmine you see no risks to children? If it's a factory instead, then we are in the clear?
      - edmundsauto 4y ago
        No, I don't think the next step is passing laws to enslave children in coal mines. I am not advocating for child labor at all - just discussing the topic at hand, which in GP's comment was saying this link provided an example of children being made to work in coal mines. It was explicitly not. I do not advocate for children's labor, but I also do not advocate for taking things to extremes in order to make a point. If you feel it's problematic for children to be allowed (not forced - allowed) to work in fast food, we can have that discussion. But talking about it as the missing link for returning to 19th century slave labor conditions, or the conditions currently in China is misleading and not worthy of a conversation.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      Fast food joints are not safe. You can get seriously injured working a fryer or grill, and a 16 year old is less likely to be able to operate those things safely. Keep in mind also that a 16 year old is almost certainly going to school, so they will be working while already tired. I say this as someone who started working at age 14: Children should not be allowed to work most jobs until they are much older than that.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  I worked up to 60 hours a week (I'd say avg 50) from the time I was 13 years old making $6 an hour. It was backbreaking, grueling labor. But not a coal mine so no risk of black lung, so I guess everything is okay? Or maybe my parents should have taken advantage of economic opportunities that didn't exist (they looked, constantly, for options). This was in the US. Most of the time I did my homework in school, cramming in assignments for second period during first period, then 3rd period hw during second period, etc. Child labor isn't dead, and if you truly think that everyone has the economic opportunities to avoid these circumstance then you don't have the scope of experience needed to accurately assess the state of society. (And no, it wasn't a case of "well if you can't support children you shouldn't have them" The circumstances of the above situation came about long after I was born, though before I was 13)
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Would your family have been better off if the income from your $6/hr job was lost? I presume this work was beneficial to your family somehow, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      Is "better off [economically]" you're guide on ethical labor practices? I don't want to read too much into your comment, but that is the implication, in which case any labor practice can be justified so long as someone is willing to do it. That's a rather extreme view.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours in kind. Please note 'economically' was added by you. I genuinely wondered if you and your family would be better off in general, not just economically. Usually economic effects have greater effects on the family outside of the economic outlook. It would be strange indeed if you toiled for years doing something to create a net hurt to your family. I will say if you engaged in some unethical labor practices to help your family while earning those $6, I personally could look past them to some extent. I assume you did this to help your family survive so anything unethical you did was out of necessity. Personally I withhold judgement.
datavirtue 4y ago
These kids need a few days in the coal mine.

vkou 4y ago

Why would they quit when they can collectively bargain instead?

_dain_ 4y ago

"just quit and get another job" -- this is frictionless-plane-in-a-vacuum thinking. people have all kinds of life circumstances that means they can't act like perfectly rational economic agents, especially when they are poor. turn it around: why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity?

mdorazio 4y ago
> why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity? Because that directly conflicts with making the highest profit possible (still legally). What’s sad in these discussions is that it’s both true that Amazon is a terrible employer and that it often pays more than alternatives for many workers. This seems like a failure of policy (ex. Enforcing living wage standards) and American business well-being at least as much as a failure of Amazon to “do the right thing.” Edit: Cracks me up that I got downvoted for telling the truth about capitalism.
- lupire 4y ago
  If Jeff Bezos wants to work his staff until their bodies break and delivery trucks crash, the least they can do is the same to his body. Eat the rich.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    As a minimum wage McDonald’s cashier, I refuse to get a raise if that means any of my bosses up through corporate don’t get raises.
- jasd 4y ago
  I don't understand why we expect Amazon to do the right thing vs we should expect in this case all retailers to do the right thing? Unfortunately as consumers we are always looking for the best deal or the lowest price on everything. Which means retailers need to cut costs every way possible which in turn leads to sucking every ounce out of workers. Let's assume that Amazon did end up making things way better for their workers. That means higher costs and hence higher prices. This will allow other retailers to win markets by setting the best prices. I think we need regulation that applies to all retailers in this case or all industries that hire manual labor vs constantly targeting Amazon for being the bad guy.

uncomputation 4y ago

Say you’re a father. You need to support your family, and there’s an Amazon Fulfillment Center in town. It pays a whole dollar an hour better than the local fruit packing warehouse, which is a huge difference. Amazon is providing me a valuable opportunity! Except now, I’m working myself to the bone trying to fulfill my package counts, peeing in bottles, shitting in bags, constantly stressed about if I can not only meet my quotas, but beat everyone else on the floor with me so that I can get more hours next time. I get back from work miserable, stressed, and probably angry from the constant competition needed to just survive. But this is a valuable opportunity, surely, except for the fact that I’m constantly stressed about work, and now I can’t even complain about how I’m stressed about work because Amazon won’t allow me to have my phone on the floor or say the word “restroom” in their internal chat app. Oh but right, as you say, it’s a worker-favorable economy! Let me go to packing warehouse and try and get even fifty cents closer to Amazon with the leverage I obviously have. I’m sure the guy there is gonna say no problem, here’s a raise. This is the lesson that we already learned in the 1800s with monopolies; they distort reality. It’s useless to argue “if you don’t want to work for them, don’t” because they often pay just better than your local alternatives, but by virtue of their economy bending power, they will exert an insane amount of control and influence until they are either regulated or there is no competition left and I don’t even have the fruit packing warehouse anymore, but the Amazon Oranges Fulfillment Center.

notch656a 4y ago
Even as a homeless person showing up with drug addicts while waking up from a ditch, I found opportunities less demeaning than Amazon. If my only option was truly amazon, as a father, I would send my family to go live in the 3rd world and remit enough for them to live on while I live under a tarp rather than work full time at amazon again. Amazon is 10% of retail and retail is only a slice of the economy. If you can't find an alternative to amazon, you aren't looking.
eftychis 4y ago
These working conditions should simply be illegal in the U.S. (and the countries it is not already). There is no way around that. If society doesn't demand that then good luck to all of us. I am simply surprised again and again people haven't "broken" and keep putting up with this.

heavyset_go 4y ago

Negotiations exist between two parties in a contractual relationship. Employment isn't a take it or leave it deal, it's give and take between two parties where terms of employment are decided by negotiations between both of them.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
You mean like how I freely negotiate and accept the contract that describes CPUs backdoors (Intel Management Engine) in one of two computer CPU manufacturers in the world?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Or your cellphone contract, or apartment lease, or the terms of use for every web site, or End User License Agreements. They're all totally "meeting of the minds" mutually agreed upon between parties of equal power, open to negotiation by skilled end-users... LOL! Most contracts/agreements that end users are subjected to are far from freely negotiable. They are take-it-or-leave-it rule-making written by some company's legal counsel and enforced by the courts. Agree or don't do business with. I've never been presented with an employment agreement where any of the terms could be negotiated. Salary and benefits? Yes, sometimes. But other terms? No way. I always try, but in every case, you get a stern message from corporate legal basically saying "Sign it unmodified or GTFO." I don't know who these HN Captains of Industry are who negotiate the terms of their employment, but that's the exception, not the rule. Maybe at the VP+ level, these things are negotiable (parties are more equal in power), but at the "5th grunt from the left" level, no way.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    This is the point of unions, because atomized workers don't have much leverage by themselves to negotiate with an entities that have already consolidated their interests and power in the form of corporations. Unions help workers consolidate their interests and power in order to leverage them against the consolidated interests and power of their employers and negotiate better terms of employment.

Lamad123 4y ago

Let them eat foie gras