News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Amazon worker: paid £18,000 a year to shift 250 items an hour. Parent comment

Re:The Amazon worker: paid £18,000 a year to shift 250 items... by apsec112 on Saturday January 20, 2018 @01:40PM (#16194676)
Suppose I come down with cancer. I have a grand piano, which I auction off to pay my medical bills. The highest bidder offers $4,000, so that's what I sell it for. It isn't enough, so I run out of money and die.

Is the person who bought the piano morally guilty for "ignoring others' suffering"? Should they be held guilty unless they bid however much I needed for my cancer treatment, even if that's $1,000,000? Are they more guilty than the losing bidders, who offered even less, or people who didn't bid at all? That's what this seems to imply about Amazon (or all employers, really), except in this case, the person is selling a service (whatever work they perform) rather than a piano.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Amazon worker: paid £18,000 a year to shift 250 items... by logicallee on Saturday January 20, 2018 @02:21PM (#16194914)
>except in this case,

Your analogy is very leaky. Bidding and delivery is one and done, whereas in the dynamics of workplaces, employers have vast influence on the workplace conditions daily. Also applicants rarely get full insight when applying - this is true of piano bidding ("I wonder what it will be like to deal with this person") but that represents a small one-time exchange.

[ Parent | on HN ]