This is a pretty accurate general description of the delivery industry per se, not Amazon specific.
Now it's true that they worked them to the bone, but they were paid well. Being a UPS driver also comes with a lot of perks. My driver had several lady friends on his route. Most of the business he picked up from loved him and we got lots of Christmas presents.
Not sure if their compensation has kept up with inflation but it wasn't a bad job at all.
Ah yes, the calling card of people that think systematic exploitation of workers in a global economy where only the top few are gaining wealth is fine because "free market rules" matter in a world full of regulatory capture and industries with too high of a barrier to entry to foster true competition.
The article is literally about true competition being attempted in a high-moat business.
Amazon isn't offering to deliver Walmart packages for a price.
"...the new service will entail the online retail giant picking up packages from businesses and shipping them to consumers."""
Of course what Amazon will pay their delivery personnel will match the quality of Amazon service, such as it is, anyway.
1. Enough people will say "screw Prime" and Amazon will start trying to figure out how to fix that.
2. The turnover for delivery employees will be so bad, that it will cost Amazon more than if they just paid them better and had better working conditions.
A driver could steal one package, but anything consistent would be quickly detected and dealt with harshly (eg, predict when a sting will be most effective and coordinate with police, etc).
According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[2] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
As noted elsewhere in this subthread, UPS by contrast is unionized (or used to be or is in parts) and seems to offer a livable wage to its drivers.
Whereas the Gig Economy rationalization seems to be: "Show me the gun that was held to your head when you accepted this lousy job."
And exploiting desperate people can lead you down a dark path as a society... provided anyone in the US still gives a shit about empathy, morality and the value of life.
These concerns don't persuade me personally that Right to Work laws are bad. I'm just telling you they exist and probably have some validity.
I may have misunderstood what you meant though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
The doublespeak "Right to Work" sabotages collective bargaining, disempowering Labor.
Not sure how increasing competition in any space creates a monopoly.
Note that Amazon has a distinct and proven track record of utilising its monopoly position to squeeze competing and complementary firms in other spaces. Notably with Hachette.
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-amazon-and-...