And much needed jobs.

So evil!

With any job that requires urinating into bottles to keep low tier managers' KPIs good, I somewhat doubt the attribute "much needed".

There are a shitload of jobs that are (as coronavirus crisis and the list of jobs deemed essential in many countries shows) "much needed" for keeping a country running: anything medical, public transport, childcare/education, logistics, groceries/other food, infrastructure upkeep (electric/water/phone/internet/gas grid).

But unlike jobs that label themselves "system critical" such as banks, investment vulture funds and others of their ilk, the really essential jobs have one thing in common: extremely shitty pay, sometimes outright exploitative working conditions.

Lost interest when you claimed medical jobs have extremely shitty pay.

What is more "essential", the job doing the essential work or the job creating the conditions that makes others do the essential work?

The essential jobs are those without which society would collapse and lives be in actual danger, as well as the dependencies of these jobs.

Like all jobs, these jobs are voluntary. Workers can quit any day they want.

Since they keep showing up, they clearly think these jobs are their best option at the moment.

Here's my point: I strongly believe that you or I have neither the information or the right to judge that choice or take it away from them.

The piss in a bottle stories are just that. Amazon and Bezos have much attention and many enemies. Stories about how awful they are will always appear and circulate.

Thing is, delivery drivers elsewhere actually do this by choice. UPS and FedEx drivers are paid for a set of deliveries. If they can do them quicker then they get the same money but for less time. In NYC finding a restroom can be a real pain and a waste of precious time. It’s far easier to urinate in a bottle on the truck and keep moving.

I imagine they eat while on the move too.

So I’m not quite sure this is the indignity you make it or to be.

> So I’m not quite sure this is the indignity you make it or to be.

It is. Eating during driving is dangerous, even more so with a multi ton delivery truck. Pissing in a bottle is disgusting and a public health risk (where to properly wash hands, for one).

If delivery set prices do not cover that employees get enough time to decently work, then they have to be raised!

Their argument is that some employees will piss in bottles no matter what you pay them. Don't fall into the trap of arguing that they'd stop pissing in bottles at 100/hr

Some, yes, but most of those pissing in bottles are doing this because they have no other choice as they are not paid for the time they need to pee.

Just like Uber provides "jobs"?

This is not the case of shit jobs that trap people, provided by a notoriously antisocial company engaging in illegal things. This is a case of jobs critical for the society at this moment, provided at a time where half of the country is about to become unemployed.

At the physical expense of his wage slaves.

The "wage slaves" are given the opportunity to leave and work at any other company that will hire them and yet willingly choose not to. That implies quite a non-traditional definition of slavery.

Can you explain the strikes, complaints about work pressure (having to piss in bottles, ridiculous uncontextual performance requirements), high workplace injury rate compared to competitors, etc given this abundant choice.

It's a large company with thousands of employees, and the company has stepped on a lot of toes by out-competing many, many brick and mortar retailers, so there is "consumer demand" for reports of their inherent wickedness and every malcontent gets a microphone.

I repeat the same question -- if they don't like it there so much, why not go work for Walmart? Or Target, Home Depot, BJ's, etc.?

If the way they're attracting employees is by offering better pay and benefits than competitors rather than by offering a less demanding job, it's not as if that isn't public information. Why would you choose a thing and then object to the trade offs inherent in it?

People have this desire for them to do both, but if the job was less demanding then they could attract employees with less compensation, and they'd have every reason to not pay as much. So why is it wrong for employees to prefer to get paid more in exchange for fewer breaks?

It's like people hate for anybody to have a choice. If you work for Amazon you get paid more but work inflexible hours with limited breaks. If you work for Uber you get paid less but you set your own hours and can take a break whenever you want. Yet somehow both of these are put up as examples of mistreatment. They're just the trade offs inherent in the unskilled labor market.

Yes, it does, doesn't it?