They're paid at the level they will accept for the job they provide. Amazon couldn't hire 100,000 people in a month if they were underpaying anyone.

Also, why should they have means to influence the future of the company? They're hired voluntarily to do one job, not to lead the company.

Hiring 100k people a month is only half the picture. Their turnover rate is absurd, and folks wouldn't be quitting in droves if they were paying adequately to compensate for the working conditions.

Why should they have means to influence the future of the company? That's been repeatedly proven in court and enshrined in law.

They accept the job because they need it to survive, but that does not mean they are happy with what they're paid, see all the crushed unionization attempts. Nor does it mean that the company cannot afford to pay them more and still make a nice profit, just because they'd also work for less.

Yes, workers should be able to influence the future of a company they invest their lives in, the same way citizens can influence the future of their countries. The incentives of workers and shareholders can be aligned, when greed is kept in check.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-w...

Why should a worker who voluntarily accepts a contract be allowed to renege on that contract and suddenly have control of other people's property?

Because contracts aren't the highest form of value, they are just a construct we agree to follow as a tool to help create a society that aligns to our values? If contracts are creating results that are not aligned with our values as a society, we should be willing to modify them or do away with the concept of a contract entirely if that allows us to get to a better outcome that we collectively agree upon.

Seems to me like this ideology was soundly rejected twice by an extremely large margin in Sanders' losses in 2016 and 2020. I don't think the country wants to eliminate the idea of a voluntary contract as you suggest.

It's not an ideology that I'm expressing, it's the opposite. We shouldn't be bound by ideology in trying to find solutions to social problems, but be willing propose major changes to fix badly broken systems. A big part of the problem the US has is that it's become a norm to view any proposal through the lens of ones own ideologies or the assumed ideologies of ones interlocutor and dismissing it on the basis of improper ideology rather than proposing an alternate solution.

It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Nobody in the country wants to end voluntary contracts as you suggest.

You want people to be able to renege on contracts they explicitly agreed to under no duress. This position is not supported by the country and has been rejected countless times. Even unionism as a whole has been rejected. I would not join a union even if it was free, absolutely never.

Why wouldn't you join an union? What's wrong with them?