You really think the only reason they increased their labor costs by billions is because a now irrelevant populist from Vermont doesn't like rich people?

Bernie Sanders is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He's not irrelevant, that's a position with actual power. His committee is the one from which the current 1.9T stimulus bill originates, for instance. That bill doesn't get passed without going through him first. That's far from irrelevant.

The degree of power he is still technically holding on to does not change my point.

> The only reason Amazon raised their fulfillment pay was because Bernie Sanders shamed them into it

I don't think this kind of claim, especially without evidence, is helpful. How do you know what their reasoning is? You're telling me on the one hand that this is a big powerful company and on the other hand saying they are easily cowed and susceptible to something as toothless as 'shame'. So which is it? My take is that companies are complex and make decisions based on many factors typically. You have no idea why they did or didn't do certain things, and it most likely has nothing to do with Sanders.

Also consider that trillion Dollars is their market capitalization not liquid cash on their hand. I don't think being a trillion Dollar company changes what they can afford or who they should reward with their profits. Amazon is already paying market-leading wages for unskilled labor and provides benefits. I don't really expect them to pay any more than minimum wage if they have enough workers interested in their jobs, since this is not differentiated work. So the fact that they're doing anything more should be appreciated. I don't think it makes sense to twist that into a criticism.

I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they should get to make it.

By making any case other than robust worker rights and fair compensation, they have demonstrated their culture and priorities as a corporation. But, by all means, I agree that one shouldn't stop their enemy when they're pointing a gun at their feet (edit: to clarify, this implies Amazon is making a strategic failure by fighting unionization efforts, at it reflects poorly on them).

You're hyperbole strikes me as ... kinda out there. Not sure anyone has guns pointed at anyone in this case.

Your comments strike me as unaware or complacent.

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/04/29/Leaving-A...

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/05/06/Answers

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-wo...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/youre-just-dispos...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazo...

https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696154/amazon-prime-day...

I simply don't think any of that matches the hyperbole.

The humble footgun is not really a “gun” in that sense. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footgun

Did you genuinely not understand the "shooting oneself in the foot" metaphor?

They've had plenty of time to change their behavior. The issues are well known at this point.

> I don't expect people to agree with their case, but they should get to make it.

Yeah, though the problem is that "case" is likely professionally polished FUD (if American Factory is any guide) hammered home in mandatory meeting after mandatory meeting. It's like if every voter was required to attend mandatory info sessions by Republican advocates for 20 hours in the two weeks before an election, while listening to the Democratic advocates was voluntary and optional.

Did they pay them for those meetings?