>But: they aren't forced to take that job

>And I fully understand that putting food on the table (especially when it's for your kids) and putting a roof over your family's head is important

I don't understand how you found these two sentences to be compatible.

Because Amazon is not (yet) the sole employer in our nation ?

Yet has taken out most competition and other employers in its market…

They basically are if you are an unskilled worker.

You could theoretically take a pay cut and work at a shop or something if you managed to figure out how to live without money.

if there are 100 job opportunities for a warehouse worker or delivery driver and 90 of them are Amazon doesnt leave much room for competition

There is some dark humor if one is again forced to look at the opportunities and finds many familiar places left previously.

Back when Dutch government was pretty much the only job agency companies offering such "opportunities" would be scrubbed from the list. If they send people there they just come back looking for work again. Not something the institution was willing to spend resources on.

I imagine one could explore something like a credit score with taxes that reflect what great employer you are. A piss bottle tax could bring in hundreds of millions in tax revenue. Perhaps it should be applied as a percentage CEO wealth, income and land tax. Or call it the asshole tax.

Multiple employers doesn't mean multiple jobs. It's not a cornacoupia where the average joe can just walk down an aisle and be like "hmmmm maybe delivery driver?"

in a lot of places it's starbucks, subway, walmart, amazon, or piecemeal construction work, and if those jobs are filled then you're SOL killer.

Sure, the solution is easy. Provide workers with more protections. Whether that is done through regulations, unions, or something else can of course be debated, but this is a very solved problem in most of the first world.

> One thing I think is missing in this write-up is the element of autonomy. Yes, it's undeniably degrading that Amazon employees piss in bottles to make sure they meet their quotas. But: they aren't forced to take that job, or to piss in bottles (notwithstanding that getting fired often comes with serious consequences).

How is it missing? It's right there in the article, almost word for word: "The inevitable rejoinder to all of this is that employment is ultimately voluntary: an Amazon employee who dislikes stringent work quotas or a supermarket cashier who refuses to perform their company’s spirit dance can always find gainful employment somewhere else."