Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Prevent Them from Unionizing

Re:Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Preve... by skyyler on Tuesday August 08, 2023 @02:16PM (#37053264)

In your analogy, the husband has a fiduciary responsibility to keep beating his wife. It's kind of a bad analogy.

If the situation was that the husband was obligated to beat his wife, forcing him to pay for a referee to control how hard he beat his wife would be a good thing.

Obviously it would be better if he just stopped beating his wife, but the guys in suits upstairs would be pretty upset about that... So let's limit the beatings in the meantime

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Preve... by legitster on Tuesday August 08, 2023 @02:52PM (#37053740)

I don't follow. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to be terrible to employees?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Preve... by Draiken on Tuesday August 08, 2023 @03:03PM (#37053937)

Not directly, only by proxy. Profit is king.

At Amazon scales, you weigh in how much money you'll save by breaking laws and eventually getting a slap on the wrist fine versus all other alternatives. Unsurprisingly it's often much cheaper to be terrible to your employees and replace them endlessly, than it is to not be terrible. Especially once you make unionization nigh impossible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Preve... by skyyler on Tuesday August 08, 2023 @07:28PM (#37056835)

Yep. You understand it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, but Hired Firms to Preve... by PawgerZ on Tuesday August 08, 2023 @03:56PM (#37054636)

If thats where the uncaptured profit is, then yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]