this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
646 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

58143 readers
5296 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Amazon Says It Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, But Records Show It Hired Firms to Prevent Them From Unionizing::Amazon spent $14.2 million total on anti-union consulting in 2022, filings with the Department of Labor show.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dunning_cougar@waveform.social 101 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then who or what is driving the delivery trucks that say Amazon on the side?

[–] krische@lemmy.world 151 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Independent contractors. They're like employees in almost every way except the legal way.

[–] DrZoidberg@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've had Amazon packages delivered by some dude wearing basketball shorts and a t-shirt driving a random Toyota Corolla. It's like they use Uber for delivery.

[–] buckykat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 1 year ago

Anything to keep the union out

[–] Nhickz@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago

Thats an amazon flex driver , its like a much more strict uber eats , they only hire so many flex drivers , but it works similar to uber , pick your hours , they normaly have a route between 1-3 hours , around 25-100 packages , used to be more , but they lowered it . Amazon has delivery service providers for the main vans , they are "self made companies" . Amazon provides the initial cash to start them , normaly charges them for the vans , and has nearly all controle over them . They live in a legal gray area , most have few enough "employees" to skirt large business laws .

[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

They do. I have a friend that makes some side cash delivering for them in his personal vehicle.

[–] _finger_@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then it should be even easier to unionize

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can't unionize a workplace when you're the owner and only employee. That's how the law treats "independent contractors".

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I kinda don't like how unions are a regulated legal thing... Why are they not just a a private club, where people collectively agree to not take shit conditions anymore? Why can't all independent contractors go on strike tomorrow?

[–] quicksand@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I agree. I don't want to take power from the existing unions, but they should be able to exist in some less official capacity as well. 1st amendment says freedom of association, right?

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's what they are trying to do, and why Amazon is paying multiple firms to fuck with them over it.

[–] LukeMedia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unions are part of a free labor market, and any attempt to bust them is an attempt to prevent a free economy. Funny how corporations have convinced so many that's it's a bad thing

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Unions should exist, but they should be something that needs voting and shit to create. All it needs is a law that protects worker from being fired for joining a union, nothing more. Then workers can join, or not join, however they like.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Less official means less protection. Which means, you talk about organizing and, "you're fired". Just Google some of the history of unions and the reason the NLRB was created in the first place. Without government protection or mafioso strongmen, it's hard to get companies to give in and keep scabs from taking jobs if you refuse to work.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because employers have the power. Without the legally protected status as a union you have no legal right to protest the conditions of your job. You have no right to refuse to work under dangerous conditions. And employers are free to retaliate against workers for even talking about unions or talking about reporting the dangerous conditions. How are you going to get people together who are all desperate for money and get them all to agree to go on strike and then get other people to not come in and take the jobs. One way used to be to call them scabs, make everyone else hate them through propaganda campaigns, and hire the Mafia to beat them up until they quit and no one else would take the jobs. It wasn't until the NLRA that unions were protected.

But conservatives have turned anti-worker now due to their reliance on corporate donations among other things. And they have spent decades making unions look bad, saying they're just criminal organizations, and calling them communism. So not enough people are going to feel sorry for the striking worker or hate on the scabs enough to pressure the companies to give in to demands.

Counter their bullshit with your own. "We're not a union, we're a guild."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Usually not independent contractors. Amazon has contracts with other regional companies to do local deliveries and drivers are employees of these smaller companies.

[–] Hyggyldy@sffa.community 57 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What's crazy is I hear unionization is usually more expensive to fight against, but these CEO's are essentially morally opposed to it. Every time I hear stories of these people their lives would have been so much easier and their businesses more profitable but they just cannot stand people unionizing.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Well basically it means they have to actually negotiate with their workers via unions. That's almost like work. They prefer not to have to do anything to "earn" their billions.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They also have the option of not treating them like shit. Happy workers don’t usually want to unionize.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Yeah it’s because it flies in the face of their hierarchy

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s weirdest part, at this point the hoops Amazon has jumped through vs how profitable of a company they are - it must be cheaper for them to just let people unionise and pay them more + give better conditions?

[–] trashgirl96@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My partner did this for a few days, he was contracted by a regional "company" that supplied delivery vans to Amazon. He had to pay for his own gas plus a fee to "rent" the van, after those things were subtracted it wasn't worth it for him to do it long term but was good in a pinch. He got paid per package delivered, and packages he was given were spread out over a couple different cities. Hourly it worked out to a lot less than minimum wage especially since we lived in a high traffic area.

It definitely made me think twice about ordering from Amazon and I boycott it as much as I can as those people are not being paid fairly AT ALL. They work hard and deserve a fair wage and more stability that would come from being an employee rather than an independent contractor

[–] TheSealStartedIt@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

You're right to boycott Amazon. But unfortunately, other delivery companies are not paying their employees any better, at least here in Germany..

[–] Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I mean... if any company has a solid case for "They don't work for us. We just hate Unions in general"

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 1 year ago

That's the whole idea behind their logistics network. They didn't hire hire logistics network, they "outsourced" it while paying for a lot of the capital costs of those companies.