[claudeganon]

That’s because they’re not decrying the wages or health benefits, but the overall treatment and union-busting.

You can have good wages and benefits for this kind of labor without firing organizers, plotting to smear them as “inarticulate” in the press, and exposing workers to undue injury and disease.

[rochester46]

>That’s because they’re not decrying the wages or health benefits

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of complaints about Amazon on this forum are explicitly referencing pay.

[claudeganon]

The top-voted comment on your thread suggests otherwise.

I think the workers should be receiving more in hazard pay, but this whole round of controversy was sparked by their firing warehouse workers organizing for better safety, not pay.

Where do you work, BTW? Your account is about a month old and only seems to comment on stories about Amazon.

[rochester46]

The "top-voted comment" anywhere has no bearing on what is or is not the majority argument.

[claudeganon]

You made an explicit appeal to the majority of arguments on this forum as referencing pay, I provided a specific counterexample, and you rebutted with more vagaries.

[rochester46]

You did not provide a specific counterexample. A reference to a sole example says nothing about the majority of arguments. That is not how majorities work.

Your original reply to my comment was an overgeneralization, and used that overgeneralization to attack a point that I never made. I'm not engaging in your argument because it was made in bad faith to begin with.