[FinNerd]

Why don’t their employees quit then and work somewhere better if they have the opportunity? If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is providing a valuable opportunity. Not to mention we seem to be in a worker-favorable economy.

[uncomputation]

Say you’re a father. You need to support your family, and there’s an Amazon Fulfillment Center in town. It pays a whole dollar an hour better than the local fruit packing warehouse, which is a huge difference. Amazon is providing me a valuable opportunity!

Except now, I’m working myself to the bone trying to fulfill my package counts, peeing in bottles, shitting in bags, constantly stressed about if I can not only meet my quotas, but beat everyone else on the floor with me so that I can get more hours next time. I get back from work miserable, stressed, and probably angry from the constant competition needed to just survive. But this is a valuable opportunity, surely, except for the fact that I’m constantly stressed about work, and now I can’t even complain about how I’m stressed about work because Amazon won’t allow me to have my phone on the floor or say the word “restroom” in their internal chat app.

Oh but right, as you say, it’s a worker-favorable economy! Let me go to packing warehouse and try and get even fifty cents closer to Amazon with the leverage I obviously have. I’m sure the guy there is gonna say no problem, here’s a raise.

This is the lesson that we already learned in the 1800s with monopolies; they distort reality. It’s useless to argue “if you don’t want to work for them, don’t” because they often pay just better than your local alternatives, but by virtue of their economy bending power, they will exert an insane amount of control and influence until they are either regulated or there is no competition left and I don’t even have the fruit packing warehouse anymore, but the Amazon Oranges Fulfillment Center.

[eftychis]

These working conditions should simply be illegal in the U.S. (and the countries it is not already). There is no way around that. If society doesn't demand that then good luck to all of us. I am simply surprised again and again people haven't "broken" and keep putting up with this.

[Jasper_]

Yes, it should be illegal. Some of them were once upon a time. But businesses keep lobbying saying that conditions like these are hurting their ability to retain profits, and the laws tend to get clawed back under the pretense of "job creation". Amazon fights tooth and nail to not have to pay the externalities of their terrible working conditions, and stop people organizing to make their workplace better.

[pmoriarty]

"businesses keep lobbying saying that conditions like these are hurting their ability to retain profits"

There are also plenty of ideologues in Washington who bristle at the mention of regulation, unions, and anything they don't deem as being "pro business".

[eftychis]

(General question, I agree with your statement above.) How is it pro business to ensure that employees -- a major stakeholder in businesses don't want to stay there? This historically, doesn't end well, right?

This is beyond splitting profits; it's driving back to Victorian era, and that did not end well for businesses. Increase in unemployment is just a sign.

[heavyset_go]

> I am simply surprised again and again people haven't "broken" and keep putting up with this.

Rates of deaths of despair suggest that people have broken, they just don't have the leverage to significantly change things.

[mistermann]

My understanding is that people voted for this, that's what I'm told anyways.

[waterhouse]

If the conditions are that bad, are they really worth the extra dollar per hour? Seems like the fruit packing warehouse is a better choice for most people. Worse employment conditions will always come with a pay premium under competition.

[kelnos]

Some people don't really have a choice; that extra dollar each hour might mean housing or food security. And, say, a parent in a household might think that's the trade off they have to make: they're horrifyingly miserable, but their spouse and kids get to be better off.

But that's a trade off no one should have to make: it's messed up that we as a society allow this state of affairs to exist in the first place.

And yet here I am, not canceling my Prime membership, because I suck. But hell, if Prime cost 2x what it currently does, and that got the workers involved good working conditions, I would still pay it. Not sure how many people would, though.

[umanwizard]

> And yet here I am, not canceling my Prime membership, because I suck.

I genuinely don’t understand. You have already argued that despite shitty conditions at Amazon, some people are desperate enough for money that the alternative (making less with better working conditions) is even worse. So if enough people cancelled their Amazon subscriptions that they had to scale back operations, wouldn’t those people be worse off than they are now?

[calvinmorrison]

Depends how badly you need that dollar.

[dh2022]

I worked lots of minimum wage jobs. None of my co-workers would have peed in bottles / shit in bags / stress themselves out for 1 more dollar / hour. Me neither.

[xyzzyz]

Your first hand experience here doesn't matter. You must listen to and believe the stories repeated by wealthy techies, who do not know a single person who ever worked an Amazon warehouse job, and likely don't know a person who worked a minimum wage job either.

[sitkack]

Times change. That was you then, not you now or your coworkers now.

[dh2022]

Like the person above you mentioned: "we seem to be in a worker-favorable economy". Nobody would do what you said for another dollar per hour. I worked lots of minimum wage jobs and none of my co-workers would have shit in bags, pee in bottle for another dollar / hour. Please keep the conversation at an intelligent level.

[gruez]

>This is the lesson that we already learned in the 1800s with monopolies; they distort reality. It’s useless to argue “if you don’t want to work for them, don’t” because they often pay just better than your local alternatives, but by virtue of their economy bending power, they will exert an insane amount of control and influence until they are either regulated or there is no competition left and I don’t even have the fruit packing warehouse anymore, but the Amazon Oranges Fulfillment Center.

Amazon is nowhere near a monopoly (or monopsony), at least when it comes to employers.

[notch656a]

Even as a homeless person showing up with drug addicts while waking up from a ditch, I found opportunities less demeaning than Amazon. If my only option was truly amazon, as a father, I would send my family to go live in the 3rd world and remit enough for them to live on while I live under a tarp rather than work full time at amazon again.

Amazon is 10% of retail and retail is only a slice of the economy. If you can't find an alternative to amazon, you aren't looking.

[ClumsyPilot]

> If they don’t have a better opportunity than seems like Amazon is providing a valuable opportunity.

So when are we letting children back in the coalmines?

[edmundsauto]

This is a terrible analogy and adds nothing to the conversation.

We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. There is a huge chasm between "adult workers making more than a lot of their other opportunities is slightly more cannot unionize as easily using Amazon services" and "put children back in coal mines".

[uncomputation]

I disagree. I think it’s a good reminder that if we do not regulate labor, businesses like Amazon will grow more and more nefarious. They already confiscate phones, have a built-in PIP revolving door, use their own employees to vouch for them on Twitter, recruit aggressively to have a never-ending stream of labor, and explicitly violate existing labor laws by setting up a system so competitive their own employees cannot take bathroom breaks and meet quotas, in essence giving them no breaks. You seem to be under the impression that companies have an inherent disdain for child labor, which historically is not true. I think actually society has proven that, as long as we don’t see it, we’re fine with the cost.

Also, do you know what stopped children in coal mines? Labor unions.

[ClumsyPilot]

This is FinNerd's argumentation taken to it's logical conclusion - he is happy to sacrafice employee protections because X is the best employment avaliable.

They or you have not outlined where does this slippery slope stop, or ankowledged nessesity of employee protections.

I think you are still not seeing it, because the only protest from your 'but they are children!' - so if we exploit adults with a down's syndome, that's okay? Oh, so disabilities are protected, what if we spesifically target people who need money to pay for cancer treatment, and make them sign a waiver on safety equipment? I mean, they aren't gonna live long either way, it's a win-win!

[ineedasername]

I worked up to 60 hours a week (I'd say avg 50) from the time I was 13 years old making $6 an hour. It was backbreaking, grueling labor. But not a coal mine so no risk of black lung, so I guess everything is okay? Or maybe my parents should have taken advantage of economic opportunities that didn't exist (they looked, constantly, for options).

This was in the US. Most of the time I did my homework in school, cramming in assignments for second period during first period, then 3rd period hw during second period, etc. Child labor isn't dead, and if you truly think that everyone has the economic opportunities to avoid these circumstance then you don't have the scope of experience needed to accurately assess the state of society.

(And no, it wasn't a case of "well if you can't support children you shouldn't have them" The circumstances of the above situation came about long after I was born, though before I was 13)

[notch656a]

Would your family have been better off if the income from your $6/hr job was lost? I presume this work was beneficial to your family somehow, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.

[ineedasername]

Is "better off [economically]" you're guide on ethical labor practices? I don't want to read too much into your comment, but that is the implication, in which case any labor practice can be justified so long as someone is willing to do it. That's a rather extreme view.

[notch656a]

Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours in kind. Please note 'economically' was added by you. I genuinely wondered if you and your family would be better off in general, not just economically. Usually economic effects have greater effects on the family outside of the economic outlook. It would be strange indeed if you toiled for years doing something to create a net hurt to your family.

I will say if you engaged in some unethical labor practices to help your family while earning those $6, I personally could look past them to some extent. I assume you did this to help your family survive so anything unethical you did was out of necessity. Personally I withhold judgement.

[_dain_]

>We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing.

once upon a time, this was not obvious. this modern moral axiom is a result of of hard-won labor organizing over the 19th century. all kinds of exploitative practices were justified with the exact same "the workers are being given an opportunity so they shouldn't complain" argument. it's not an analogy.

taking advantage of people because they don't have any other options is the definition of exploitation.

[ashtonkem]

In fact, most of the arguments by GP were also used by those defending now illegal labor practices, including child labor.

[kevingadd]

> We aren't going to make children work in mines

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws...

Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain?

[edmundsauto]

How does an article about lifting allowed working hours for teenagers in a fast food joint equate to children working in coal mines?

[kevingadd]

Fast food joints are not safe. You can get seriously injured working a fryer or grill, and a 16 year old is less likely to be able to operate those things safely. Keep in mind also that a 16 year old is almost certainly going to school, so they will be working while already tired.

I say this as someone who started working at age 14: Children should not be allowed to work most jobs until they are much older than that.

[edmundsauto]

These same arguments can be applied to other activities, like driving a car. I do support treating teenagers with more agency than children, so while I don't support letting 5 years olds work in McDonalds, I honestly don't see a problem with 16 year olds doing it.

Yes, the risk is higher than for a 25 y.o., but as someone who started working at age 15 - there are also rewards in experience, money, and figuring your own shit out. Nothing taught me about life like working.

[ClumsyPilot]

Think about the law they are gonna pass next, its only 1 step away.

Also, as long as it's not a literal coalmine you see no risks to children? If it's a factory instead, then we are in the clear?

[edmundsauto]

No, I don't think the next step is passing laws to enslave children in coal mines. I am not advocating for child labor at all - just discussing the topic at hand, which in GP's comment was saying this link provided an example of children being made to work in coal mines. It was explicitly not.

I do not advocate for children's labor, but I also do not advocate for taking things to extremes in order to make a point. If you feel it's problematic for children to be allowed (not forced - allowed) to work in fast food, we can have that discussion. But talking about it as the missing link for returning to 19th century slave labor conditions, or the conditions currently in China is misleading and not worthy of a conversation.

[datavirtue]

These kids need a few days in the coal mine.

[_dain_]

"just quit and get another job" -- this is frictionless-plane-in-a-vacuum thinking. people have all kinds of life circumstances that means they can't act like perfectly rational economic agents, especially when they are poor.

turn it around: why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity?

[mdorazio]

> why doesn't amazon just respect its worker's basic human dignity?

Because that directly conflicts with making the highest profit possible (still legally).

What’s sad in these discussions is that it’s both true that Amazon is a terrible employer and that it often pays more than alternatives for many workers. This seems like a failure of policy (ex. Enforcing living wage standards) and American business well-being at least as much as a failure of Amazon to “do the right thing.”

Edit: Cracks me up that I got downvoted for telling the truth about capitalism.

[jasd]

I don't understand why we expect Amazon to do the right thing vs we should expect in this case all retailers to do the right thing? Unfortunately as consumers we are always looking for the best deal or the lowest price on everything. Which means retailers need to cut costs every way possible which in turn leads to sucking every ounce out of workers.

Let's assume that Amazon did end up making things way better for their workers. That means higher costs and hence higher prices. This will allow other retailers to win markets by setting the best prices.

I think we need regulation that applies to all retailers in this case or all industries that hire manual labor vs constantly targeting Amazon for being the bad guy.

[AlexandrB]

It's funny that this logic is rarely applied to executive compensation or stock buybacks. Apparently it only hurts competitiveness to increase wages for the low-level workers. Any of the other ways that money gets wasted in a major retail corporation is fine.

And then there are the counterexamples, like Costco, that manage to pay well and be wildly competitive.

[lupire]

Jeff Bezos's $200B says he's not paying the most he can while still surviving in business.

[mdorazio]

Let's do some math for fun. Amazon now employs about a million workers in the US. Let's naively assume 3/4 of them work in warehouses and delivery as opposed to corporate. Let's also assume they work, on average, 2000 hours a year (roughly full-time). For Amazon to raise those wages by $1/hr (or lower efficiency demands by ~7%) it would cost them around $1.5B every year.

Now, you're probably thinking that's chump change compared to Amazon's profits, but fun fact: Amazon's online sales segment doesn't make much profit. In fact, it lost $200M in Q4 [1]. So you basically want Amazon to either go deeply in the red, or else they have to raise prices on products to also raise worker wages.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/04/amazons-profit-engines-are-h...

[skinnymuch]

Amazon doesn’t lose money with what you’re saying. They are moving money around. We need to stop trusting wildly rich and powerful people and corporations so much.

[jodrellblank]

If it was really losing $800M/year why would they keep it running at all? Could this be "creative accounting"?

[lupire]

If Jeff Bezos wants to work his staff until their bodies break and delivery trucks crash, the least they can do is the same to his body.

Eat the rich.

[skinnymuch]

As a minimum wage McDonald’s cashier, I refuse to get a raise if that means any of my bosses up through corporate don’t get raises.

[vkou]

Why would they quit when they can collectively bargain instead?

[Lamad123]

Let them eat foie gras

[heavyset_go]

Negotiations exist between two parties in a contractual relationship. Employment isn't a take it or leave it deal, it's give and take between two parties where terms of employment are decided by negotiations between both of them.

[ClumsyPilot]

You mean like how I freely negotiate and accept the contract that describes CPUs backdoors (Intel Management Engine) in one of two computer CPU manufacturers in the world?

[ryandrake]

Or your cellphone contract, or apartment lease, or the terms of use for every web site, or End User License Agreements. They're all totally "meeting of the minds" mutually agreed upon between parties of equal power, open to negotiation by skilled end-users... LOL! Most contracts/agreements that end users are subjected to are far from freely negotiable. They are take-it-or-leave-it rule-making written by some company's legal counsel and enforced by the courts. Agree or don't do business with.

I've never been presented with an employment agreement where any of the terms could be negotiated. Salary and benefits? Yes, sometimes. But other terms? No way. I always try, but in every case, you get a stern message from corporate legal basically saying "Sign it unmodified or GTFO." I don't know who these HN Captains of Industry are who negotiate the terms of their employment, but that's the exception, not the rule. Maybe at the VP+ level, these things are negotiable (parties are more equal in power), but at the "5th grunt from the left" level, no way.

[heavyset_go]

This is the point of unions, because atomized workers don't have much leverage by themselves to negotiate with an entities that have already consolidated their interests and power in the form of corporations. Unions help workers consolidate their interests and power in order to leverage them against the consolidated interests and power of their employers and negotiate better terms of employment.

[jodrellblank]

Negotiations exist between a single employee and an international team of Amazon lawyers and professional negotiators. Whether that should really count as "two parties" negotiating on equal terms is up for argument.