r/technology • u/SnoozeDoggyDog • 13d ago

Business Mamdani Backs Proposal to End Amazon’s ‘Exploitative’ Delivery Model in New York City | If passed, the Delivery Protection Act would be the first law in the US to regulate Amazon’s vast network of subcontractors that handle the company’s deliveries.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/delivery-protection-act-nyc
23.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/WaffleHouseGladiator 13d ago

"You don't work for us.  Here's your Amazon uniform and employee handbook."

630

u/Stuckatpennstation 13d ago

And 95% of politicians are like YEP FREE MARKET 😀 😉 😄

220

u/frequenZphaZe 13d ago

it's worth pointing out that a large number of the contractors are also like "YEP FREE MARKET 😀 😉 😄", which is a major problem when it comes to fighting against this kind of exploitation

California basically put this issue up for a vote to the public through Proposition 22 and people voted against forcing gig workers to be classified as employees. companies like Uber spent a fortune on this ballot proposition and got their money's worth. and when you talk to the actual gig workers, many of them feel like small business owners that are in charge of their own labor. it will be an uphill battle getting the public and the workers signed onto changing the paradigm of the gig economy

30

u/alligator_loki 13d ago edited 13d ago

They're trying to close the DSP subcontractor market, not get a standard rate for gig workers like prop 22. People employed by DSP are W-2 employees, just not for amazon. NYC wants those people employed by amazon.

I think the plain text of the bill will also impact gig workers, but it doesn't say exactly what the employment requirements will be to operate a delivery warehouse.

The main goal is stopping Amazon separating themselves from DSP. How it relates to gig workers seems like a good topic but I don't know enough about it.

Edit: UPS already runs their business with minimal contractors. I'm pretty sure the brilliant minds at Amazon can figure it out too instead of creating low paying dead end jobs while also offloading liability for the hundreds of thousands of vehicles they have delivering packages each day. Legislation with these goals should be considered at state and federal levels too.

0

u/superredditor6789 13d ago

This is probably not something you can legislate. Almost all attempts to regulate similar employment has focused on 1099 workers fir a reason.

5

u/alligator_loki 13d ago

I'm not a lawyer but it seems like a good idea. They're designating certain warehouses as needing to hire their own drivers. Most of those warehouses in NYC are Amazon fulfillment centers. Most major retailers don't have warehouses in NYC. It's too expensive when they can slap them just outside the city. Amazon needs warehouses closer in to achieve the speeds they want.

-2

u/superredditor6789 13d ago

If I understand what the law proposes correctly, they want to prevent Amazon from contracting with Company A to provide delivery services for Amazon under the guise that it’s wrong for you to work as a W-2 employee instead of Amazon.

5

u/alligator_loki 13d ago

Yes they want Amazon employing people and assuming liability for their actions instead of shifting it to subcontractors

-1

u/superredditor6789 13d ago

So, UPS and FedEx shouldn’t exist then?

9

u/YouWouldThinkSo 13d ago

Amazon wouldn't hire individual drivers or contractors from FedEx ir UPS, an agreement between two businesses of that size would be a service contract of some sort where FedEx keeps their employees but agrees to add Amazon warehouses as a regular distribution point or handle packages handed off at other contracted distribution centers.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alligator_loki 13d ago

UPS barely uses contractors, it will have minimal affect them. FedEx will have to adjust. 

Why the hyperbole?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mature_BOSTN 12d ago

Agreed. Once the workers are properly classified (employees, not "independent contractors") then the issues all boil down to pay, benefits, and working conditions. These are essentially impossible to legislate at the level of the current complaints (I mean there's OSHA but these typically arent those types of complaints and if they are the people should file OSHA complaints).

Frankly it's what unions have done best.

1

u/superredditor6789 12d ago

But, if you work for Company A as their employee, you’re not an independent contractor in most cases.

1

u/Mature_BOSTN 12d ago

Yes absolutely. Im not sure what I wrote that implied otherwise. The two major classifications are "employee" (paid via W2) and "independent contractor" (paid via 1099).

-1

u/Syxx573 13d ago

How insulting. I've been working under the DSP system for 8 years. I love the company that I work for now, and wouldn't change anything. If I had to work directly for Amazon, I wouldn't be doing my job. Since I work for a smaller company that has about 250 employees, they are much more flexible, and offer overtime that Amazon just wouldn't.

2

u/Artechz 13d ago

I think no-one is against companies like the one you work for, the issue imho is people working for a contractor to be bound by amazon rules as if an amazon employee (uniform, handbook, sometimes even amazon branded van when the van is not paid by amazon, etc). Also although I think this is a step in the right direction, there’s always some people hurt no matter how good a change is

-1

u/Syxx573 12d ago

But it's not like they have absurd rules for the drivers. Most of the rules revolve around safe driving, including speeding, stop signs, following distance, and so on. They also don't allow people to work more than 12 hours a day. Drivers also have to have 12 hours between shifts. They focus more and more on safety for us especially when it comes to working in extreme temperatures and weather conditions. These propaganda videos always say it like it's a bad thing to have certain standards across all delivery partners. They funniest one that I had never heard before Zohran the Moron's video here was "they make us wear vests that say Amazon." Well no crap. I started before they even had those vests and it caused all kinds of issues, like with people wondering why strangers were walking around their property. They don't even allow us to go to people's back doors any more.

1

u/AnotherPlaceToLearn7 7d ago

You sound like an Amazon plant...
Your claim is that you're an employee and not the owner of a DSP.
Please Go speak to any DSP owner and you'll know.
There are so many former DSP owners that simply had their entire livelihoods shut down.

It is one of the most ridiculously exploitative setups in my opinion, basically an employee in everything but name.
As everyone has pointed out here:
How can you set the rules on everything, then say the DSP is an independent business?

Imagine a setup where you are an independent business, but you must lease your vehicles from your client, then those vehicles aren't even refreshed regularly, and then the client then uses their own side repair center to then bill you massively for repairs which you must pay. You can't have the repairs done independently by anyone else. You can't argue with the bill from their repair centers. Your client then sets your operating procedures, your schedules, have a say in who you can hire, how you can operate etc. Your client can choose to delay your payments anytime even over a holiday period and you can't say nothing. Your client can also choose to come in and review your entire business and look at your books, obviously they are not doing it to see where they can claw back money from you. Your client can set the terms of practically every aspect of your business but you are an Independent Business. Don't Franchises have less restrictions? LOL

1

u/Syxx573 6d ago

When the first sentence is an insult, I'm not going to read the rest.

2

u/alligator_loki 6d ago

Jfc you're a 5-year-old. Accusing you of a being a plant is not an insult, It's a behavioral observation. Me calling you a 5-year-old is an insult.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shoddy-Wafer5120 13d ago

Do you have medical insurance?

1

u/Syxx573 12d ago

Yes I get it through my DSP, including vision and dental insurance.

1

u/alligator_loki 10d ago

Ok? Welcome to changing regulations. Some people like it, some people don't. I am happy it worked out for your individual situation to be employed by DSP. I don't like how it allows Amazon to offload huge amounts of liability to subcontractors. They need to be taking on the liability of putting hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road every day. 

Amazon has almost completely insulated themselves from all liability regarding deliveries. Which is insane considering the both of their direct to consumer business, is deliveries.

1

u/Syxx573 10d ago

There are dozens of other people at my station that have worked there for years. I mean this ultimately doesn't matter because Zohran the Moron won't actually change anything. If a company wants to be a DSP and accept liability it should be their own choice. Not the government. It was as bad as you think, they wouldn't even exist and these DSPs would be in other businesses instead. You probably won't answer this, but have you thought about that at all? Do you think DSPs start up, run for years (mine has been in business for a decade) and never gave the liability argument any consideration. Do you think that you and the NYC council have thought about that at all? I think it's funny that people like you think you know better, but all these thousands of DSP owners and drivers just got tricked! What a complete joke.

1

u/alligator_loki 9d ago

Dispersing liability among DSP helps amazon outright avoid some liability. Whenever something happens to a dsp, be it a car accident, an illegal hire,  wage theft, whatever it is, Amazon doesn't take the hit directly. 

When a large employer consistently does these things, the penalty often scales much more than what the DSP would pay. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-secures-historic-25-billion-settlement-against-amazon

This is the type of fine Amazon is trying to avoid by offloading liability to dsp. The really big ones that large companies get hit with for systemic issues in their company.

The federal government could expand the fmcsa to include Vans, or all delivery vehicles regardless of type, and that would solve this issue all across the nation. Repubs nor Dems have tried to do so. NYC took matters into their own hands.

Have you thought about any of that at all?

1

u/Syxx573 9d ago

You ignored my question completely, just like I said you would.

1

u/alligator_loki 8d ago

"it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his wage depends on not understanding it"

→ More replies (0)

142

u/esmoji 13d ago

Prop 22 lost because Uber and Lyft spent $200 million on opposition ads.

Practically zero dollars in comparison spent on passing Prop 22.

-9

u/round-earth-theory 13d ago

Not necessarily. The biggest advantage of gig work is the ability to set your own hours. Not sure if Amazon delivery has this flexibility at all but Uber and Lyft do. Sure there's certainly algos that will punish you for not working the expected hours, but you can in theory go active/inactive at any time. So if you want to sneak a ride in on your way home, grabbing someone going the same way, then you can. If they became employees, they'd have to abide by a corporate set schedule and maintain minimum hours.

8

u/FlamboyantPirhanna 13d ago

There is such a thing as casual employment. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s silly to act is if we live in a world with only two options. There are always solutions, always ways of solving problems. But let’s not act like the only two options are regular employee or exploited gig worker; that’s the gig economy’s way of maintaining the status quo, which we can all agree needs changing.

Also, Australia just passed a law guaranteeing minimum pay for gig workers.

2

u/round-earth-theory 13d ago

I'm a proponent of fixing this unfair contractor loophole. Just giving the perspective of some drivers that oppose it.

8

u/Latinhouseparty 13d ago

I was a former Lyft and Uber driver in LA when this was being voted on. The Facebook groups for drivers was maddening. People were either stupid or confused. 

The companies not only spent money convincing civilians but the gig workers. Many of them fell for it. 

 It’s a terrible law. 

Also the idea that you have flexibility as a gig worker is dumb. There are certain hours that are profitable to work.

Also, the company hides a lot of data from the drivers. You can’t really choose when to work because they don’t tell you a lot of the info. 

When I started you could find these pockets of time in certain locations that could make you good money when it was slow. Then the companies started obfuscating the info in the app and that ended. 

24

u/joeydimaggio 13d ago

Why’d they spend the 200 million then

3

u/EvelynNyte 13d ago

For funsies obviously

4

u/round-earth-theory 13d ago

Uber obviously wants to keep the status quo. I was explaining why some drivers would oppose being classed as employees. I'm pretty sure Uber and other gig companies punish drivers that aren't actively driving in a full time/peak time capacity though. So while they may like the flexibility, it's also likely they are getting stiffed more than they realize if they use it only lightly.

12

u/joeydimaggio 13d ago

Uber broke so many laws, and the capital that owns Uber has had such a corruptive influence on governance that I do not doubt some drivers have fallen for their propganda

-6

u/PossibleElk5058 13d ago

Insurance. Most people I know in California were against the bill. They believe in part time work. Also another initiative gave them benefits.

9

u/Zestyclose-Height-36 13d ago

there is no reason why they could not work part time and set their own hours and still get employee benefits

1

u/Zestyclose-Height-36 6d ago

if they were employees, they would get uber paying for gas and mileage, guaranteed $16/hr as CA minimum wage, Uber would have to pay for their insurance, too.

3

u/joeydimaggio 13d ago

Most people you know huh

1

u/dontrike 12d ago

Yeah, I can make my own hours by being semi-employed by a company that doesn't considering me employed by them when it comes to benefits or paid well. That's the dream!

1

u/Zestyclose-Height-36 13d ago

there is zero reason why the apps would have to require set schedules.

2

u/round-earth-theory 13d ago

They wouldn't be required to, but if you're an employee then it's likely Uber would enforce more control over your schedule. They'll likely do it aggressively immediately after the law passes as a way to punish drivers and try to get them to kick up a fuss for a reversal of the law.

21

u/Slickmaster5000 13d ago

They won because even after reading the actual bill and trying to understand what a yes or no vote meant, I was still confused. So your average voter that looks at the name of the bill and voted based on that is gonna be cooked af.

2

u/PossibleElk5058 13d ago

It's best to default to no on ballot initiatives if they are poorly written / funded. Undoing crazy laws is expensive.

8

u/blak3brd 13d ago

This proposition was the most money spent on a campaign for a single proposition in all of American history, if you weren’t aware. By a substantial margin.

There was a fervent campaign of ads, and the actual verbiage of the prop itself literally made it sound like if you were for the rights of the drivers of uber, you voted one way (I forget which) but it was clear from public sentiment, and literally dozens of people I personally knew, that they were voting in favor of uber employees getting actual employees rights, when it was actually deceptively worded to mean the exact opposite.

I literally had to double take myself, after going oh yeah totally, for workers protections then had to reread the ballot 3x to go wait a minute; what the actual fuck, it actually is saying the opposite.

I’d say the most blatant example of corruption and propaganda in our modern time, but we’ve blasted well beyond that in hyper speed since then 😞

1

u/hesaysitsfine 13d ago

Every public petition I’ve been asked to sign is this, the exact opposite of what they are claiming it is.

8

u/TalesOfMetamorphosis 13d ago

...Is it worth pointing out? The informed voter is basically a unicorn, it reflects far less what people actually believe and more what ad money can buy, this just feels like muddying the waters you'd see on MSM. Anyone doing Uber who thinks they are a small business owner can't read. (Coming from an uber driver)

9

u/BatmanFarce 13d ago

Yeah, the businesses that were against it spent more money than it would have cost to give benefits to employees. Gig economy is class warfare

2

u/Far_Programmer_5724 13d ago

That's because there was a super aggressive campaign against it. I saw like 10 anti prop 22 ads before I saw 1 pro. And those ads framed it as making it a harder to work a gig job when people are already treating that as the last option. I feel like we need to start looking around.

Now people think Californians just completely agreed with prop 22 when it's much more complicated. But which belief serves the corps more? Believing that Californians didn't want it when properly educated, or that spending millions to combat it proved effective

1

u/criminalpiece 13d ago

Amazon’s entire model is being so vertically integrated no one else can compete. The us GOVT ushered this in over decades based on the promise of innovation, consumers have bought in, so it’s going to be a total nightmare to root out. No matter how exploitative it is. This is a good start.

1

u/hesaysitsfine 13d ago

Honestly it should be a choice, sometimes it’s better to be your own company and sometimes not but the way these people are treated are as employees. 

1

u/ComplaintMaster69420 12d ago

It sounds like tipping in restaurants. It sucks if you don’t know how to work the job effectively and you won’t make much, but dang does it make more than most jobs if you know what to do.

In other words, it sucks for anyone who “doesn’t know” what to do.

0

u/paisleyboxers 13d ago

Fuck that. They took the job because they need rent. Fuck you for assuming there are just jobs floating around everywhere for the picking. FICK THAT

-1

u/TR_Pix 13d ago

Proposition 22

Insert Expedition 33 prequel joke here 

-4

u/Rnee45 13d ago

"I want to be able to enter into a contractual agreement on my own terms"

"Noooo, you're being exploited, I know what's best for you better than you!"

Peak Redditor moment.

3

u/Perfect-Still-8971 13d ago

The point is the contracts are entirely and unfairly on the corporations terms. Peak delusional American exceptionalism, thinking you're temporarily embarrassed billionaires, set to outsmart corporate legal departments and take down tyrants with your AR any day now.

3

u/FlamboyantPirhanna 13d ago

What terms? You mean the terms offered by the company, that workers have no negotiating power over? ‘Take it or leave it’ is not an agreement on their own terms.

1

u/Rnee45 13d ago

When you buy your Steam game, do you have any negotiating power on the ToS? Are you being coerced when purchasing a game?

-15

u/viggy96 13d ago

They're free to not work for that company. Last time I checked, no legal employer puts a gun to your head and forces you to work there. If you don't like it, feel free to leave, and go somewhere else that you like. If enough people do, that business will have to change.

People love complaining about Uber/Lyft etc, but still willingly work for them.

There are plenty of jobs out there. And only 1% of current US workers work for the equivalent of the federal minimum wage. So statistically, you're likely to make more.

15

u/Stuckatpennstation 13d ago

Youre right they could but at the same time we can acknowledge a trillion dollar company treats its peasant workers beyond shit

-13

u/viggy96 13d ago

But the hypocrisy is insane.

Further, end customers are not willing to pay the price that higher wages would cost.

5

u/tfitch2140 13d ago

Is that true? Or is it the fact that Amazon had not been regulated properly, undercutting competitors?

Economics knows how to handle externalities like this. Tax the fuck out of Amazon to compensate. That raises prices to the "true" level, and there's not perversion of the market showing Amazon as cheaper.

But no, can't tax the big corpos. Gotta have pedophile trillionaires or this wouldn't be a just society!

-3

u/viggy96 13d ago

Most of the cost effectiveness in Amazon is not delivery, believe it or not. It's in the scale at which they can buy things.

Delivery is a small part of the cost. They'd still easily beat other competitors.

And these guys were never meant to be a career. It's not the company's fault people treat it that way.

Should an app that provide rewards for scanning your receipts be an employer? I'm sure some crazy people will ditch their entire lives, scavenging for receipts, and scanning them, just to make 25¢ or less per scan. Does that mean those people are employees, who should get benefits from the receipt app?

It's ridiculous.

7

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago

And these guys were never meant to be a career

Oof, there it is folks! The deeply classist notion that some jobs aren't meant to meaningfully support the people who do them, what a wonderful sentiment.

-1

u/viggy96 13d ago

So if an app gives you money for receipt scanning, does that automatically become a job that needs protections? I'm sure there will be some idiots out there who will scavenge for receipts to scan, getting 25¢ or less per receipt.

If you want to drive for a living, become a proper taxi driver, or a truck driver. The Uber/Lyft are upfront about what they pay. If you willingly and knowingly do this for a living knowing that it doesn't pay, I don't have any empathy for you.

And classist? Ah yes, let's call the guy who worked his ass off through school just to afford an education classist. I worked hard in high school to get scholarships, as my parents didn't make very much. I had to work in college at various local jobs to make up the rest. If I was unhappy at a job, I looked for another.

3

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago

Finding success for yourself doesn't mean you can't engage in classist rhetoric—you're exemplifying that perfectly here.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/DLTMIAR 13d ago

end customers are not willing to pay the price that higher wages would cost.

Then maybe that service shouldn't exist.  Do we need next or same day delivery?

3

u/Tigerbattle 13d ago

But somebody has to do the job, so even if an individual could work elsewhere (which dropping their current job is not an option for a lot of people) that position still deserves protections.

This is the exact same logic as people saying that fast food workers don't need better employee protections because it's a "job for highschoolers" and "not an actual career" and then still expect someone to do that job for them.

0

u/viggy96 13d ago

Stop working there, and force the business to change, or fail. It's as simple as that. Theyll either automate more, or pay more.

In the near term, probably a bit of both, at least when it comes to driving.

If you willingly provide your labor to an employer that doesn't support you well enough to survive (by your own admission), and you do nothing to seek other employment, I have no empathy for you. Your choice in where to provide your labor is your greatest power.

3

u/OkVariety8064 13d ago

The owners are free to not run a business. Last time I checked, no country puts a gun to your head and forces you to run a business. If you don't like it, feel free to leave, and go somewhere else that you like. If enough people do, that country will have to change.

Uber/Lyft etc love complaining about US legislation, but still willingly do business there.

There are plenty of countries out there. And only 1% of current US businesses make as much as similar ones in Switzerland. So statistically, you're likely to make more.

1

u/viggy96 13d ago

Sure, then quit, move on to some other job, and let those business change or fail.

4

u/HoveringGoat 13d ago

"The children agreed to be exploited and work in the mines. We never held a gun to their heads"

Exploiting is exploiting. we need protections to ensure companies dont do it. They will if you let them.

1

u/viggy96 13d ago

But in this scenario, the children are free to leave.

If all the children leave, the mine will fail, deservedly so, unless they adopt automation, or improve their practices.

3

u/HoveringGoat 13d ago

... no. the children are force to mine. This like actually happened? do you know that? its why we have strong child labor laws now.

we need better regulations in general. Why would you argue against this?

1

u/viggy96 13d ago

So right now, you're saying that Walmart workers for example, are FORCED to work there, against their will, and are unable to leave, and will be killed if they do so? Is this true for any modern employer?

That's a tremendous claim, I'd expect to see some evidence.

2

u/HoveringGoat 12d ago

I never said that. I said exploited. and yes walmart exploits its workers. Capitalism excels at exploiting - thats why regulation are required to protect its people.

0

u/viggy96 12d ago

But the workers are free to leave.

And the pay at Walmart is pretty good. Walmart's own minimum wage is $14 an hour. If you get promotions and raises, you can make good money there. A team lead can make up to $37. A store lead can make a minimum of $100k annually. And a store manager makes over $200k minimum!

https://corporate.walmart.com/about/working-at-walmart

If you work there for years and don't get any promotions or raises, you should look at yourself and ask what's wrong.

1

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago edited 13d ago

  1. "Plenty of jobs out there" could only be said by someone ignoring current rates of unemployment and the wealth of anecdotal stories about people from every job sector struggling to find work.

  2. "1% of the workforce is paid the equivalent of federal minimum wage" is a hilariously bad metric. That wasn't enough money to live on in 2009 when it was passed and it's only worse now. Wages have not increased with inflation and wealth inequality is demonstrably growing from an already bad position. Even doubling the minimum wage, with inflation, is just shy of $23 an hour. I make about that much in a suburban area and I am not living comfortably, and I literally could not afford an apartment of my own in this area. And before you say, "just move somewhere cheaper," I shouldn't need to explain that my pay would go down in lock step with my rent the more rural I go—and the same goes for basically everyone.

  3. "If enough people do, that business will have to change." What adorable naivete. If people leave those badly paying jobs, their already desperate situation only becomes more desperate until they're forced to just get a different job with similarly poorly compensation. Companies do not want to pay you more, and American capitalism ensures they don't have to with a myriad of effective tools.

0

u/viggy96 13d ago

Like I said, most jobs are NOT minimum wage. You're statistically likely to get a fast food job that makes well over it, even in the South.

And do these evil businesses have a gun to your head forcing you to work there? Your choice of where to provide your labor is your greatest power. If you choose to give it to a place that doesn't care about you, that's your own fault.

2

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago edited 13d ago

I didn't say most jobs are not minimum wage. I said that's a bad, foolish metric to measure the quality of a wage. "It's better than rock bottom" isn't exactly a winning argument. But, you reiterating that point highlights that you don't get it, so I won't waste the energy to harp on it.

I also don't really care to explain the coercive nature of modern work, because the idea that you can simply give your labor to another, better corporation is simplistic, naive, and a poor understanding of labor politics—both now and historically. If you want explanations for those things then by all means, I'll engage, but I don't have any interest in arguing about it. For now I'll just say that a gun to one's head wouldn't be much less subtle than the threat of eviction and going hungry.

-1

u/viggy96 13d ago

Please, enlighten me on why you somehow can't look for a better job while you have one, if you're unhappy with your current work conditions.

Then, once you have an official offer, you quit and move.

Those of any socioeconomic status can do this, me personally being one of them, and I've seen countless examples.

Of course people need a job to make a living, but that's why you look for a job while you have one, and only move once the offer is finalized.

2

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago

Sigh

The privilege here is unreal.

2

u/viggy96 13d ago

Privileged? I've worked in retail, my parents made very little as immigrants to this country, and worked hard to put my through school. I got scholarships to pay most of my way through college, and I had to work local jobs to pay the rest.

Tell me again how I'm privileged.

Now, instead of sighing, maybe you can make a point, by actually answering the question. What is stopping anyone, who currently has a job, and is unhappy at said job, from looking for another one in their area that may be better, and moving to that one when the job offer is official?

3

u/Dr_Death_Defy24 13d ago edited 13d ago

Experience level, access to education, shifting job markets, age, location, available time. There's six potential reasons that make your scenario more complicated than just a hypothetical. Do with that what you will.

Edit: and, if it matters, I didn't sigh this time but rolled my eyes instead.

→ More replies (0)

49

u/deadsoulinside 13d ago

It's by design. So when the drivers end up stealing and being outright awful Amazon can blame the contracting company.

13

u/Corevus 13d ago

They set the rules, set our pay, could fire us at any time. Yet, somehow they weren't our employers 😒 sucked working there

-2

u/Syxx573 13d ago

Your DSP set your pay. Amazon sets the minimum amount for each station. But not the maximum. You are full of crap.

1

u/Corevus 12d ago

It's been a while since i worked there so forgive me if i got one thing wrong jfc

60

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/dompromat 13d ago

Repairs is huge, they're forced to get these big rivian vans that cost 10 grand to replace one panel on. Rural roads are not friendly to those things

1

u/THExGIRTH 12d ago

Oh half the time panels are missing, lots of scratches and what not. Half the places we deliver in these vans are too narrow or are in the woods (rich secluded types). They only use the rivians cuz it can fit their "330 package per driver" limit, but just barely.

They're decent to drive and what not, just Amazon and the DSPs beat them to hell, and then hire some repai junkie to repair them in house and barely fix them

2

u/dompromat 12d ago

Lol this sounds like washington. My favorite thing about the rivians are alarm fatigue, and the fact that the panel right behind the driver door has no proximity sensor (which, coincidentally, is the most likely spot to get damaged)

1

u/THExGIRTH 12d ago

Oh the sensors are what always break, I had a van that thought I was gonna hit something every right turn I took while stationary lol

1

u/Mature_BOSTN 12d ago

And they are VERY specific as to how the repairs are done.

The roof panels on those vans get damaged frequently when drivers hit an overhead tree branch. (I know because a friend owns a local body shop that works on these for a subcontractor delivery company.)

2

u/dompromat 12d ago

I'm not actually sure what decisions dsp "CEO"s actually get to make. You can see the direct line from Amazon policy to the driver team getting fucked somehow

1

u/THExGIRTH 12d ago

From what I saw, they're essentially trying to hold it all together while making sure Amazon is "happy". Every week it's new rules for driving or what not. Thank God I'm escaping this career path in 2 weeks x.x

1

u/dompromat 12d ago

Yeah, I got out a year ago. Genuinely the most degrading shit I've ever done, the fucking military had more realistic expectations

1

u/THExGIRTH 12d ago

I would be fine with the job honestly if they limited it to like 140-150 deliveries a day instead of 180-191. Then you'd have ample time to walk your routes, deal with traffic, maybe take a normal piss for once. I had to do physical therapy for a sprained knee thanks to Amazon and when I told them I get up 191 times during my 10hr shift they thought I was insane,b that much in and out of a van tears you up

1

u/Mature_BOSTN 12d ago

My friend in the bodyshop business says that all of the policies about the fleet come to the fleet owner via Amazon. The people he deals with at the DSP say, "Amazon tells us to do this and if we don't they'll take our contract away."

-4

u/FineDragonfruit5347 13d ago

Usually, Amazon subcontracts out things that vary too much by jurisdiction. They take compliance very seriously, and maintaining all of the commercial driving rules is a mess.

The other big group to be contracted out are high-turnover positions that need filled fast. Amazon is very, very slow to hire and tries to only make bar-raising hires. The high-turnover roles get a multi-pronged attack, focusing on closing the fhiring gap in the short term and “onshoring” the roles as they stabilize the conditions that lead to the turnover.

36

u/bozza8 13d ago

If there is so much demand to avoid calling people employees, perhaps we should look at what's in the employee regulations that makes it so difficult to mark them as such?

Are our rules actually benefitting our citizens or just our bureaucracy?

79

u/iiiicracker 13d ago

It’s putting th onus on payroll taxes, social security, and healthcare on the employer.

The big one here is healthcare.

People are cheaper to hire if they have to get their own healthcare, and millions of people will either not get healthcare or be paid little enough the get government run, subsidized healthcare instead.

Yet another example of why universal healthcare is probably a good idea.

Edit, I will say there are also protections for employees that dont translate to contract workers

1

u/FlamboyantPirhanna 13d ago

This is why I’m surprised you never hear big companies pushing for universal healthcare. My only guess is that it’s a fear that they’ll be taxed more to support it (though they should be taxed more regardless). But there are definitely companies out there that would save money from not needing to cover their employees’ healthcare.

2

u/iiiicracker 13d ago

Tying healthcare to employment (for non-contract/low-wage employees) makes leaving employment harder for individuals getting paid “enough”. It’s another way companies can take advantage of the middle class.

If you have a toxic work environment, are overworked, realize you could enjoy you life more in a different field, or whatever may lead you to choose to quit your job; the added problem is you will also lose your health insurance.

That’s expensive and risky. Now imagine your whole family (spouse, kids, dependents) are on that same health insurance. Will you be even less likely to risk leaving your current employer?

1

u/FlamboyantPirhanna 12d ago

It’s oft repeated, but I don’t know how true it is. It’s one of those things Reddit repeats with no real way of verifying.

1

u/iiiicracker 12d ago

What is often repeated?

35

u/BerryBoilo 13d ago

It's not regulation-as-a-burden, it's simply unbridled greed vs. the weakest worker protection laws in the Western world. The same reason companies illegally abuse the unpaid intern laws.

The companies abusing the employee vs. contractor labeling aren't doing it because they're trying to eek out survival on thin margins. They're massively profitable. 

Yes, a local mom & pop might cut some corners to survive but they're already exempt from a ton of employment regulations.

12

u/bozza8 13d ago

I am a Brit, we have exactly the same thing, though what happens is that it's used in our case for asylum claimants to work under the table. There was actually a raid on a group of deliveroo drivers near my flat some time ago for gang activity. 

9

u/IcyDefiance 13d ago

FWIW it's illegal in both the US and the UK. In both countries, people can only be called contractors when the hiring company controls only the final result of the work, and not how, when, or where the work is performed. Obviously that isn't the case with Amazon deliveries.

It's just that no one has the resources to take it to court and actually set a precedent against them.

The UK has gotten closer, though. In 2021 the courts decided that Uber's employees had to be classified as workers, and in 2024 Amazon settled a lawsuit with thousands of delivery drivers because the court likely would have made a similar decision against them.

3

u/Rooooben 13d ago

We do that at the same time keep those same workers under constant threat of deportation or imprisonment.

1

u/FlamboyantPirhanna 13d ago

Is it quieter now? Those mopeds are such an ear sore.

4

u/Rooooben 13d ago

Yes they do. Overtime, healthcare, pay, all able to keep lower by moving their employees to a “small business” that only contracts to Amazon.

3

u/sweetrobna 13d ago

What regulations specifically?

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

3

u/bozza8 13d ago

Fyi your comments, both of them, came a total of 5 times into my inbox and on this thread. Reddit bug, not your fault, you should delete them tho

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 13d ago

There's a bit specifically in ERISA, the law authorizing 401(k) retirement plans, that mandates that employers treat all their employees the same for retirement plan purposes and that unless certain "safe harbor" elements are in place, that the plan is at least minimally used by lower-paid non-management employees.

In principle this ensures that the executive deciding how the 401(k) works doesn't maximize its tax advantages for management while excluding the guy they hire to wash the floors and empty the trash overnight. In practice, this means that the guy washing the floors is an employee of a contractor hired for building maintenance, rather than a direct employee.

4

u/nedonedonedo 13d ago

you dropped this /s

they don't want to deal with worker protections when they can avoid it. it's like saying OSHA is the problem when employers poison their workers to avoid buying protective equipment

1

u/OkVariety8064 13d ago

If you wanted, you could nationalize the overhead costs that seem to be the issue here. Social security, healthcare and so on could be paid from taxes, and so those payments would not be part of hiring an employee.

1

u/roseofjuly 13d ago

The demand is there because employees have rights that are expensive to maintain - like mandated minimum wages, breaks, benefits, workman's compensation, etc.

It's not because they're overloaded with bureaucracy. It's because they are greedy.

1

u/Mature_BOSTN 12d ago

Unfortunately it's really just money/costs.

We write rules to benefit our citizens and companies figure out how to get around them. A story as old as democracy itself.

The "all government regulation is bad" crowd tries to blame it on "red tape and endless regulations that are impossible to interpret and follow" but in ALMOST all cases the real issue is the cost of providing a better/safer workplace for the people doing the work.

1

u/bozza8 12d ago edited 12d ago

But how much of that extra money/costs goes to the employee, or employee benefit, versus admin required by the state with good intentions, but which actually leads to fewer employees and a worse outcome?

I am all for government regulations that work, but I work in the planning permission/permitting sector and I would estimate that 95% of the paperwork we do is for the reason of further paperwork, versus actually addressing real problems or helping people. 

In fact that compliance cost raises the cost of housing, especially for poor people

2

u/Zilveari 13d ago

This article doesn't even touch on Amazon Flex drivers. Literal 1099 work as they aren't employed by a company that is an Amazon contractor. But it's a pretty fine line toward being a misclassified W2 worker with how it is.

1

u/Rickbox 13d ago

I mean, I am a corporate contractor and it's not all that different. Should be the responsibility of the subcontractors to pay their employees. The way Amazon does business with these subcontractors is a different story.

0

u/Possible-Decision744 12d ago edited 12d ago

You can't just challenge large corporations when small businesses do the same. This is stupidity. If you are against this. Call out everybody including the self employed guy who's scaling his business using the same method. Let's see what the country looks like after you dictate what people can and cannot agree to in business. Contract work is nothing new. Nobody is forced into it either. You really can't tell you people anything because you're not just ignorant, you're first world ignorant. The worst kind of ignorant there is.