Democracy depends on public education about policy needs, not just electoral fundraising and stupid campaign ads. This video is a brilliant piece of political rhetoric, because it says “here’s an issue you should care about”, gets a little technical in ways normal people can understand, and then says “hey we want to do something to fix this, please join us in this effort”.
One issue that I have with many of these videos - what precisely is "this"?
What issue is being addressed and what changes are proposed?
It's entirely issue-adjacent slogans of "Amazon cheats, we will hurt them". And if I've learned anything from the most recent executive branch campaigns/elections, it's that vaguely defined "we'll get them" will get you elected but won't promise any meaningful changes other than power for the elected.
Fair enough! I watched the video again and still dont understand what the problem is or what's being solved, but yes - there's the act!
It connects the dots through - Amazon seems to be claiming their drivers are exempt from something due to being contractors, and this bill will enforce those undefined somethings to be enforced.
> This bill would require operators of certain warehouses and storage facilities from which goods are delivered to final consumers in the City to obtain a business license from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. This bill would set forth the conditions of such license, which would include safety, training and employment requirements. This bill would also set forth enforcement options, including those available to the City and to workers.
The bill text itself seems to be more about hiring / firing practices than trucks.
I don’t think this video is about hurting anybody. It’s about making sure that large companies can be held liable if they hurt somebody. This is about protecting people.
This video isn’t an attempt to get elected, since he’s six months into a term.
It’s an attempt to build political support for passing a specific piece of legislation. It’s not “vaguely defined”, it refers to a specific bill that he wants to pass that has legislative text available on the internet.
I think if one thing Mamdani is great at, it's that he's a great marketer. His brand is just so much better than any candidate I've seen in the US. Heck even in the UK to be honest.
> You could say the same about Trump, and no, this is not supposed to be a compliment.
That's true, both Mamdani and Trump are very effective politicians. One can disagree with either or both of their positions, but that doesn't mean that they're not good at it.
I'm surprised to see so much of the rhetoric here being about what the concrete difference is... It is relatively easy to look that up, no?
As far as I can see from a literal 5 second google search:
- Liability for Injury at work is no longer on Amazon
- Liability for injuries caused by Amazon workers get shifted to the Worker, rather than Amazon (despite the fact that some of the conditions leading to that may come from Amazon themselves)
- It is harder to negotiate, as Amazon's official position is that "They do not work for us"
- It is easier to stop employment of sub-contractors.
The video already mentions this, but the idea of sub-contracting is that you are responsible for your own hours, routes, etc. This is clearly not the case for these workers.
Don't we already have workers comp insurance laws? Other forms of liability insurance? Doesn't Amazon carry the same insurance if it's the one doing the delivery directly? Do we think levels of this insurance is insufficient in general and should be higher?
Bottom line - just because Amazon doesn't directly have this liability - it doesn't mean nobody has this liability - the sub contractors do. And if they do, they need to pay for the insurance, and if they pay for the insurance, then Amazon has to pay them more to pay for this insurance.
So the real question is... what concrete harm/problem are we solving for that isn't already solved for today.
I'd love to live in a world where companies compensate people correctly for the extra liability they're forced to take on.
But my question for you is: Why do you think Amazon do this if it's not to specifically side track the exact things that I listed? If they were just paying the sub-contractor directly for that insurance? What would be the point.
And also Amazon requires insurance:
Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs) must independently secure and maintain comprehensive commercial insurance. Amazon does not provide this coverage for subcontractors. Required policies typically include $1M+ auto and general liability, workers' compensation, and cargo protection, with Amazon explicitly named as an additional insured.
the video is all about the subcontractors, so i guess they are the ones being hurt.
i suspect the problems are:
subcontractors are small businesses that don't have the resources to cover those liabilities or fight lawsuits from customers, nor do they have the resources to fight amazon to make it pay their share.
maybe getting insurance is not enforced, so those who don't pay for insurance are cheaper.
amazon uses their negotiation power to demand favorable conditions for themselves from subcontractors.
Isn’t there confusion here between independent contractors and subcontractors?
Amazon is subcontracting out delivery to smaller companies, for example ACME Logistics, LLC. Amazon tells ACME when things need to be delivered. ACME then hires delivery drivers, whether the individuals in vests are full-time/part-time/1099 independent is another thing. I doubt Amazon is hiring any 1099 workers directly, but I could be wrong.
Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers?
There are insinuations here, and a good video, but it would be good to have actual examples and then an actual demonstration of a pattern of harm, before we introduce new rules that are likely going to make deliveries more expensive.
I understand that a YouTube video isn't a policy document... and I don't expect it to have all of these things. But as a citizen, I do expect - that somewhere - there should be an actual policy document that outlines the facts.
Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the assets sold off to Joes Delivery Company, the part deus" and it starts all over again.
This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier.
But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own.
You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue...
Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
> Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own.
I wouldn't say subcontracting is a bad thing always. It depends on reason for subcontracting and in this case, I'd call it bad since subcontracting is clearly to avoid liability for what is critical business function.
>Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance?
Yes they are. It is enough? Not always. States are always trying to balance allowing protecting general public but not strangling small businesses. It doesn't always work out.
>Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
This law would impact all those companies if they move their drivers into subcontractor. Amazon is getting called out because they are BIGGEST users of this system but no, they are not only ones.
So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?
Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees.
They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business.
They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicle specific to Amazon deliveries.
Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
This has a lot to do with the analysis. How much control does Amazon have over the company. That's why they point out in the video that the drivers have to wear Amazon vests (and get punished if they don't), work Amazon directed hours, drive Amazon routes, deliver only Amazon packages, etc.
My understanding (based on my memory of a leaked DSP contract that I’m having trouble finding again) is that if you’re a branded DSP, then you must lease the vehicle from Amazon, and you may not use the Amazon vehicle for any purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
My memory is the DSP itself is not required to be exclusive to Amazon, but an Amazon branded vehicle can’t be used for purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
The people making propaganda (and yes, this is propaganda) knows that people are not rational but emotional. The video targets emotions - that amazon shirks responsibility is an emotional appeal.
The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like injury and accidents. The idea is already baked into the premise of the video, rather than propose a neutral question to the viewer; ala, at what level are a client responsible for the contractor's health and wellbeing. Why don't they ask this for tradies and plumbers?
Yeah why don't we make sure we fix the whole world at once and if we can't give up completely? Ask yourself, if they aren't fixing your favorite problem, are they really fixing any problem at all? Bonus points if you can maintain a vaneer of rationality.
We don't need to ask at what level are clients responsible for contractors health, wellbeing, and (most importantly, which you missed) negligent actions. These are all well established law. What needs discussion is if we should plug the loopholes Amazon uses to treat these independent contractors as employees while avoiding exposing their deep pockets to lawsuits. Either they treat them like contractors or they assume responsibility for their actions, but you can't have it both ways.
The actual problem is not that Amazon breaks any rules, but that the rules are so soft that even Amazon doesn't break them. But explaining it to an average worker doesn't work. Blaming specific companies and specific billionaires for systemic problems works much better for building support - that's why the politician in the video does the latter.
Why do you expect politicians to be suboptimal at the job of a politician (gaining support)? This kind of "trust me bro" video is exactly what a perfectly spherical politician in a vacuum should be coming up with. If you don't want politicians in the government, stop voting for them!
I think you're asking the wrong questions of someone like this. The point is to get power, to make sure you are well looked after. Give him more power to make your life better.
I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?
The act basically makes Amazon responsible for these subcontractors. BTW, they are not only ones who do this, UPS and Fedex have similar setups.
The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have no liability.
Are these really local businesses or are they employees forced to take on liability as a condition of employment? Tech has been mislabeling employees as independent contractors for years.
It would probably make the most sense for Amazon to scale out their on-road infra as drone delivery capacity (and much more slowly, the regulatory environment) is hammered out but I’m personally leaning towards the org going for a more practical response that ends up routing most packages through USPS instead.
Agree. Unclear on what the actual specific harms are, whether they systemic, and how a new set of laws would help fix it.
Also what are the harms that new rules introduce? Are you going to eliminate a bunch of new small businesses that do deliveries and replace them with everything being under one, giant, multi-trillion dollar company?
I said the governor of the state, not a state. Why you jumped to some inane example that has nothing to do with the conversation is beyond me.
By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.
However, in that case, it's just a matter of delegation. When one city dominates the state, it will dominate everything about that state. So unless the governor of New York wants to spend most of their time handling New York City problems, it's best for them to let the mayor sort that.
How big was the savings from delaying pension contributions and how big was the budget deficit?
Yes, delaying pension contributions was absolutely a fudge, but it’s not like that was 100% of the gap for going from a large deficit to a balanced budget.
Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.
Sounds like he's restructuring a payment plan that was already designed to push the pain into the future. Who knows if it will have been better to stave off the near term pain or let the financial time bomb set decades ago tie his hands.
> Delaying payments of the city’s full pension obligation until 2037 from 2032 would save the city nearly $2.3 billion in the next two years, Mamdani said, without affecting retiree benefits. The reamortization schedule alters the original amortization plan constructed in 2010 that had the city pay higher amounts of its pension debt each year until the Fiscal Year 2032 cliff, at which point the entire obligation would be erased from the city’s books.
> Under Mamdani’s new plan, which will need approval from state lawmakers by June 30, the city would pay a similar amount each year until FY32 when it would decrease year over year for the final half-decade of payments.
> “If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0,” Mamdani said on May 12. “What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year.”
> Pension experts have previously warned the city against executing a reamoritzation plan, arguing that it was a short-term fix that would saddle the city with big costs in the 2030’s. But Andrew Perry, director of fiscal research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a finance think tank, argued in a blog post that the current amortization schedule is “poorly designed” — due to the escalating payments and dropoff in 2032 — and said Mamdani’s new plan is an “act of prudent fiscal management.”
> Ken Giardin, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, argued the opposite, saying that the payment plan relies on the city’s five pension systems that “are hardly models of fiscal health," continuing to pump out positive returns.
> “The entire reason we're talking about the unfunded accrued liability is because the systems made excessively optimistic assumptions in the past—that's why NYC will already be paying off decades-old debt in the 2030s,” he said. "Mark your calendar for 2032, when city [politicians] will be wishing they hadn't done this.”
Progressives love to point out how popular their candidates are but fail to realize they're in a filter bubble that doesn't reflect the wider electorate. They were jubilant when al-Sayed won, but betting market odds for democrats winning dropped as a result.
They might not be prefect but they have a better track record than social media commentators. If you were going by the sentiment on HN or reddit, you'd thought Kamala would have won by a landslide.
Well you have the Tsar surrounded by his court and a rich elite completely out of touch with what is happening to the average person in the US so you have similar conditions (not really though, panem et circenses will apply until it doesn't and there is a lot more bread yet plus some more UFC matches can be arranged in what was a rose garden so the circus is covered as well).
If this is what Post imperial Russia looked like, sign me up comrade. We tried to hyper individualistic capitalism, and that failed unless your the very top of wealth pyramid. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
I’m supposed to be afraid of socialists but not authoritarian technofeudalism paperclip maximizers? If both scenarios are “you’ll own nothing an be happy,” I’ll take the system where someone actually tries to make their constituents happy.
You can’t scare people who realize we’re already at rock bottom. People who are delusional and think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires are always a lost cause, they are in a cult or belief system similar to a religion.
I cannot speak to communists, I currently align with democratic socialists and max out campaign contributions to those candidates. Some capitalism, but not too much, and a firm floor under everyone. I am wealthy because I was lucky. Existence is non consensual, no one asked to be here. One should not suffer through their existence because they were unlucky.
Because you can’t attempt to win if you don’t buy the lottery ticket. Just like a founder who spends years of their life grinding for a startup that will most likely fail, I’m just throwing some money into the ring to attempt to encourage a successful outcome. Success is never assured.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
You may ask: "Why are these lottery tickets and wins important at this point on the timeline?" That is a very important question.
> The results indicate that even with a number of self-described democratic socialists on the ballot, Democrats will have the upper hand heading into November’s midterm election, which is widely viewed as a referendum on Trump. It also suggests voters are warming to the idea of a more muscular federal government that provides additional services in exchange for higher taxes. The poll found that 32% of registered voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they describe themselves as a democratic socialist, while 50% would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. Twenty-nine percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with Trump’s endorsement, while 52% would be less likely. A candidate who describes themself as a supporter of the MAGA movement does even worse, with only 27% of voters saying that would make them more likely to vote for them and 57% saying it would make their vote less likely. Capitalism remains more popular than socialism in the U.S., the poll found, but has declined in public sentiment in recent years as socialism has gained. Twenty-eight percent of registered voters polled viewed socialism positively, a leap up from 18% in 2024. Fifty percent of registered voters viewed capitalism positively, little changed from 51% in 2024. Forty-eight percent of voters viewed socialism negatively, while 27% viewed capitalism negatively in the poll released Friday. Voters aged 18-34 preferred socialism by a margin of 18% points, while older age demographics preferred capitalism. That could reshape the electorate in the future. Or today’s younger voters could evolve their preferences as they age.
> “If these current attitudes were to persist over time, and the 18-49 year-olds of today were going to keep those types of attitudes, we’re going to have a seismic shift in terms of the national conversation and economic policy prescriptions that we see coming out of Congress and different places over time,” said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican pollster for the survey. “The attitudes of 18-34 year-olds today are the reality of our country in 20 years.” [My note: Draw your attention here, it is the most important fact when thinking in the context of this system.]
> Voters polled did not believe some form of socialism would be a good idea for the country, but by an extremely narrow margin. Forty-four percent of voters polled said some form of socialism would be a bad thing, while 40% said it would be a good thing — winnowing the gap by half from the last time it was polled. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 43% of adults viewed socialism as a good thing and 51% viewed it as a bad thing. [My note: extremely narrow margins on ideas can potentially be changed rapidly with some effort]
TLDR We are at a political tipping point due to demographics in the electorate, and if Democratic Socialists win and show they can deliver (as Mamdani is doing in NYC), it will lock in a positive uptake trajectory for them for at least 1-2 decades ahead. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, and they are the ones with strong positive beliefs about capitalism (because they were lucky and had a positive experience within the golden age of US economics that will never repeat). 70+ age cohort owns 1/3rd of wealth. Progress occurs one funeral at a time (Max Planck). Young people may not be wealthy, and will likely never be wealthy, but they all get their vote.
I certainly hope so, it’s just a tool, and I can’t take it with me. Would you hoard a hammer or your toolbox? Or let anyone use it who needed it? Do the Amish hoard wealth?
Measure impact, outcomes, and improvements in quality of life. Numbers in a database or spreadsheet are none of those.
To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success (great book on this topic literally called “Die with Zero” by Bill Perkins, I highly recommend [ISBN13 9780358567097]). If you don’t want to be hated as a very wealthy person, super simple, give most of it away (efficiently!) and make lives better. Keep enough to be cozy (nice crib, don’t have to work, fancy trimmings), but not enough to be a villain.
We may see wealth and the purpose of life differently, and disagreement during discourse is expected, but these are my thoughts and my mental model from ~half a century of existence and lived experience.
> To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success.
great comment. However, you could say that about alot of horrible people as well!
I live in a place where alot of those that claim the title 'Democratic Socialist' seem more drawn to 20th-century style identity politics rather than a philosophy of 'the world is complex and we need ethical and competent people to use the power of government to solve problems that markets don't solve', which is a way I might encapsulate my views.
Accepting the premise of my framing, how do you square the two?
If we presume that we will always exist in systems of people, and that there will always be potential bad actors seeking leverage and opportunity to grift through power, we need strong effort by the electorate to elect “good candidates” for lack of a better term. Sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes we trust the wrong people. Our governance systems should be designed to accelerate good people, and impair bad people until they can be recalled or replaced through elections.
As always, think in systems. If our systems are suboptimal for the target outcome, we must decompose and understand the system, and improve the components that are leading to the suboptimal outcome. I would encourage you to run for office as well. The solution is straightforward: get good people who give a shit into positions of leverage and power, and get out of their way. "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." —- Plato
Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route.
This should be interesting from a legal perspective.
Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side.
This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
>This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
Others can cause damage, but your odds of being hit by an Amazon driver are dramatically higher than most other companies because of the number of drivers they run.
They found a sort of loophole in the law. It's supposed to be self-regulating in a way, because being enormous means a lot of drivers and a lot of accidents so businesses get very picky about who is allowed to drive and how they drive. That falls apart when there's a bajillion drivers but they're made up of thousands of separate "delivery contractors" running fly-by-night businesses that the owners fully expect to die at some point and so don't leave any cash in and don't put improvements into.
E.g. I hear Walmart's trucking side is actually fairly nice and difficult to get into. They pay relatively well for the work and it's a cushier kind of trucking (more local, I think), which means everyone wants to work there and they have exacting standards for their drivers. They don't want insurance payouts.
Amazon seems notably different because it is _weirdly_ common to hear a story that goes something like "Amazon driver gets arrested for driving double the speed limit while high". The kind of thing that would trigger fleet-wide drug tests at most businesses, but is sort of a normal hum over at Amazon.
No. Companies should be on the hook if that's the law says they're on the hook, not because some politician put out a youtube video. This is rule of law 101. As for changing the law so they're on the hook, I'm against this specific proposal for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.
So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible?
Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical.
Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes.
I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages in the state. You'd shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's what the law says".
>So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible?
If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have conceivably arranged it over craigslist or whatever.
You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task.
I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service.
I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc.
Things are different from me personally hiring a single ride to the airport and me operating a transportation company to shuttle people to and from the airport.
If someone paid me to find them a ride to the airport and the person I hired to do the job wound up running over a kid, then I would be liable. Because then I've taken on the responsibility of vetting the driver.
While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers.
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.
That’s a rather splenetic response. On paper their contractor requires them to run an Amazon route and wear Amazon logo. Therefore, it’s not Amazon.
I’m asking honest question that any court law will ask; cynicism is not part of the scales in court but rather objectivity.
Does Amazon require the contractor to have the contractors drivers wear Amazon branded vests?
What if the DSP is a single-person company? Then the DSP and the driver are the same person. In that case, is it Amazon or the DSP requiring the driver to wear Amazon livery?
Contractors get paid less and don't get the same benefits as a full Amazon employee. It makes sense for NYC to push for them to be recognized as employees.
It also makes sense for Amazon to push hard into drone delivery for NYC as a response, which I also support.
It's a different level of discourse--whataboutism and deflection--that tells the tale. Your comment too: it's glib and dismissive, refusing to engage seriously.
I wrote like 10 comments that engaged seriously in this discussion... and haven't really gotten much back except comments that allude to conspiracy.
There are people who start with "of course Amazon is evil and they just want to do evil things" and work backwards from there...
I tend to start from a different direction of "I get packages quickly, and it's huge value add to my life; lots of people have good paying jobs delivering these packages - and lots of new small businesses started up to do this last mile delivery - and that's good" ...... and if you start there, then I'm just more skeptical of random new laws to fix something where nobody has made a concrete case for actual, real life harm that exists today...
my view is that the burden is on the people making up new rules to show their rules are solving concrete actual harms... not just hand wave and say "well obviously Amazon's a [evil scare tone] TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANY" and let that be the end of the argument
If there is no real-life harm, then it should be net-neutral to roll these trucks back under the Amazon corporation directly, and no reason to push back on it.
If there’s no real life harm, and Amazon chose to organize their business in this way, it means they think it’s a cheaper/better/more efficient way of doing it. So we shouldn’t make laws preventing it or undoing it unless we have a good reason.
Burden of proof is on those who want to make new rules that compel others.
It's way cheaper and more efficient to set up shell companies that are compelled to push the legal boundaries of what's allowed, and to accept no blame when they inevitably push too far. I think we both agree on that. It's just unhealthy for society, and laws protect us all, not just Amazon.
So the subcontractor is "avoiding regulations" (which are what btw?) by being a "subcontractor" and NYC can do nothing about the "subcontractors" but get rid of "subcontractors"?
Part of the problem is that sometimes the subcontractors are small enough to play by different rules. Or they don't have the means to support the staff when things go sideways. Or sometimes they're independent drivers, in which case the drivers themselves are responsible for the vehicle and any accidents, etc.
The subcontractors can just fold as well, leaving drivers in the lurch.
However, Amazon gets to dictate everything else about the job. The subcontractors have no authority or autonomy, but are made responsible for the heavier costs of the process.
Amazon wants to have an employer-relationship when it comes to dictating terms, but a contractor-relationship when it comes time to giving benefits or resolving disputes.
Democracy depends on public education about policy needs, not just electoral fundraising and stupid campaign ads. This video is a brilliant piece of political rhetoric, because it says “here’s an issue you should care about”, gets a little technical in ways normal people can understand, and then says “hey we want to do something to fix this, please join us in this effort”.
It’s upbeat, it’s rational. It’s so good.
One issue that I have with many of these videos - what precisely is "this"? What issue is being addressed and what changes are proposed? It's entirely issue-adjacent slogans of "Amazon cheats, we will hurt them". And if I've learned anything from the most recent executive branch campaigns/elections, it's that vaguely defined "we'll get them" will get you elected but won't promise any meaningful changes other than power for the elected.
The bill[1], which is named in the video, is available on the public Internet.
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
Fair enough! I watched the video again and still dont understand what the problem is or what's being solved, but yes - there's the act!
It connects the dots through - Amazon seems to be claiming their drivers are exempt from something due to being contractors, and this bill will enforce those undefined somethings to be enforced.
> This bill would require operators of certain warehouses and storage facilities from which goods are delivered to final consumers in the City to obtain a business license from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. This bill would set forth the conditions of such license, which would include safety, training and employment requirements. This bill would also set forth enforcement options, including those available to the City and to workers.
The bill text itself seems to be more about hiring / firing practices than trucks.
I don’t think this video is about hurting anybody. It’s about making sure that large companies can be held liable if they hurt somebody. This is about protecting people.
This video isn’t an attempt to get elected, since he’s six months into a term.
It’s an attempt to build political support for passing a specific piece of legislation. It’s not “vaguely defined”, it refers to a specific bill that he wants to pass that has legislative text available on the internet.
This is a concrete bill. It's the opponents that are going to need the catchy slogan to successfully defeat it.
Or bribes.
I think if one thing Mamdani is great at, it's that he's a great marketer. His brand is just so much better than any candidate I've seen in the US. Heck even in the UK to be honest.
>I think if one thing Mamdani is great at, it's that he's a great marketer. His brand is just so much better than any candidate
You could say the same about Trump, and no, this is not supposed to be a compliment.
> You could say the same about Trump, and no, this is not supposed to be a compliment.
That's true, both Mamdani and Trump are very effective politicians. One can disagree with either or both of their positions, but that doesn't mean that they're not good at it.
I'm surprised to see so much of the rhetoric here being about what the concrete difference is... It is relatively easy to look that up, no?
As far as I can see from a literal 5 second google search:
- Liability for Injury at work is no longer on Amazon
- Liability for injuries caused by Amazon workers get shifted to the Worker, rather than Amazon (despite the fact that some of the conditions leading to that may come from Amazon themselves)
- It is harder to negotiate, as Amazon's official position is that "They do not work for us"
- It is easier to stop employment of sub-contractors.
The video already mentions this, but the idea of sub-contracting is that you are responsible for your own hours, routes, etc. This is clearly not the case for these workers.
Don't we already have workers comp insurance laws? Other forms of liability insurance? Doesn't Amazon carry the same insurance if it's the one doing the delivery directly? Do we think levels of this insurance is insufficient in general and should be higher?
Bottom line - just because Amazon doesn't directly have this liability - it doesn't mean nobody has this liability - the sub contractors do. And if they do, they need to pay for the insurance, and if they pay for the insurance, then Amazon has to pay them more to pay for this insurance.
So the real question is... what concrete harm/problem are we solving for that isn't already solved for today.
I'd love to live in a world where companies compensate people correctly for the extra liability they're forced to take on.
But my question for you is: Why do you think Amazon do this if it's not to specifically side track the exact things that I listed? If they were just paying the sub-contractor directly for that insurance? What would be the point.
There are existing laws/regs:
Workers comp: "Workers’ compensation insurance is mandatory for most employers of one or more employees." https://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/Employers/workers-compen...
See NY State minimums here: https://www.geico.com/commercial-auto-insurance/states/ny/
And also Amazon requires insurance: Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs) must independently secure and maintain comprehensive commercial insurance. Amazon does not provide this coverage for subcontractors. Required policies typically include $1M+ auto and general liability, workers' compensation, and cargo protection, with Amazon explicitly named as an additional insured.
the video is all about the subcontractors, so i guess they are the ones being hurt.
i suspect the problems are:
subcontractors are small businesses that don't have the resources to cover those liabilities or fight lawsuits from customers, nor do they have the resources to fight amazon to make it pay their share.
maybe getting insurance is not enforced, so those who don't pay for insurance are cheaper.
amazon uses their negotiation power to demand favorable conditions for themselves from subcontractors.
The way this stuff works is Amazon requires them they need to get X amount of liability insurance to even be a subcontractor. Amazon requires proof.
The government has its own laws on things like minimum workers compensation insurance.
So the subcontractors are insured.
Isn’t there confusion here between independent contractors and subcontractors?
Amazon is subcontracting out delivery to smaller companies, for example ACME Logistics, LLC. Amazon tells ACME when things need to be delivered. ACME then hires delivery drivers, whether the individuals in vests are full-time/part-time/1099 independent is another thing. I doubt Amazon is hiring any 1099 workers directly, but I could be wrong.
Honest question: what are the actual concrete issues where Amazon is shirking responsibility they would have otherwise had? Was there a specific court case where Amazon didn't pay what it would have otherwise? A workplace injury that would have been covered but otherwise wasn't? If these exist, are they systemic - i.e., does it happen more often here than it does with UPS or FedEx delivery workers?
There are insinuations here, and a good video, but it would be good to have actual examples and then an actual demonstration of a pattern of harm, before we introduce new rules that are likely going to make deliveries more expensive.
I understand that a YouTube video isn't a policy document... and I don't expect it to have all of these things. But as a citizen, I do expect - that somewhere - there should be an actual policy document that outlines the facts.
Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the assets sold off to Joes Delivery Company, the part deus" and it starts all over again.
This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier.
This happens with FedEx/UPS as well.
But what you described isn't a "problem" on it's own. Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own.
You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue...
Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
> Subcontracting is a thing. It's not a bad thing on its own.
I wouldn't say subcontracting is a bad thing always. It depends on reason for subcontracting and in this case, I'd call it bad since subcontracting is clearly to avoid liability for what is critical business function.
>Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance?
Yes they are. It is enough? Not always. States are always trying to balance allowing protecting general public but not strangling small businesses. It doesn't always work out.
>Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
This law would impact all those companies if they move their drivers into subcontractor. Amazon is getting called out because they are BIGGEST users of this system but no, they are not only ones.
So, if I understand correctly, does New York want Amazon to not hand over jobs to local small businesses and just instead operate their own fleets? Are they pushing for higher consolidation (and eventual power) to Amazon?
Amazon has already consolidated that power. They’ve just done it in a way where they are able to shirk some liability and maintenance costs onto their employees.
They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business.
They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicle specific to Amazon deliveries.
Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
> Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
I don't know, can they not? If that is the case then it's definitely problematic.
This has a lot to do with the analysis. How much control does Amazon have over the company. That's why they point out in the video that the drivers have to wear Amazon vests (and get punished if they don't), work Amazon directed hours, drive Amazon routes, deliver only Amazon packages, etc.
My understanding (based on my memory of a leaked DSP contract that I’m having trouble finding again) is that if you’re a branded DSP, then you must lease the vehicle from Amazon, and you may not use the Amazon vehicle for any purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
My memory is the DSP itself is not required to be exclusive to Amazon, but an Amazon branded vehicle can’t be used for purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
The bill[1], which is named in the video, is available on the public Internet.
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
The people making propaganda (and yes, this is propaganda) knows that people are not rational but emotional. The video targets emotions - that amazon shirks responsibility is an emotional appeal.
The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like injury and accidents. The idea is already baked into the premise of the video, rather than propose a neutral question to the viewer; ala, at what level are a client responsible for the contractor's health and wellbeing. Why don't they ask this for tradies and plumbers?
Yeah why don't we make sure we fix the whole world at once and if we can't give up completely? Ask yourself, if they aren't fixing your favorite problem, are they really fixing any problem at all? Bonus points if you can maintain a vaneer of rationality.
We don't need to ask at what level are clients responsible for contractors health, wellbeing, and (most importantly, which you missed) negligent actions. These are all well established law. What needs discussion is if we should plug the loopholes Amazon uses to treat these independent contractors as employees while avoiding exposing their deep pockets to lawsuits. Either they treat them like contractors or they assume responsibility for their actions, but you can't have it both ways.
Equating Amazon with a general home construction contractor is quite a stretch.
Are you saying that there is a lack of easily accessible information about how Amazon drivers are overworked compared to UPS/Fedex drivers?
The actual problem is not that Amazon breaks any rules, but that the rules are so soft that even Amazon doesn't break them. But explaining it to an average worker doesn't work. Blaming specific companies and specific billionaires for systemic problems works much better for building support - that's why the politician in the video does the latter.
Ok but I expect more from my government than "here's youtube video; trust me bro - you're an average worker, you won't get it"
Why do you expect politicians to be suboptimal at the job of a politician (gaining support)? This kind of "trust me bro" video is exactly what a perfectly spherical politician in a vacuum should be coming up with. If you don't want politicians in the government, stop voting for them!
I think you're asking the wrong questions of someone like this. The point is to get power, to make sure you are well looked after. Give him more power to make your life better.
But… what does it do?!
I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?
The act basically makes Amazon responsible for these subcontractors. BTW, they are not only ones who do this, UPS and Fedex have similar setups.
The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have no liability.
>set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health
Source? Is it actually physically "impossible", or simply a race to the bottom dynamic?
Race to bottom dynamic
isn't this the fault of the subcontractor for agreeing to the impossible?
That's what i'm confused about, no one is holding a gun to the subcontractor's heads forcing them to do the impossible
It requires Amazon to directly employ delivery drivers in New York City and sets up a licensing scheme for last-mile delivery.
Isn't that.. worse? Putting local businesses out of jobs and instead consolidating all of them directly under the company's umbrella?
Are these really local businesses or are they employees forced to take on liability as a condition of employment? Tech has been mislabeling employees as independent contractors for years.
It would probably make the most sense for Amazon to scale out their on-road infra as drone delivery capacity (and much more slowly, the regulatory environment) is hammered out but I’m personally leaning towards the org going for a more practical response that ends up routing most packages through USPS instead.
The bill[1], which is named in the video, is available on the public Internet.
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
Agree. Unclear on what the actual specific harms are, whether they systemic, and how a new set of laws would help fix it.
Also what are the harms that new rules introduce? Are you going to eliminate a bunch of new small businesses that do deliveries and replace them with everything being under one, giant, multi-trillion dollar company?
This guy cant stop winning, can we clone him and get one for each state?
As someone from another state, it's amusing how the mayor of a city has more clout than governor of the state.
New York City has a greater population than 38 states.
Why should the governor of South Dakota (pop 935,094) have more clout than the mayor of New York City (pop 8,804,190)?
I said the governor of the state, not a state. Why you jumped to some inane example that has nothing to do with the conversation is beyond me.
By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.
Fair enough, I missed the exact article used.
However, in that case, it's just a matter of delegation. When one city dominates the state, it will dominate everything about that state. So unless the governor of New York wants to spend most of their time handling New York City problems, it's best for them to let the mayor sort that.
Look at the mayor of London. Same shit, different city.
Anyone can balance a budget by just delaying pension contributions. It's not impressive.
What happens next year?
How big was the savings from delaying pension contributions and how big was the budget deficit?
Yes, delaying pension contributions was absolutely a fudge, but it’s not like that was 100% of the gap for going from a large deficit to a balanced budget.
You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.
Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.
I'm sure this is the one criticism among the millions that actually lands at his feet.
Edit: Surprise surprise, it wasn't. See other comment.
Sounds like he's restructuring a payment plan that was already designed to push the pain into the future. Who knows if it will have been better to stave off the near term pain or let the financial time bomb set decades ago tie his hands.
> Delaying payments of the city’s full pension obligation until 2037 from 2032 would save the city nearly $2.3 billion in the next two years, Mamdani said, without affecting retiree benefits. The reamortization schedule alters the original amortization plan constructed in 2010 that had the city pay higher amounts of its pension debt each year until the Fiscal Year 2032 cliff, at which point the entire obligation would be erased from the city’s books.
> Under Mamdani’s new plan, which will need approval from state lawmakers by June 30, the city would pay a similar amount each year until FY32 when it would decrease year over year for the final half-decade of payments.
> “If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0,” Mamdani said on May 12. “What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year.”
> Pension experts have previously warned the city against executing a reamoritzation plan, arguing that it was a short-term fix that would saddle the city with big costs in the 2030’s. But Andrew Perry, director of fiscal research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a finance think tank, argued in a blog post that the current amortization schedule is “poorly designed” — due to the escalating payments and dropoff in 2032 — and said Mamdani’s new plan is an “act of prudent fiscal management.”
> Ken Giardin, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, argued the opposite, saying that the payment plan relies on the city’s five pension systems that “are hardly models of fiscal health," continuing to pump out positive returns.
> “The entire reason we're talking about the unfunded accrued liability is because the systems made excessively optimistic assumptions in the past—that's why NYC will already be paying off decades-old debt in the 2030s,” he said. "Mark your calendar for 2032, when city [politicians] will be wishing they hadn't done this.”
https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new...
Progressives love to point out how popular their candidates are but fail to realize they're in a filter bubble that doesn't reflect the wider electorate. They were jubilant when al-Sayed won, but betting market odds for democrats winning dropped as a result.
And we all know that gamblers and betting odds always are correct.
They might not be prefect but they have a better track record than social media commentators. If you were going by the sentiment on HN or reddit, you'd thought Kamala would have won by a landslide.
Absolutely, we are SO looking forward to replaying 1918-1922 in Post-imperial Russia.
Is that because he's filling potholes, or because rich NYC residents are paying slightly less in tax than they did in 1994?
Well you have the Tsar surrounded by his court and a rich elite completely out of touch with what is happening to the average person in the US so you have similar conditions (not really though, panem et circenses will apply until it doesn't and there is a lot more bread yet plus some more UFC matches can be arranged in what was a rose garden so the circus is covered as well).
The irony.
Distractions from running the city I guess. The massive economic black hole they are facing is not something to put the focus on.
If this is what Post imperial Russia looked like, sign me up comrade. We tried to hyper individualistic capitalism, and that failed unless your the very top of wealth pyramid. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
I’m supposed to be afraid of socialists but not authoritarian technofeudalism paperclip maximizers? If both scenarios are “you’ll own nothing an be happy,” I’ll take the system where someone actually tries to make their constituents happy.
You can’t scare people who realize we’re already at rock bottom. People who are delusional and think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires are always a lost cause, they are in a cult or belief system similar to a religion.
Modern communists are such reactionaries that they can't even see the value in decimating the petite-bourgeoisie population. Sad.
I cannot speak to communists, I currently align with democratic socialists and max out campaign contributions to those candidates. Some capitalism, but not too much, and a firm floor under everyone. I am wealthy because I was lucky. Existence is non consensual, no one asked to be here. One should not suffer through their existence because they were unlucky.
> and max out campaign contributions to those candidates
But why bother? Those candidates will only be successful if they're lucky.
Because you can’t attempt to win if you don’t buy the lottery ticket. Just like a founder who spends years of their life grinding for a startup that will most likely fail, I’m just throwing some money into the ring to attempt to encourage a successful outcome. Success is never assured.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
You may ask: "Why are these lottery tickets and wins important at this point on the timeline?" That is a very important question.
Democratic socialists top MAGA candidates among voters in CNBC’s All-America poll - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-ma... - July 17, 2026
> The results indicate that even with a number of self-described democratic socialists on the ballot, Democrats will have the upper hand heading into November’s midterm election, which is widely viewed as a referendum on Trump. It also suggests voters are warming to the idea of a more muscular federal government that provides additional services in exchange for higher taxes. The poll found that 32% of registered voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they describe themselves as a democratic socialist, while 50% would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. Twenty-nine percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with Trump’s endorsement, while 52% would be less likely. A candidate who describes themself as a supporter of the MAGA movement does even worse, with only 27% of voters saying that would make them more likely to vote for them and 57% saying it would make their vote less likely. Capitalism remains more popular than socialism in the U.S., the poll found, but has declined in public sentiment in recent years as socialism has gained. Twenty-eight percent of registered voters polled viewed socialism positively, a leap up from 18% in 2024. Fifty percent of registered voters viewed capitalism positively, little changed from 51% in 2024. Forty-eight percent of voters viewed socialism negatively, while 27% viewed capitalism negatively in the poll released Friday. Voters aged 18-34 preferred socialism by a margin of 18% points, while older age demographics preferred capitalism. That could reshape the electorate in the future. Or today’s younger voters could evolve their preferences as they age.
> “If these current attitudes were to persist over time, and the 18-49 year-olds of today were going to keep those types of attitudes, we’re going to have a seismic shift in terms of the national conversation and economic policy prescriptions that we see coming out of Congress and different places over time,” said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican pollster for the survey. “The attitudes of 18-34 year-olds today are the reality of our country in 20 years.” [My note: Draw your attention here, it is the most important fact when thinking in the context of this system.]
> Voters polled did not believe some form of socialism would be a good idea for the country, but by an extremely narrow margin. Forty-four percent of voters polled said some form of socialism would be a bad thing, while 40% said it would be a good thing — winnowing the gap by half from the last time it was polled. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 43% of adults viewed socialism as a good thing and 51% viewed it as a bad thing. [My note: extremely narrow margins on ideas can potentially be changed rapidly with some effort]
TLDR We are at a political tipping point due to demographics in the electorate, and if Democratic Socialists win and show they can deliver (as Mamdani is doing in NYC), it will lock in a positive uptake trajectory for them for at least 1-2 decades ahead. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, and they are the ones with strong positive beliefs about capitalism (because they were lucky and had a positive experience within the golden age of US economics that will never repeat). 70+ age cohort owns 1/3rd of wealth. Progress occurs one funeral at a time (Max Planck). Young people may not be wealthy, and will likely never be wealthy, but they all get their vote.
https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-...
noted, comrade. Don't worry, your wealth will serve the working class future very well.
I certainly hope so, it’s just a tool, and I can’t take it with me. Would you hoard a hammer or your toolbox? Or let anyone use it who needed it? Do the Amish hoard wealth?
Measure impact, outcomes, and improvements in quality of life. Numbers in a database or spreadsheet are none of those.
To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success (great book on this topic literally called “Die with Zero” by Bill Perkins, I highly recommend [ISBN13 9780358567097]). If you don’t want to be hated as a very wealthy person, super simple, give most of it away (efficiently!) and make lives better. Keep enough to be cozy (nice crib, don’t have to work, fancy trimmings), but not enough to be a villain.
We may see wealth and the purpose of life differently, and disagreement during discourse is expected, but these are my thoughts and my mental model from ~half a century of existence and lived experience.
> To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success.
great comment. However, you could say that about alot of horrible people as well!
I live in a place where alot of those that claim the title 'Democratic Socialist' seem more drawn to 20th-century style identity politics rather than a philosophy of 'the world is complex and we need ethical and competent people to use the power of government to solve problems that markets don't solve', which is a way I might encapsulate my views.
Accepting the premise of my framing, how do you square the two?
Great question.
If we presume that we will always exist in systems of people, and that there will always be potential bad actors seeking leverage and opportunity to grift through power, we need strong effort by the electorate to elect “good candidates” for lack of a better term. Sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes we trust the wrong people. Our governance systems should be designed to accelerate good people, and impair bad people until they can be recalled or replaced through elections.
As always, think in systems. If our systems are suboptimal for the target outcome, we must decompose and understand the system, and improve the components that are leading to the suboptimal outcome. I would encourage you to run for office as well. The solution is straightforward: get good people who give a shit into positions of leverage and power, and get out of their way. "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." —- Plato
Honest question; it’s not Amazon that requires them to wear an Amazon vest but rather their contractor. Amazon may set the route but they don’t pay them to run the route. This should be interesting from a legal perspective.
Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side.
This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
>This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
Others can cause damage, but your odds of being hit by an Amazon driver are dramatically higher than most other companies because of the number of drivers they run.
They found a sort of loophole in the law. It's supposed to be self-regulating in a way, because being enormous means a lot of drivers and a lot of accidents so businesses get very picky about who is allowed to drive and how they drive. That falls apart when there's a bajillion drivers but they're made up of thousands of separate "delivery contractors" running fly-by-night businesses that the owners fully expect to die at some point and so don't leave any cash in and don't put improvements into.
E.g. I hear Walmart's trucking side is actually fairly nice and difficult to get into. They pay relatively well for the work and it's a cushier kind of trucking (more local, I think), which means everyone wants to work there and they have exacting standards for their drivers. They don't want insurance payouts.
Amazon seems notably different because it is _weirdly_ common to hear a story that goes something like "Amazon driver gets arrested for driving double the speed limit while high". The kind of thing that would trigger fleet-wide drug tests at most businesses, but is sort of a normal hum over at Amazon.
Yeah, but this time it was. And if it is, they should be on the hook, yes?
No. Companies should be on the hook if that's the law says they're on the hook, not because some politician put out a youtube video. This is rule of law 101. As for changing the law so they're on the hook, I'm against this specific proposal for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.
So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible?
Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical.
Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes.
I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages in the state. You'd shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's what the law says".
>So if an Amazon delivery driver driving an Amazon delivery truck delivering Amazon packages causes an accident with millions of dollars of damages, Amazon should not be responsible?
If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have conceivably arranged it over craigslist or whatever.
You do see how that's different, right? Me, contracting a sole individual to perform a task.
I do not have the means to completely vet the person I hire. To ask me to do so is a bit insane. Especially for a one-off trip. Not to mention, the driver in your hypothetical would be the company providing the service.
I mean, look, you have to put all these caveats on your hypothetical. I can't hire a taxi, because then the taxi company would be liable. I can't Uber, because that's a whole mess of who's liable. Etc.
Things are different from me personally hiring a single ride to the airport and me operating a transportation company to shuttle people to and from the airport.
If someone paid me to find them a ride to the airport and the person I hired to do the job wound up running over a kid, then I would be liable. Because then I've taken on the responsibility of vetting the driver.
While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.
That’s a rather splenetic response. On paper their contractor requires them to run an Amazon route and wear Amazon logo. Therefore, it’s not Amazon. I’m asking honest question that any court law will ask; cynicism is not part of the scales in court but rather objectivity.
Does Amazon require the contractor to have the contractors drivers wear Amazon branded vests?
What if the DSP is a single-person company? Then the DSP and the driver are the same person. In that case, is it Amazon or the DSP requiring the driver to wear Amazon livery?
This is why they want to fix the paper to say Amazon is making them do it.
Contractors get paid less and don't get the same benefits as a full Amazon employee. It makes sense for NYC to push for them to be recognized as employees.
It also makes sense for Amazon to push hard into drone delivery for NYC as a response, which I also support.
We might expect the politicians to legislate against this, please at the same time, if you can, spend your money with better companies.
Play by the rules? Are you mad, you can loose that way!
This video really deserves a better soundtrack.
Amazing the number of people on HN who will simp for Jeff Bezos.
Man, Amazon is astroturfing the hell out of the comments here. They're scared of this one.
This video was extremely clear on what the problem is, but the number of comments here like "what is actually the problem?" is crazy.
"if people disagree with me, it's a conspiracy"
It's a different level of discourse--whataboutism and deflection--that tells the tale. Your comment too: it's glib and dismissive, refusing to engage seriously.
I wrote like 10 comments that engaged seriously in this discussion... and haven't really gotten much back except comments that allude to conspiracy. There are people who start with "of course Amazon is evil and they just want to do evil things" and work backwards from there... I tend to start from a different direction of "I get packages quickly, and it's huge value add to my life; lots of people have good paying jobs delivering these packages - and lots of new small businesses started up to do this last mile delivery - and that's good" ...... and if you start there, then I'm just more skeptical of random new laws to fix something where nobody has made a concrete case for actual, real life harm that exists today...
my view is that the burden is on the people making up new rules to show their rules are solving concrete actual harms... not just hand wave and say "well obviously Amazon's a [evil scare tone] TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANY" and let that be the end of the argument
If there is no real-life harm, then it should be net-neutral to roll these trucks back under the Amazon corporation directly, and no reason to push back on it.
If there’s no real life harm, and Amazon chose to organize their business in this way, it means they think it’s a cheaper/better/more efficient way of doing it. So we shouldn’t make laws preventing it or undoing it unless we have a good reason.
Burden of proof is on those who want to make new rules that compel others.
It's way cheaper and more efficient to set up shell companies that are compelled to push the legal boundaries of what's allowed, and to accept no blame when they inevitably push too far. I think we both agree on that. It's just unhealthy for society, and laws protect us all, not just Amazon.
So the subcontractor is "avoiding regulations" (which are what btw?) by being a "subcontractor" and NYC can do nothing about the "subcontractors" but get rid of "subcontractors"?
Part of the problem is that sometimes the subcontractors are small enough to play by different rules. Or they don't have the means to support the staff when things go sideways. Or sometimes they're independent drivers, in which case the drivers themselves are responsible for the vehicle and any accidents, etc.
The subcontractors can just fold as well, leaving drivers in the lurch.
However, Amazon gets to dictate everything else about the job. The subcontractors have no authority or autonomy, but are made responsible for the heavier costs of the process.
Amazon wants to have an employer-relationship when it comes to dictating terms, but a contractor-relationship when it comes time to giving benefits or resolving disputes.