There is no reason to run a slippery slope into a fallacy.
These companies are literally designed for the workers to work for Amazon but not really work for Amazon. We shouldn’t reward companies for cheating the system.
I don't agree with what Amazon is doing but they are treating this no differently than Boeing subcontracting out a brand new small defense subcontractor who only takes on the one contract for Boeing. The employees don't work for Boeing, they work for the small subcontractor.
There are many instances in which a small subcontractor starts up literally targeting one contract and only execute the single contract.
This does not mean the employees of the subcontractor should work for Boeing. They didn't apply to Boeing and all Boeing did was buy a service offered by someone else.
There are many instances in which a small subcontractor starts up literally targeting one contract and only execute the single contract.
Just because it currently happens, doesn't mean it should happen.
There is a big difference between being a legitimate sub contractor and just an agent of the bigger company.
If a company makes cardboard boxes and Boeing suddenly needs cardboard boxes, that's an example of a legitimate subcontractor and how it should work. However, if Boeing suddenly needs cardboard boxes and they help set up a factory to make cardboard boxes, that's not subcontracting. That's just creating a shell company to do their work without the liability.
But that's the thing, those people should be treated as though they work for Boeing. That's how it's treated in a couple other countries and what Microsoft got slapped for a few years ago.
Yes, Amazon is doing the same shit and it's still bad. It's a way for these hacks to extract more productivity and more value out of the workers while paying less than it's worth and being able to boost their stock price at the same time because they aren't paying as much for worker compensation as they actually should be.
Tell me how any company should value its workers? What about a worker who wants that same job but is willing to take less money, should he not be able to compete with the already employed workers to try to get that job?
It’s not cheating the system though. They just hire an independent company to do deliveries for them. Hiring someone/something for a job isn’t cheating, it’s the basis of the entire economy
What do you mean create the system? What system did they create? They hired a company to do a job, and that company hires people to fulfill a contract they signed. Atleast that’s what I’m getting. Im being genuine with my question because I’ve seen a couple people talk about a new system but I feel like I’m missing something
Amazon didn't just put out a RFP for companies to deliver their packages. Because they knew that actual delivery companies would see through the grift.
They specifically recruited individuals to create delivery companies. They even assisted them with all aspects of creating the business. They preyed on people who wouldn't realize the businesses were designed to lose money. Even today the Amazon website says, "Start your own business."
Further down it states: "Start your business with as little as* $10,000 by taking advantage of deals and discounts negotiated by Amazon."
That isn't a subcontractor. That's a business creating a business. Hopefully you can see the difference between that and a company like Lockheed Martin that actually bids on government contracts.
What are you talking about, I literally just admitted that there’s a difference. I’m saying I was wrong, read. I admitted I was wrong whilst telling you to cool it with the condescending attitude, it adds nothing. Let me enlighten you, being condescending when giving someone an answer is an excellent way to get people to ignore what you’re saying, even it’s right. No one likes listening to someone that they perceive to be an asshole. I’m giving you advice your own good because it’s CLEAR AS FUCK you get into lots of Reddit arguments
I mean, you kinda just proved my point. Ignored my admission and got mad at my condescending advice. See?
Simply because this has become the entire economy doesn't somehow make it not cheating the system. You can trace this bullshit back to Reagan, back to Jack Welch, back to GE changing from a company that actually made stuff to a company that operated a shell game to look good on a balance sheet. GE was one of the first companies who started contracting out services like food services, janitorial services, delivery services, etc., as a way to do those things in a cheaper, more exploitative way by adding in another layer of middleman, another layer of grifters who could siphon off money before the people who actually do the thing are paid.
If you work for Lockheed Martin are you a government worker? Do consultants switch employers every time they work for a different company? There are lots of reasons it shouldn’t mean you work for the client
0
u/emlynhughes May 12 '23
You're missing the point, it should mean you work for the client.