It's not simply about hurting Amazon, it's about sending a signal. "This specific part of our business is threatened by the way that we're running it." Let it make business sense for Amazon to treat people like human beings. Otherwise it won't.
It is not the duty of consumers to provide a social safety net for workers. This is precisely where government should step in. If you really give a shit about the people working at Amazon, write to your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for social programs that would positively impact them.
Which is the point of a strike.
> It is not the duty of consumers to provide a social safety net for workers. This is precisely where government should step in. If you really give a shit about the people working at Amazon, write to your congressman/congresswoman and voice your support for social programs that would positively impact them.
The reason people are striking is because again and again, the american government has not done this, and many people (on this site, even) believe that the government should not do it. That's kind of the whole point of the 'small government' schtick.
It seems to me it would be easier to get people to vote than to boycott Amazon in an impactful way. But as brundolf pointed out, it doesn't have to be either/or.
That may not happen as the result of one strike, but if there are lots of strikes over a period of time they can incrementally make the public more aware and tilt the odds of electing people who will pass such legislation.
It's not either/or. In today's political climate, unfortunately, pushing the market is the only thing that seems to ever accomplish anything.
Valid point.
I do question how much something like this could realistically push the market though. Boycotting a public transportation system with only one revenue stream is very different from boycotting a multinational corp with diversified revenue streams.