Amazon Delivery Drivers Forced to Sign 'Biometric Consent' Form or Lose Job | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Delivery Drivers Forced to Sign 'Biometric Consent' Form or Lose Job

vice.com

42 pointsjbegley15 comments

An important part of the article:

> Technically, these drivers aren't even employed by Amazon, but by roughly 800 companies, known as delivery service partners that operate out of Amazon delivery stations

This surprised me the first I heard it.

The Amazon delivery vans you see are actually just independently owned businesses that are doing deliveries for Amazon, under the Amazon branding. I'm not familiar with the details, but I'm guessing it's similar to how you might franchise a chain restaurant, where the franchise imposes rules / requirements on franchisees.

So, when Amazon is "installing cameras in its delivery vans", it really means they're requiring 800 independently owned businesses to install cameras and force (non-Amazon) employees to comply.

Cory Doctorow has an excellent blogpost on Amazon's delivery service partners[1] and why it's a very difficult situation for the workers to demand better working conditions. It's very eye-opening in my opinion.

[1]: https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/19/the-shakedown/#weird-flex

This is a discussing trend used all over the world to get around labor laws.

In Switzerland we have this issue with a large delivery company DPD not properly paying overtime and tracking hours. They push all blame away to the sub-contractors but those drive branded delivery trucks and are required to use the scanners of the main company. Tracking hours is required by law but you can not claim unpaid work if your hours have not been tracked. The big union here is now getting the workers to track their own hours and I'm expecting a nasty court fight coming up.

https://www.srf.ch/article/19516535

It’s a far too common (and immoral) arrangement these days - offsets a lot of costs around direct employment, and reduces their rights and pay, and helps Amazon evade lots of responsibility.

Franchises are immoral?

It's not a franchise. Fedex paid a steep price ($240 million) for attempting the same shenanigans (attempting to skirt proper employment classification when it was clear they were operating as Fedex) with their Ground operations [1] [2].

The more control you have over how the work is done, the less likely it is to be classified as an "independent contractor" arrangement.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-settlement/fedex-to...

[2] http://cwstrategies.staffingindustry.com/fedex-to-pay-228-mi...

I know someone who runs an Amazon last-mile delivery service. He bought the vans. He employs the drivers. Doesn't sound like the same thing as what FedEx was doing.

Same arrangement Fedex Ground had. The associate you mention is Amazon middle management in an arrangement meant to avoid employee classification.

> The Ninth Circuit focused on FedEx’s control of the drivers despite the operating agreement referring to them as “independent contractors.”

> “As a central part of its business, FedEx Ground Package System Inc. contracts with drivers to deliver packages to its customers,” the court wrote in its opinion.

> “The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved vehicles and groom themselves according to FedEx’s appearance standards,” the opinion continues. “FedEx tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at what times. Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so only with FedEx’s consent. FedEx contends its drivers are independent contractors under California law. Plaintiffs, a class of FedEx drivers in California, contend they are employees. We agree with plaintiffs.”

> The court said the amount of control used by FedEx ranged from the dimensions of packing shelves on trucks to the appearance of drivers — down to their clothing choice of shoes and socks. It also said FedEx offers a “business support package” which provides drivers with uniforms, scanners and other equipment. The package is optional, but 99% of drivers purchase it, according to the court, and scanners drivers must use in package delivery are not readily available from other sources.

This jives pretty closely with every Amazon driver I've spoken to. Amazon exerts too much control over the work being done for it not to be classified as an employee relationship, and their entire last mile experience for the customer depends on such control. Amazon is also responsible for designing the truck you must drive as an Amazon driver.

IANAL, just making observations based on past legal precedent, current public policy, and anecdotes from Amazon workers I intentionally interact with to get ground truth.

If he has just one client, then definitely both sides are taking a mickey. Amazon because they don't have to buy vans, be involved in employment law, paying employer taxes etc. and the driver because likely they don't pay the same tax as if they were employed.

Franchises that are basically proxy shell companies to hire 1 (to 5) people are.

Interesting - if an Amazon has direct control over what sub-contractor is doing, isn't the sub-contractor a de facto employee of Amazon, but because of how arrangement is made there is a substantial difference in tax to pay? Something like this in the UK is dealt by regulation called IR35.

Can you be forced to sign something that changes the terms of your employment agreement?

You can be fired for any or no reason in the land of the free (see 'at will employment'), so I would guess so.

At minimum it would be nice to require advance notice: "we will require this new employment agreement in 3 months". Rather than the current situation where you must agree now or be fired immediately.

Employment with respect to Amazon or its contractors is an adversarial system. Giving your adversaries time to prepare only negatively effects the companies' ability to extract maximum labor at the lowest cost. Sure some employees will quit rather than sign, but that number is small. Some will sign with the intention of quiting as soon as possible. Amazon still made its money and burns and churns through recruiters and contractors to deal with the turnover. Working for Amazon is like gambling in a casino, the house always wins as evidenced by the stock price.

I was, and I've never worked for a FAANG. I think the excuse was that there was a corporate reorganization so technically we were all being let go by one entity and hired by a spinoff company. So if we didn't agree, they could just not rehire us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com