For a community like HN, where a significant part of people do work that can be mostly done from bed, I'd just like to make clear that higher pay would still not make it OK to not have an unlimited amount of bathroom breaks for jobs where there are no real physical limitations that would necessitate such limitations.

$15/hour is the minimum at Amazon not the median - from the news articles I've read, they also do this for temporary/seasonal/part time workers, not just for full time workers. You’re drawing a false comparison.

Also is there any evidence that conditions are “really horrible”? Lots of people love working at Amazon warehouses - it pays well for unskilled labor and includes benefits. How do you know the complaints aren’t just from a small number of workers who are bad at their job and feel the time crunch, while most might be getting along fine? I feel like there isn’t available data to say either way - all we have are anecdotes that are being amplified in social media.

wut?

Even before the industry was heavily regulated and hours limited, long-haul truckers chose to pee in bottles for efficiency. Faster, safer and made them more money.

Also do you have any idea how long it takes to get in and out of a construction crane? And how dangerous? It's absolutely a physical constraint. Operators have to climb and it's about 15 minutes each way. They have to take breaks so they don't get sweaty. You absolutely do NOT want to do that when you're holding in piss.

> dictated by late-stage capitalism

Ironic considering bothering to use a potty is a very, very modern sensibility.

Frankly, I believe that capitalism is the strongest it has ever been, and will continuously grow ever-stronger, with stock market indexes growing ever higher relative to wages, signaling a seemingly unstoppable wealth accumulation towards the capitalist class. Deteriorating labor conditions are not a signal of bourgeois weakness, but a show of strength, and workers need to also gather strength if they are to fight back. You might make the argument that unionization only serves to make labor safe for Capital, and that's true to a large degree, but I see no other solution on the horizon.

By the way, I think you got downvoted because using a Marxist technical term such as "late capitalism" without proper elaboration only serves as flamebait. Those who are not already familiar with the theory have very likely only seen them in the context of Marxists airing their grievances on social media and/or aggressively engaging with Conservatives.