Hacker News Reader

Comment by hiddencost | Hacker News Reader

Pervasive trend in America:

erode peoples' standard of living, erode the laws protecting them from abusive working environments, force them into a position where they only have the option of working for one company, and then blame them for trying to ask for better conditions.

If you went into your job every day and criticized the job with a coworker, you would in fact not lose your job (or have the option for a nice settlement), because American labor law specifically protects workers' rights to talk about their working conditions?

View on HN

That's a gross exaggeration; Amazon is not even close to being the only company you can work for.

The point is that in many of these communities where retail jobs have been absolutely decimated (because of Amazon), working for Amazon is often the only game in town

Can you name any of these cities? People keep using this argument in discussions about Amazon, but I've not seen any specific evidence for it - i.e., a town where it really is true.

I'm conscious I'm starting to sound like a broken record, having posed this question several times in another recent thread, but where is the evidence that Amazon has access to an endless supply of workers who are at-once sufficiently able-bodied, able-minded and otherwise capable of doing the work Amazon needs done, and also so desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment?

My claim is not that Amazon has no room to improve pay and conditions for its workers. I'm sure it does. I'm just questioning the assumption that Amazon is able to endlessly exploit and mistreat its workers without consequence.

Move somewhere else. If you can't find a perfered job in your hometown, you don't force the local company to make a job to your satisfaction, you move to a different part of the country.

Why should these people get any other type of consideration.

When you can barely even pay each month’s rent, just moving to a new apartment locally can require a year or two of savings. And thats assuming you don’t have children or any other unexpected (car broke down, medical bills).

We're not asking them to make the job to our satisfaction.

We're asking them to treat people with the minimum of respect and dignity.

If you feel like you're not being treated with dignity and respect, then quit the job.

You've said that in another branch of this thread.

Do you understand that some people don't have that option? Or cannot move to a new location? Through no fault of their own?

Why can't people use the powers they have delegated to the government to put a stop to these practices, for the growing class of people who are trapped in jobs with conditions similar to this?

I never said they can't lobby the government. I said they shouldn't feel entitled.

If I'm destitute and I'm at a soup kitchen; I wouldn't complain about the food even if it sucks, because the alternative is to starve.

It's the same thing here, beggars can't be choosers. If you want the government to change the rules, go ahead. But don't demonize the company that's literally putting food on your table because you don't like the only job you can find.

So better for these folks to have retail jobs that pay far less? Not sure I understand your argument here.

Yet options are dwindling here where I am. As a teen there was a shopping mall packed with choices. Now the nearby mall has so many vacant slots it's a wonder they're still open.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com