Hacker News Reader

Comment by podgietaru | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised to see so much of the rhetoric here being about what the concrete difference is... It is relatively easy to look that up, no?

As far as I can see from a literal 5 second google search:

- Liability for Injury at work is no longer on Amazon

- Liability for injuries caused by Amazon workers get shifted to the Worker, rather than Amazon (despite the fact that some of the conditions leading to that may come from Amazon themselves)

- It is harder to negotiate, as Amazon's official position is that "They do not work for us"

- It is easier to stop employment of sub-contractors.

The video already mentions this, but the idea of sub-contracting is that you are responsible for your own hours, routes, etc. This is clearly not the case for these workers.

View on HN

Don't we already have workers comp insurance laws? Other forms of liability insurance? Doesn't Amazon carry the same insurance if it's the one doing the delivery directly? Do we think levels of this insurance is insufficient in general and should be higher?

Bottom line - just because Amazon doesn't directly have this liability - it doesn't mean nobody has this liability - the sub contractors do. And if they do, they need to pay for the insurance, and if they pay for the insurance, then Amazon has to pay them more to pay for this insurance.

So the real question is... what concrete harm/problem are we solving for that isn't already solved for today.

I'd love to live in a world where companies compensate people correctly for the extra liability they're forced to take on.

But my question for you is: Why do you think Amazon do this if it's not to specifically side track the exact things that I listed? If they were just paying the sub-contractor directly for that insurance? What would be the point.

There are existing laws/regs:

Workers comp: "Workers’ compensation insurance is mandatory for most employers of one or more employees." https://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/Employers/workers-compen...

See NY State minimums here: https://www.geico.com/commercial-auto-insurance/states/ny/

And also Amazon requires insurance: Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs) must independently secure and maintain comprehensive commercial insurance. Amazon does not provide this coverage for subcontractors. Required policies typically include $1M+ auto and general liability, workers' compensation, and cargo protection, with Amazon explicitly named as an additional insured.

the video is all about the subcontractors, so i guess they are the ones being hurt.

i suspect the problems are:

subcontractors are small businesses that don't have the resources to cover those liabilities or fight lawsuits from customers, nor do they have the resources to fight amazon to make it pay their share.

maybe getting insurance is not enforced, so those who don't pay for insurance are cheaper.

amazon uses their negotiation power to demand favorable conditions for themselves from subcontractors.

The way this stuff works is Amazon requires them they need to get X amount of liability insurance to even be a subcontractor. Amazon requires proof.

The government has its own laws on things like minimum workers compensation insurance.

So the subcontractors are insured.

Isn’t there confusion here between independent contractors and subcontractors?

Amazon is subcontracting out delivery to smaller companies, for example ACME Logistics, LLC. Amazon tells ACME when things need to be delivered. ACME then hires delivery drivers, whether the individuals in vests are full-time/part-time/1099 independent is another thing. I doubt Amazon is hiring any 1099 workers directly, but I could be wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com