zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
Glad to see this from Amazon, although I see it heading off the inevitable. Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do?

With all this war rhetoric thrown around, it seems a reasonable jump to declare essential workers troops on the frontline deserving of what we give other troops (free health care, pension, heavily subsidized secondary education)

>>bdefor+T7
Striking in order to exploit a global disaster for personal gain would be a great way for organized labor to turn many people against them for a life time. It may work in the short term, but even that is debatable. Many people would gladly see the national guard break a strike if it's between them and basic essentials. Long term, the optics of that kind of move are so damning that it would likely be a net-loss.

>>seneca+Ib
Depends on the spin. Couldn't you argue this is exploitation of the health of desperate low-paid workers, their family and their communities?

>>bdefor+ed
As everyone notices their packages stop arriving, comparatively few will buy into the idea that people making $17/hr are being 'exploited', especially as many people find their own working hours being reduced or eliminated.

>>nerfha+Ip
People making $16/hr aren't the ones living on Amazon Prime package flow.

>>srtjst+Ut
Yes they are. A married couple each making that wage puts them right around the average household income in the US. Amazon got big by catering to the average household.