One issue that I have with many of these videos - what precisely is "this"? What issue is being addressed and what changes are proposed? It's entirely issue-adjacent slogans of "Amazon cheats, we will hurt them". And if I've learned anything from the most recent executive branch campaigns/elections, it's that vaguely defined "we'll get them" will get you elected but won't promise any meaningful changes other than power for the elected.

I think if one thing Mamdani is great at, it's that he's a great marketer. His brand is just so much better than any candidate I've seen in the US. Heck even in the UK to be honest.

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.

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.

Here is the problem, Amazon is not actually driving most of "Amazon" trucks you see the on the road. They are likely being driven and owned by "Joes Delivery Company LLC". If you look at the bottom of the truck, you will generally see the ACTUAL owner name. So if anything happens to worker or public is harmed, Joes Delivery Company is cutout fall person. So if worker or public sues or fined, the company folds, the assets sold off to Joes Delivery Company, the part deus" and it starts all over again.

This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier.

This happens with FedEx/UPS as well.

The bill[1], which is named in the video, is available on the public Internet.

1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...

The people making propaganda (and yes, this is propaganda) knows that people are not rational but emotional. The video targets emotions - that amazon shirks responsibility is an emotional appeal.

The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like injury and accidents. The idea is already baked into the premise of the video, rather than propose a neutral question to the viewer; ala, at what level are a client responsible for the contractor's health and wellbeing. Why don't they ask this for tradies and plumbers?

Are you saying that there is a lack of easily accessible information about how Amazon drivers are overworked compared to UPS/Fedex drivers?

The actual problem is not that Amazon breaks any rules, but that the rules are so soft that even Amazon doesn't break them. But explaining it to an average worker doesn't work. Blaming specific companies and specific billionaires for systemic problems works much better for building support - that's why the politician in the video does the latter.

I think you're asking the wrong questions of someone like this. The point is to get power, to make sure you are well looked after. Give him more power to make your life better.

The act basically makes Amazon responsible for these subcontractors. BTW, they are not only ones who do this, UPS and Fedex have similar setups.

The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have no liability.

It requires Amazon to directly employ delivery drivers in New York City and sets up a licensing scheme for last-mile delivery.

The bill[1], which is named in the video, is available on the public Internet.

1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...

Agree. Unclear on what the actual specific harms are, whether they systemic, and how a new set of laws would help fix it.

Also what are the harms that new rules introduce? Are you going to eliminate a bunch of new small businesses that do deliveries and replace them with everything being under one, giant, multi-trillion dollar company?

As someone from another state, it's amusing how the mayor of a city has more clout than governor of the state.

Anyone can balance a budget by just delaying pension contributions. It's not impressive.

What happens next year?

Progressives love to point out how popular their candidates are but fail to realize they're in a filter bubble that doesn't reflect the wider electorate. They were jubilant when al-Sayed won, but betting market odds for democrats winning dropped as a result.

Absolutely, we are SO looking forward to replaying 1918-1922 in Post-imperial Russia.

While it might be fun to argue about, it isn't really relevant as the call to action doesn't hinge on the current legal definition. The proposed law requires direct employment of "core delivery/warehouse services" workers. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...

Amazon may require the subcontractor wears the Amazon vest in contract with subcontractor. That's whole point, they appear to be Amazon employees in every way except for paycheck the employee receives and small lettering on the bottom of the car compared to big "AMAZON" lettering on the side.

This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)

It's obviously Amazon that requires them to wear the vest. Just because the contractor they work for enforces it doesn't, doesn't mean it's not Amazon requiring it.

This video was extremely clear on what the problem is, but the number of comments here like "what is actually the problem?" is crazy.

"if people disagree with me, it's a conspiracy"

Part of the problem is that sometimes the subcontractors are small enough to play by different rules. Or they don't have the means to support the staff when things go sideways. Or sometimes they're independent drivers, in which case the drivers themselves are responsible for the vehicle and any accidents, etc.

The subcontractors can just fold as well, leaving drivers in the lurch.

However, Amazon gets to dictate everything else about the job. The subcontractors have no authority or autonomy, but are made responsible for the heavier costs of the process.

Amazon wants to have an employer-relationship when it comes to dictating terms, but a contractor-relationship when it comes time to giving benefits or resolving disputes.