> If you're successful at causing amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
This feels like a bit of a straw man — if Amazon start losing potential sales because people don't like how they're treating their workers, they'll fix their workers rights before they let the company crumble out of spite.
Customer pressure is a real lever in these scenarios.
This argument is absurd. You can tell how absurd it is because if you just take it to it's logical conclusion, suddenly you're supporting indentured servitude in Dubai.
Do you support that? Almost certainly not. So the only resolution is you don't actually believe this argument.
Indentured servitude prevents switching jobs, so we can't assume its their best option. As long as workers are free to switch jobs, we can assume its their best option, that despite all of the downsides, they think its worth it.
I'm guessing Amazon pays above average and that's why people keep working for them despite their reputation. The people there have a choice. Keep making more at Amazon but be treated poorly, and that's a choice they make.
If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
You can hate Amazon, thats fine, you can choose to never work for Amazon, thats fine, but lets not lie to ourselves. The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there. They all applied, accepted the job, and show up every day.
No it doesn't, you're fully allowed to switch once you've paid off your debt. The debt that people chose to take on in exchange for housing, transportation, a new shot at life.
That's not my argument of course, but it's a hypothetical argument if you want to appeal to the "free market always good" type people.
> If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
> If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
False dichotomy, you've run head-first into the hypocrisy of modern Capitalism. These actions do not have equal power because the labor market is not a free market.
Amazon firing a worker can literally cost them their life, whereas a worker leaving does nothing to Amazon. This is because the labor market is almost perfectly tipped, rigged, in the employer's (buyer's) favor.
In order to fix the leverage and create a free market, the employees would need to unionize, which is the correct solution here. Then, if Amazon does something evil, the employees can say "fix it or we walk" and that actually means something.
> The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there
Your understanding of choice is infantile, almost comically so. You're purposefully leaving out the pressure of life from this decision. I think you'll find starvation a powerful coercive technique.
If you're successful at causing amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
Imagine telling them they don't have job anymore because you know better than them whats good for them