I'm gonna steelman those no votes. BigCos don't like unions to the point they can and sometimes do close the place/warehouse alltogether. This is worse than working in non-union shop, especially in economically depressed area.
Amazon is spending millions on union-busting lawyers. From the article, workers had to go to mandatory anti-union classes, which is pretty funny coming from a company where you could get written up for "time off task" by taking a bathroom break.
The propaganda the company is pushing is that the company and the workers are working together. They are not. Those workers are being exploited. Bezos considered turnover desirable.
While it is propaganda to claim the interests of the workers and company are aligned, it's also propaganda to claim that they're being exploited.
A voluntary market interaction, that 95% of the world population would jump at the opportunity to engage in, is by no reasonable definition, exploitive.
And society at large will not benefit from forcing Amazon to give Amazon warehouse workers above market wages.
Lower turnover will also turn Amazon warehouse work into another union cast, that benefits those who got in early, before union walls closed the door behind them, while making it more difficult for new workers to get a job with Amazon.
Amazon itself is also likely to slow its hiring if union action forces its labor costs up.
The other part of the the problem with that statement of course comes from the dictionary definition (one I think most people would consider a reasonable definition), it says:
making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
Punishing (the term they use is penalizing because it sounds nicer) people for being people and needing to use the restroom is unfair. So is punishing people for delivery delays caused by traffic. Both of those seem pretty unfair to me - maybe I'm unreasonable for thinking a person isn't at fault for traffic?
"I want better for myself" != "if you don't offer me better, you're exploiting me". The implication of your assertion is fallacious.
>>making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
Nothing unfair about offering a wage for a job, and someone accepting it.
>>Punishing (the term they use is penalizing because it sounds nicer) people for being people and needing to use the restroom is unfair.
It's not a punishment. It's the terms of the deal, to ensure the employer is getting a certain unit of work for a given amount of pay.
In a free society, companies are allowed to offer such terms. What's fair/unfair is determined by the conduct of the parties to a deal, and the terms of that deal. If the conduct conforms with the terms agreed, then we in a free society should tolerate it, rather than punishing the company for it.
So selling your children into slavery, or even a distant future self, would obviously not be allowed.
It does not refer to a job offer that is the best one on the market that is available to a person.
Your definition implies that a job offer that 95% of the world population would rush to accept, that is above market rates for that job and which is voluntary according to any court of law, is exploitation. By what standard can you describe it as such? It is a completely arbitrary definition, unless you are citing marxist theory which says that all investor profit is exploitation, in which case you should disclose your ideological suppositions from the outset so that people understand you are not referring to exploitation in the way it's conventionally understood.
As for land, that is completely incomparable to a company. Land is a public resource in a sense so if a Lord monopolizes it they're depriving others of something that they have an equal share in. And no single company or cartel of companies, has anything approaching a monopoly on the job market. So your comparison is wrong on two levels. It's telling that arguments trying to justify the socialist claims of exploitation have to make inappropriate analogies. The substance of the claim cannot be justified on its own grounds.
Also with the current Amazon's turnover rate you can't count on working for more than a year. Their annual turnover is over 100% for warehouses so it may be a loss for the area, but on a case-by-case basis those people would be looking for another job soon anyway.