The District of Columbia sued Amazon on Wednesday, alleging the company secretly stopped providing its fastest delivery service to residents of two predominantly Black neighborhoods while still charging millions of dollars for a membership that promises the benefit.
The complaint filed in District of Columbia Superior Court revolves around Amazon’s Prime membership, which costs consumers $139 per year or $14.99 per month for fast deliveries — including one-day, two-day and same-day shipments — along with other enhancements.
In mid-2022, the lawsuit alleges, the Seattle-based online retailer imposed what it called a delivery “exclusion” on two low-income ZIP codes in the district — 20019 and 20020 — and began relying exclusively on third-party delivery services such as UPS and the U.S. Postal Service, rather than its own delivery systems.
And the drivers wouldn’t get attacked if they didn’t deliver packages as quickly? That makes no sense.
Reading helps.
UPS and USPS are better services anyway. I have things delivered to a work address and Amazon is the only one who seems to have trouble understanding where packages go.
Here I just wish I could get 2 day shipping again. Looked the other day and it was same day delivery… Then updated the address, and it was 6 day delivery. Not like I want to spend my money on Amazon, but I ended up going to Walmart instead… Not really better.
You’re right, I didn’t read this time. I usually do, but this time I am guilty.
Also, just risking other drivers instead of your own is supremely shitty of them.
And if they ignored the problem you’d be criticizing Amazon for failing to care for their employees (contractors).
A private company isn’t well positioned to actually solve the root issue here. All they can do is remove their employees (contractors) from danger.
Amazon’s shitty for other reasons. But I don’t think this is one of them.
You’re right. Because failing to take care of their employees and putting other people’s employees at risk in order to stop their employees from getting attacked are both reprehensible.
Do USPS employees deserve to be attacked but Amazon employees don’t?
If Dominos drivers kept getting attacked so Dominos just contracted out to Doordash to let them get attacked instead, I would hope you would think that neither situation was acceptable.
So is the solution then to be “Amazon withdraws all shipping services for <neighborhood>”? “Amazon sends armed PMCs to <neighborhood>, terrorizing locals”? What’s the solution?
Why do I have to have a solution to find either solution, which puts someone in danger, unacceptable?
Why is putting USPS employees in danger acceptable to you?
It’s not, I’m just trying to figure out what the path out of what appears to be a no-win scenario according to that standard. Just stop all deliveries altogether?
Maybe? Have people pick stuff up at a depot?
Postal service has to go there anyway, no extra risk.
So it’s fine if a postal carrier gets attacked? Really?
How is that your take away? It’s either an undeliverable address because the customer or a dog has threatened a postal worker, or they are going there at least 5 times a week anyway.
Are you saying some people or communities just don’t deserve mail?
I’m saying just saying “let the post office deal with it” is the same as saying g “it’s ok if postal carriers get attacked or even murdered.”
Or do you have a solution to that which the USPS can do but Amazon can’t?
Amazon can, it’s just too expensive for them to want to do it. This is the reason the postal service exists, if it became privatized half of us would stop getting mail delivery, at least at any kind of reasonable price.
Sounds like you just don’t want people you deem undesirable to receive services.
No, I don’t want people to be murdered. Apparently you’re okay with it as long as it’s a post office employee and not an Amazon employee.