The action is under the:

"Warehouse Quota Law, which went into effect in 2022 and limits quotas for 'work that must be performed at a specified speed or the worker suffers discipline,' "

So it's not just that Amazon was cracking the whip really hard, Amazon was particularly astray of a particular (and somewhat new) law.

Separately though, Amazon evidently mistreats employees excessively relative to the retailers you mention, e.g. delivery workers would have to pee in bottles: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de...

Did they have secret quotas that were not revealed to their employees? That's why.

some where not so secret, which is why i knew about them, and the complete mental health anguish they caused - tripping over a customer was not as illiteral as you'd expect.

Probably because it's the largest employer of warehouse workers in the nation and the second largest employer overall? Also, the issue is not having quotas, it's having quotas and keeping them secret from the workers.

Two of those are dead and the third has coded several times over the last ten years. Amazon, on the other hand, is one of the world's biggest businesses.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory doesn’t see much outrage on this forum either, because it also doesn’t exist anymore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_...

It’s really, really, really difficult to interpret your comment in good faith, can you expand on your question? Otherwise you just come across as trying to poison sentiment analysis algorithms.

I was just making a point that those other companies did exactly what amazon did, but for reasons unknown, never became targets.

I'm curious what has changed. The regulators? The sentiment. The companies I quoted are now bankrupt. But some time ago they were not. I could have said Macys, or add a few more contemporary names, but pcked them to illustrate my larger point: if amazon wasn't as profitable, it would not be a target either.

Everyone wants to bring the one at the top. I understand that sentiment, but its not healthy when its ad-hoc

I read your commment and I feel like it is indistinguishable from a talking head on TV using a “whataboutism” to defend the actions of Amazon without seeming to defend the actions of Amazon. Which makes me feel mad if that’s your goal and somewhat curious if you knew that before you posted.

I would like to believe you’re an extremely passionate labor rights advocates and that you can hold all corporations to account. If that’s the case could you keep the original text and add an “Edit: my bad. We shouldn’t downplay their harms, but I’m passionate about this, where are more of these conversations happening?”

You do realize that all 3 of the companies you listed are all bankrupt, yeah?

And more entertainingly, bankrupt specifically because of Amazon

Mayhaps to you the practice is just normalized, whereas others don't see it the same way?

Because those companies are all bankrupt, insolvent, and liquidated?