Does this strategy of shaming the corporation who wants a nice big government contract instead of, you know, petitioning your federally elected representatives, actually work?
I just double-checked with my peers and it turns out it's possible to protest two different things at once, and that petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done.
>petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done
Could you provide any sources for this? As it stands, I've seen zero tangible results regarding Amazon's ongoing unchecked growth, the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers, monopolistic practices, or any general "ethical" standing of the company.
Same goes for the US Government. Sure, you can vote for who you want and try to elect change, call your congress reps, and protest at the chambers, but it doesn't matter when they nothing gets done at the top level. Until there is an honest discussion had about immigration reform without a partisan spin put on everything, we won't get anywhere with ICE.
If you're looking for an example of companies forgoing profits to have an impact on unethical government policies then consider the death penalty. Many executions have been delayed or called off because companies refuse to sell the state drugs if they intend to kill people with them. Also, medical workers refuse to kill which has successfully foiled executions. The philosophy of "I'll be unethical because if I don't them someone else will" is flawed.
> the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers
Is amazon unique in this because if not, it just feels pointless to complain about it as there is enough competition that if they don't do it, some competitor will and thus the only way you can fix it is through industry wide regulation.
Asking for sources and explanations of completely obvious things is a great way to exhaust people on the internet. Which I assume was the point given the "both sides"iness of the response.
I doubt either works well, but I think corporations like Amazon are likely to be more susceptible to public and investor pressure because their relationship with the public and their investors is voluntary and can be unilaterally ended by those parties, while the government's relationship with the citizens is not voluntary on the part of the citizens. We can stop using and investing in Amazon if they don't listen to us, but we can't do anything against the government except voting for a another politician who will probably do the same thing and is in any case unable to actually change things even if they wanted to.
