Success in a boycott is not necessarily destroying Amazon. Success is making this decision cause enough financial pain to Amazon that they reverse it, and the next time some Frederick Taylor wannabe proposes something terrible along the same lines, everyone else reminds him of how much it hurt when they tried to stop the delivery drivers from singing along to music. Success is this weakening Amazon enough for their low-wage workers to unionize and demand representation on the board of directors and a bigger share of the profits.
If the workers want better conditions they can leave.
If all options are below what we would consider moral then we should change laws. The solution to a problem in a free market is not inside of one company.
Why does change have to come through workers leaving Amazon? Why can’t it change via the workers negotiating with Amazon leadership?
It sounds like you assume that corporations are immutable things, whose contracts and policies may never be changed. But we are having this conversation because Amazon’s policies changed, and the workers it affects are complaining. Why isn’t “Amazon rescinds this policy change” a solution to this problem?
Why are these the only options? Because you said so?
Other truckers have UNIONS. Their cockpit recorders can only be accessed under strict guidance and policy - not willy nilly to piss off the truckers. Plus they get reasonable quotas so they don't have to bust their asses and drive sleep deprived.
> the solution in a free market...
... is to create a fair labor market. The labor market is not a free market, because companies have infinitely more leverage. If you're truly a free market activist, you must be pro-union. Introduce a little competitiveness into hiring practices.
