This week"s decision by the GMB union to bring a legal case against firms delivering for Amazon,the rcommerce giant,throws into sharp relief how much the modern economy has been stretched to benefit a monopolistic form of tech-capitalism.On the surface,the action is about employment law:it argues that couriers working for three delivery companies are not entrepreneurs working for themselves who contract their labour to anyone willing to pay,but are in fact employees of Amazon"s latent delivery and logistics network.If the trade union is right,then these couriers should be treated as staff and paid the minimum wage,as well as sick and holiday pay.Amazon has established itself as an essential part of the internet economy and its dominance-its sheer scale and breadth-has been enabled in part by privatising profit and socialising losses.The firm seems to be firmly establishing a model of cheap-labour doorstep delivery by recognising an easily divided workforce is more easily conquered.This model may also one day compete with the Royal Mail;Amazon is reportedly planning to launch its own delivery service to rival the state-owned US Postal Service.Amazon"s skill is not just in technology but also in finance.Last year it generated UK sales of￡9bn,a quarter more than the previous 12 months-while pre-tax profits halved to just￡24m.Its effective UK profit margin is just 0.3%.an indication perhaps of its low pricing strategy.In revolutionising e-commerce the company has delivered enormous benefits to consumers:but at what cost?Surely it is morally right that large employers are accountable for the treatment of workers down the supply chain,so long as they are economically dependent on them.Amazon might think differently.The tech giant wants privileged treatment because it thinks only corporate monopolies,with their economies of scale and ability to innovate,can promote growth.This view should be resisted.Amazon"s service ensures consumers are better off,but undue focus on this neglects the interests of workers,rival entrepreneurs and voters.This is why the spirit of employment law must be honoured so Amazon shoulders the responsibility（and the cost）for contracted workers,or works out how to compel its suppliers to do so.Amazon clearly would like to control the pipes of capitalism,drawing off consumer demand for itself when it is lucrative to do so and charging others for use of its network.Amazon"s website is the dominant platform for online retail sales.Whether it is cloud computing or what ebooks are published,Amazon wants business to be done in arenas where it sets the rules.This i.s bad for democracy.Commerce ought to reside in markets governed by regulations set by democratic political process not those chosen by the world"s richest men. The author indicates in the last paragraph that the rules of commerce should

This week"s decision by the GMB union to bring a legal case against firms delivering for Amazon,the rcommerce giant,throws into sharp relief how much the modern economy has been stretched to benefit a monopolistic form of tech-capitalism.On the surface,the action is about employment law:it argues that couriers working for three delivery companies are not entrepreneurs working for themselves who contract their labour to anyone willing to pay,but are in fact employees of Amazon"s latent delivery and logistics network.If the trade union is right,then these couriers should be treated as staff and paid the minimum wage,as well as sick and holiday pay.Amazon has established itself as an essential part of the internet economy and its dominance-its sheer scale and breadth-has been enabled in part by privatising profit and socialising losses.The firm seems to be firmly establishing a model of cheap-labour doorstep delivery by recognising an easily divided workforce is more easily conquered.This model may also one day compete with the Royal Mail;Amazon is reportedly planning to launch its own delivery service to rival the state-owned US Postal Service.Amazon"s skill is not just in technology but also in finance.Last year it generated UK sales of￡9bn,a quarter more than the previous 12 months-while pre-tax profits halved to just￡24m.Its effective UK profit margin is just 0.3%.an indication perhaps of its low pricing strategy.In revolutionising e-commerce the company has delivered enormous benefits to consumers:but at what cost?Surely it is morally right that large employers are accountable for the treatment of workers down the supply chain,so long as they are economically dependent on them.Amazon might think differently.The tech giant wants privileged treatment because it thinks only corporate monopolies,with their economies of scale and ability to innovate,can promote growth.This view should be resisted.Amazon"s service ensures consumers are better off,but undue focus on this neglects the interests of workers,rival entrepreneurs and voters.This is why the spirit of employment law must be honoured so Amazon shoulders the responsibility（and the cost）for contracted workers,or works out how to compel its suppliers to do so.Amazon clearly would like to control the pipes of capitalism,drawing off consumer demand for itself when it is lucrative to do so and charging others for use of its network.Amazon"s website is the dominant platform for online retail sales.Whether it is cloud computing or what ebooks are published,Amazon wants business to be done in arenas where it sets the rules.This i.s bad for democracy.Commerce ought to reside in markets governed by regulations set by democratic political process not those chosen by the world"s richest men.
The author indicates in the last paragraph that the rules of commerce should