> It's a fair supposition

Why? Reviewing any of Amazon's acquisitions shows that they have revenue targets that, when met, means they just don't get involved. Why suppose they are suddenly going to do the opposite now?

When you have a documented record of mistreating you're employees, both white and blue collar, the onus is on you to rectify the situation and demonstrate that you'll behave better in the future. Amazon has done neither of these things.

It's entirely "fair" to posit that a company with a documented record of abusive workplace practices might extend that same umbrella of mistreatment over an acquisition. Even more so given that the acquisition involves a large number of employees of the category that Amazon has always treated as disposable.

> When you have a documented record of mistreating you're employees, both white

Yes, the infamous NYT story. It's funny, because I've yet to see all the ugly that story implied was wide-spread across the company. AWS can be notoriously difficult (particularly the not-so-fun S3 on-calls).

But there's an enormous difference between a wide-spread problem, and a problem that seems to be focused, very narrowly, on a few teams.

> Amazon has done neither of these things.

You say that with authority. Do you have ANY familiarity with Amazon's internal policies/changes that have gone into affect regarding these news stories?

Here's my problem: A company of some 300,000 people had documented cases of mistreatment. You've, in turn, determined that not only is this problem so wide-spread that we can define Amazon as a "bad employer" but, apparently, they need to take the time to personally inform you of any changes that have been made as a result of said problems.

> might extend that same umbrella of mistreatment over an acquisition.

And yet, of Amazon's acquisitions every single one of them have been left to their own devices.

You seem to have an agenda, which is fine, but let's not pretend your summary is in any way based in fact, but rather, exclusively on a few articles in newspapers.

If I seem to "have an agenda" based on widespread media reports that are far beyond that one NY Times piece, how exactly would you categorize your own stance? What's your relationship to Amazon? I'm only one of their occasional customers.

Anyway, here's reporting about how their warehouses used Neo-Nazis to intimidate immigrant laborers and worked a temp to death. If you have evidence of the drastic measures that would need to be taken to prevent this kind of behavior, I'm happy to hear about it.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/life-and-deat...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amazon-used-...

The first article is about a temp worker dying. One guy. The second article is about Amazon Germany, specifically that the security company they hired, allegedly hired neo-nazis.

You don't seem to have an agenda, you absolutely have one. What happened to that temp is tragic, but you can't get more isolated than 1.

> Anyway, here's reporting about how their warehouses used Neo-Nazis

You mean the company they hired that then hired some shitty people? I don't get why Amazon is now responsible for that.

Different people have different thresholds for what's "water under the bridge." That's fine. I've been a long time occasional customer of there's, but have become increasingly leery of their business and employment practices, both from media reports and people I know who've worked with them. I wouldn't want to be treated that way or see anyone I know treated that way either. That's what informs my views and comments. If you see it as an agenda, that's okay too.

But I only used the term "seem" because your framing is to position yourself as somehow more impartial and knowledgeable, while refusing to clarify your own relationship with Amazon and what informs your (in my view) similar stridency.

One guy is far too many. There is absolutely ZERO excuse for that happening.