> More reasons for me to stop using Amazon but

189 calls over 5 years from 600,000+ employees (and many more that have come & gone) and the article didn't even bother to compare that against the general population. Bad reporting and conclusions. There's no news here.

in what world is this no news? these aren't just statistics on employees who happen to work at amazon. these 911 calls were reported to be placed while at work. what other places of work is it common for employees, while working, to experience such emotional distress that they need to call external emergency services?

> in what world is this no news?

The real world, where people call 911 all the time. This isn't unique to Amazon, and I'm willing to wager that Costo & Walmart have similar statistics.

You are right that there isn’t much of a story with regards to suicide at Amazon warehouses but there is a story with regard to the general working conditions at its warehouses. I guess mentioning suicide is good business from an entertainment/news aspect but this article is not helpful in terms of helping bring to attention the bad working conditions at Amazon’s warehouses.

What's the rate of suicide calls to 911 in the general population? If it's around 0.1%, I wouldn't be surprised... Most people hit that point at least once in their lifetime.

> On the other hand I think the only reason they are getting bad press is because they are a large corp.

I think that's true, but understandable. Amazon is widely known and extremely successful, so stories about it will attract more interest, and its scope justifies the expenditure of significant resources. Also, pervasive problems at large company are harder to dismiss as being merely the result of "one bad boss" or something like that.

Hopefully negative coverage of large companies like Amazon will lead to work protection reforms that can also be used to help small business employees.

How are they exploiting anyone? Are they forcing people to work there against their will?

The definition of 'exploit' has very little to do with force. If someone drops $5 and doesn't notice, and I keep it, I exploited their inattention. If there's a forest, and I have a chainsaw/crane/truck, and no one cares if I chop it down, I can exploit their indifference and exploit that resource. If you click on a phishing link, the hacker exploits your carelessness. If the developers of your OS left a security hole, hackers can exploit that (and when they do, it's called an exploit). If you love puppies, the ASPCA can exploit that to get donations. And if you have only a high school education and live in an area with plenty such people, I can exploit that by building my warehouse there, and you'll be eager to work there for minimum wage, and I can exploit that. No guns were drawn in any of these examples.

In most of your examples except the Amazon one (and, maybe, the ASPCA one), the person being "exploited" is worse off afterwards.

You are equivocating on two subtly different definitions of exploit: the bad one where you abuse someone (the hacker exploits your carelessness... to hurt you), and the neutral one (exploiting a resource).

In your Amazon warehouse example, people in the area are better off than they would have been without the warehouse.

I encourage you to see them all in the neutral sense. I intentionally included examples where exploitation can have a positive effect (ASPCA, if you love puppies), no effect (picking up the fiver the person has already lost), negligible or temporarily negligible effect (forest) or arguable effect (Amazon) on the victim. These things are usually not primarily about the victim and how awesome it will be to screw them over. (Except maybe the hacking examples where they might find it fun or funny.) But the neutral use of the word exploit is the one that will come closest to the business analysis being done by Amazon or any other big company. They don't set out to screw people. But they will exploit people, as a resource, to the degree that they're available at a good price.

Anyway I was only here to point out that exploitation doesn't always involve force, not really to argue whether Amazon workers are better off. Couldn't really weigh in on that without surveying them. And I'd need to have a list of criteria in mind, which may or may not match the people's own criteria. (Or I'd have to use their own criteria, which would mean asking more questions and lengthening the interview a bit.)

Off the cuff though I'd say whoever calls a suicide line or 911 because of work issues is probably not overall better off because of that job. (Add the appropriate disclaimers to the effect that those people are presumably a very small minority, and probably have non-work-related issues in addition to or instead of work-related ones.) Also they're not as well off as someone else who got hired at the hypothetical "other employer" with the warehouse in walking distance from their house who pays twice the rate and has showers, free employee caviar etc. (Edit: or just being allowed to take a simple bathroom break with dignity!)

Then there's also the notion (and this is where it gets really hand-wavy) that being a conduit for that money, from your employer's customers to your landlord, isn't exactly the height of joy and fulfillment, as most of us know. Though it does define some basic level of competency in a capitalist economy and being well off or at least better off as you say, than you would with a worse job or no job.

In my opinion, you can exploit people even if they willfully do something for you. For example, in some poor nations people do work that is very harmful, they do it to survive. People put up with amazons policies because they need the job to survive.

What if Amazon kills all the local business and becomes the only employer of people from few villages? They can exploit and use the same logic that you describe.

None of those bosses that treated you like shit were the richest man in the world.