Can I assume that out of concern for these workers you also don't buy food, don't fly commercially, you dispose of your own refuse, never use anything made out of wood and never enter a man made structure?
I shop at the local food co-op, and I'm fine with the union leadership for flight attendants and my local waste removal folks. I can't be perfect -- no one can -- but this is a lot better than some others. Of course, this sort of individualistic atomization of "virtue" with almost zero systemic change to address the underlying concerns is ultimately kind of pointless, but I don't see a reason to start encouraging the exploitation of fellow humans any more than I do now.
Your response makes me think you were triggered by my position. What stake do you hold with Amazon? Why are you coming to their defense?
also danger != horrific working environment
My intention is not to push this narrative. All of us compromise every day on our values, and some matter more to us than others. Personally I thought I'd never drive a fossil-fuel-based vehicle but that quickly became impractical as my priorities called me beyond a 10-mile radius around my home.
> trying to hold Amazon to higher standards
Do you think Amazon is held to high standards already? I hold them to mediocre standards because I understand they have to compete on an absolutely massive scale in an industry with razor thin margins. But even so, they're not doing all that well. Amazon's coffers are so full they can't re-invest their capital fast enough. So I don't see how anyone can argue that it's bad for society to treat employees as if they're humans who can catch & spread a virus and/or die.
If Amazon does indeed engage in illegal behavior, then one should be hell bent on calling them out but the whole raging behavior at all times drains the emotional bank and when the actual crimes occur people don't have appetite for it.
And even if amazon is held to a higher standard (which is a big if), considering that they are by quite a margin the biggest player so what they do creates a signal to all other players about what is acceptable. Moreover with their profits they could afford to treat their employees well.
Those others are likely why this article is popping up now. In the past, people who did not like Amazon would simply shop locally. Now these people have to explore online options. Of course, Amazon has the mindshare so people may not think of the alternatives. People who seek alternatives may find it difficult to determine who is reputable and who is not, or simply who has their act in order to handle online orders efficiently, which also works in Amazon's benefit.
Regardless of how you view their desire to shop elsewhere, that desire still exists. The Guardian was simply facilitating the process for people who want alternatives.
91% with a favorable view of Amazon, and that's sourced via a media company:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...
Amazon the 2nd most trusted brand in America:
THIS:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t... Effective from 1st April 2020 and directly affects Amazon in the UK.
Wasn't it already decimated by the big box retailers and Wal-Mart?
Most people are happy with Amazon and like the service they provide - this kind of thing is a non-story.
I say this as someone who buys directly from suppliers like Dell or Logitech when I think there's a risk to getting repackaged or counterfeit items from Amazon, but the experience is often worse (Dell monitors took 5 weeks to arrive).
I think these articles are a symptom of something else, but I'm not quite sure what it is. It feels like a political or tribal position, anti-large company, or anti-success? - I'm not quite sure, but I think there's an underlying theme that drives these types of articles and it isn't what they're directly about. They're okay with a small under-dog company story, but if you become large and successful then you're automatically written about in the most uncharitable way possible.