It's possible that if every Amazon warehouse were run as well, those organizers would not have arisen, but it's Amazon nastiness toward them that's most alarming.

To pretend that unions (leadership) haven't become just as obsessed with growth and power as corporations are, misses a huge part of the various incentives at play here.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Anecdotal evidence will not suffice here. Calling this a 'huge' factor demands empirical evidence.

So what justifies this assertion?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazo...

https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment...

And the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon

It goes on to give tips to managers for spotting union activity. “Make it a point to regularly talk to associates in the break room. This will help protect you from accusations that you were only in the break room to spy on pro union associates,” the video says.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/how-amazon-is-fighting-back-...

On internal company email lists and chat groups on Thursday and Friday that Recode viewed, Amazon white-collar workers expressed dismay over a report from Vice News that the company’s top lawyer had referred to a recently fired warehouse worker as “not smart, or articulate” and implied that executives should use that to help squelch worker unionization efforts.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/5/21206385/amazon-fired-wa...

You literally are the reason why poor publications like Vox get a free pass. Here, if you don't believe me, read this thread and check yourself (https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416?s=20). And don't tell me now that Balaji is not trustworthy. He is 100x more trustworthy than a random HN user like you.

Well, so what? Would we outsource jobs if the entire world was unionized? Doesn't it make sense to promote worker's rights for everyone? If I was a blue collar American worker adopting your position, here is the most rational actions I should take to support it:

> As a blue collar American worker, my not unionizing ensures my company doesn't have to worry about diminishing their massively outsized bargaining position in my labor conditions. The better the labor conditions of my competition, that being laborers in China and India, the less likely my job will be outsourced to those countries. I should either take actions that increase the labor conditions of laborers in other countries, or, take actions to decrease my labor conditions so they stay below those of laborers in other countries.

Do you see how nonsensical, illogical, and perhaps insane that position is?

Get your extended warranties people lol

Other than getting packages faster, what innovations are working class warehouse employees producing? The innovation of putting boxes together at blazing speed with no bathroom breaks in a poorly climate controlled environment?

How could outsourcing a horizontally consolidated logistics empire be cheaper than upping conditions by a bit? Unions on average only cost about 10% more than a non-organized operation. That cost could be sent to the consumer or taken from revenue, by selling shares, whatever.

Anything that goes against the status quo of unfettered greed, cold profit is all that matters attitude makes sense for the business. But part of why Americans enjoy such labor safety, higher pay, employer health care, etc is because of organized labor. Class consolidation is the best outcome for the most people and there are laws that facilitate it being broken by Amazon, in firing organizers.

It's not just their warehouse workers they treat like garbage either, they steal successful products on their page and drop the original company from their listings and showing up in search. They charge a kickback just to rank in the search, etc, etc.

Bezos is a very clever successful sociopath in my opinion.

I truly don't understand this position. Unless we're talking about a company town, every single employee has the option of going to work somewhere else. That they don't means that they find value in the relationship with their employer.

> It's not just their warehouse workers they treat like garbage either, they steal successful products on their page and drop the original company from their listings and showing up in search. They charge a kickback just to rank in the search, etc, etc.

None of this is unethical. Not in the least. Nobody has a right to have their products sold on Amazon.com. Amazon is not the government. Other private parties have no inherent claim to be involved in anything Amazon does.

You conveniently ignore that these workers have a right to organize, and it's illegal for Amazon to say they can't. Just like they have a choice to go work somewhere else, they should also have the ability to organize. Sounds like the free market at work to me, if they would have treated them better maybe they wouldn't have organized.

Also sounds like a cynical position to take given the company's strategy of opening warehouses in poorer southern cities like Memphis.

Also anti-trust law does deem what they do with search unethical.

Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. Amazon's not there yet, but it's certainly where they want to be. I buy stuff from them, but I don't hold any illusions about them.

Their practice of forcing warehouse workers to submit to searches without compensating them for their time spent in line does bother me, for example, but not quite enough to get me to shop somewhere else. (And yes, as a matter of fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that this does make me a bad person.)

He mentions petitions with thousands of signatures. Are all of those people just…I mean, what?

If they were lying, then Amazon could easily come out and say, "They're asking for regular breaks every four hours and we literally give them that. They ask for PPE and every employee is given X, Y, Z. They want us to reduce our carbon footprint by 10%, here is an independent audit showing 12% reduction." (etc.)

In situations of extreme power imbalance, it's not unreasonable to default trust the person not in power who is taking far greater risk.

Sometimes you'll be wrong! But the burden of proof is on people in power.

Warehouse stocking is not a career. Most of these people are hourly workers with little to lose. You can't apply the same standards to white, blue, and no collar workers because the nature of both the work, the people, and the culture are totally different.

If that statement shocks or offends you, I encourage you to take a temporary job at a place like Walmart or visit an oil rig and experience the differences yourself.

Corporations are at least some kind of good. Otherwise, we would need to all form our own little businesses, and have everyone redo a whole lot of common tasks. Corporations are the economy's approach to DRY.

The signatory names and titles are available publicly: https://medium.com/@amazonemployeesclimatejustice/public-let...

Definitely not a corporation mistreating its employees. I don't know why this is portrayed as such. If employees want to force their employer to follow some agenda the employer does not agree with, I don't see a problem with the corporation firing the employees.

Since we're not talking about somebody adrift in interstellar space, your argument makes less sense. Instead you have to argue some variant on a) not everybody deserves a reasonably safe job, or b) people do deserve that but we as a society can't afford it.

(I don't think either of those is true, but at least they'd make sense.)

Even having a society does not make wonders: we don't have a cure for cancer, we don't have a vaccine for Covid, having a functional society does not mean you can obtain everything, including safe jobs and decent lives, especially when the definitions of safe and decent are moving targets: versus 200 years ago we are living an utopia of safe jobs and decent lives. Just think logical, not only emotional.

I think that's wrong. We of course can't afford everything, and I never said otherwise. But what we're talking about is "a safe (as possible) job". There's no particular reason to think that if Amazon takes proper worker safety precautions, suddenly they'll be out of business. Might Bezos be marginally less rich? Sure. Might Amazon customers pay a smidgen more? Sure. Will society collapse? No. Will some other workers suddenly not have a safe workplace? Also no.

We can afford it.

I don't care about how rich is Bezos, it is not my problem (or, more exactly, not a problem for me), but the blanket statements like "everyone deserves X" and "we can afford Y" are a problem: we don't simply deserve and we cannot afford most things.

But would it not be nice if it were society, us humans, who would provide the right to a safe job and dignified life?

That's not an argument against a safety net, just the opposing force that makes the correct (and possible) solution somewhere in between [UBI, euthanization), and different for each grouping of people.

By the way, I find the notion comical that in a capitalist system, you are not compelled to labor for others. In practice, that is.

And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions?

Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight?

Does Amazon really need your support, or are the workers one paycheck away from homelessness in need of it?

Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.

Not to say either party is being honest or being dishonest. But it's clear there's plenty to gain on both sides by, on the one hand, painting organizers ad bad employees, and on the other hand, painting working conditions as worse than they are.

Software engineers at Google were fired (allegedly) for attempting to unionize (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/06/ex-goog...). Google jobs are some of the best jobs in the industry, in terms of benefits, base salary, and stock compensation.

Unionization isn't always about jobs being good enough. It's also about being able to set up a collective front for the workers to negotiate their arrangement with company owners. That's something every employee can want and can benefit from.

> Union representation and improved compensation and employment benefits.

Getting union representation requires, in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, at least a 50% buy-in from other employees. You're not going to get that by lying to them about their own working conditions. This kind of dishonesty can attract some fist-shakers on the internet, but they don't get a vote.

Pay raises, more time off, better benefits. A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.

>And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions?

Because when Amazon shows good conditions, everyone says that it's a manufactured scenario or just an anecdote.

>Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight?

Which is precisely what organizers want to exploit with publicity that could very easily be taking things out of context. A union organizer has almost nothing to lose by massively exaggerating.

>Does Amazon really need your support, or are the workers one paycheck away from homelessness in need of it?

Depends on whether or not you care about being manipulated into supporting something that could be a lie. It's not even "support" of Amazon, it's just questioning of the accounting of one side of a debate.

And those are bad because?

> A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.

And yet, most don't. The mind boggles.

I'm not against these things for warehouse workers at all, but just to answer your question, potential downsides include:

1. The money has to come from somewhere. Since Amazon keeps fairly small profit, this would likely come from passing costs on to consumers, and reducing Amazon's investment in future growth, which ultimately costs their future consumers. This increases cost of living for non-Amazon workers, and since Amazon is a good source of cheap items, it may disproportionately burden poorer people.

2. Where I am, Indeed.com says Amazon warehouse workers are paid slightly above average ($16/hour). If they were paid significantly above average, it can make it hard for small businesses to keep their workers.

> And those are bad because?

They're not bad. But them being good for workers is not an argument for why workers should receive them.

Both sides face similar issues related to terminating their mutually agreed to relationship.

They promised the earth on privacy and after a few month suddenly pulled a bait and switch on that.

For me that was such dishonest behavior that I pulled my business from them and never, ever ordered anything else.

A fulfilled, satisfying life is not dependent on being an Amazon customer.

Yes.

As an example:

> We’re already seeing devastating climate impacts: unprecedented flooding in India and Mozambique, dry water wells in Africa, coastal displacement in Asia, wildfires and floods in North America, and crop failure in Latin America

That is so far removed from a company that provides web hosting and handles shipping logistics.

What does transporting a cardboard box have anything to do with flooding in Mozambique?

While it's unfortunate catastrophes happen. Let's be generous and assume those events are due to lax environmental regulations (0.001% to 90%).

Amazon is just 1% of whatever that is. So, if these activists wish came true - and ultimately a drop in the bucket.

A competitor without the hindrance could likely make up for any pollution they don't create.

If you want to shape ecology, you do it through regulations (statutes). And all countries need to be on board with it.

I'm going to have to go with management on this one - the exaggeration of Amazon's impact on the issue really hurts their credibility. Nothing wrong with climate change - but really against disrupting organizations needlessly.

25% of the US's carbon emissions are from transportation.

> Amazon is just 1% of whatever that is.

Everybody works somewhere. Workers have more power over their own companies than they do over others. It's great that Amazon workers are trying to use that power for good.

> If you want to shape ecology, you do it through regulations (statutes).

That's one place to push. And you know who'd be good at pushing for regulatory change? Organized workers. Large companies that have decided to minimize ecological impact. Industry organizations made up of those companies.

But that's not the only way change happens. It's a big problem with many fronts. If you think you can best use your time and money by calling up your reps, go to it. However, these people have decided differently. I'm willing to trust that they know best how to achieve their goals.

And the burden of proof rests on the organizers to prove why this is worthy of prioritization above other problems.

While I like the sentiment and aesthetic of being courteous, I don't see anything demonstrating a binding rule or contract could come out of it. And what's the benefit again? If Amazon followed through, would the flooding and droughts cited in the original post stop?

The problem is - it just seems contradictory to me. I can't put my finger on why. I think supporter's heart is in the right place. But people are struggling a lot in life and this world in various ways, is this really the most optimal way to alleviate suffering?

Why not save the pay check and put it into lobbying, or NGO type stuff to advocate the cause? Or maybe even into studies or stuff more urgent that climate. For climate stuff to work, people in society have to have more harmony / generosity / collectivism universally.

Until people start getting along and addressing universal human needs and fixing those, it's really hard to do cooperative endeavors like this at scale. Just my opinion! :)

>I soon learned that only difference between an Amazon warehouse and a third-world sweatshop were the robots. At Amazon, you were surrounded by bots, and they were treated better than the humans.

If you read the article with the example that was asked for, you'd see the examples of how it's sweatshop conditions.

Long shifts on your feet, physical labor, short breaks and no cell phones. Precise tracking of performance. Does it sound like fun? Hell no. But it seems like decent pay for unskilled physical labor, and I haven't read anything that sounds like sweatshop conditions.

If she told you there were sharks with lasers on their heads would you have believed that too? The article is literally unbelievable.

>"I was really upset and I said, 'All you people care about is the rates, not the well-being of the people,' " she said. "I've never worked for an employer that had paramedics waiting outside for people to drop because of the extreme heat."

There were so many reports of workers overheating that OSHA had to get involved: https://www.mcall.com/news/watchdog/mc-allentown-amazon-comp...

That, along with other conditions reported, make it a literal sweatshop.

They risk bringing the coronavirus home every day to their families. Their bodies are chewed up over the course of months until they start falling apart from the stress and wear. "short breaks" usually means something like "you're only allowed to go to the bathroom twice" which is technically illegal but Amazon spent a lot of money asking consultants and lawyers how to circumvent that.

Not to mention they don't get paid while they're standing in line for 20+ minutes to get frisked before they leave.

- No chairs for a 12-hour shift

- Time spent going to the bathroom gets removed from your break time

- 30-minute lunch includes a 30-minute round trip to get to the lunch room

Other things seemed like unrealistic exaggerations. Like a 15 minute walk to the lunch room and barely having enough time to eat a sandwich, drink a soda and smoke a cigarette during the 30 minute break. Doesn’t add up.

And stating it felt like 150 degrees and no fans were allowed because “robots don’t like the cold”. What robot works better in 150 degrees than 70 degrees?

The stories don’t ring true to me and the pictures through the article from labor organizers tell me at least why the stories are being told.

Though it's possible that the parent was referring to Amazon warehouses where workers had to pee in a bottle to keep their productivity points above the cutoff level.

Also, why should they have means to influence the future of the company? They're hired voluntarily to do one job, not to lead the company.

Why should they have means to influence the future of the company? That's been repeatedly proven in court and enshrined in law.

Yes, workers should be able to influence the future of a company they invest their lives in, the same way citizens can influence the future of their countries. The incentives of workers and shareholders can be aligned, when greed is kept in check.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-w...

You want people to be able to renege on contracts they explicitly agreed to under no duress. This position is not supported by the country and has been rejected countless times. Even unionism as a whole has been rejected. I would not join a union even if it was free, absolutely never.

> On the other hand, Amazon’s messaging has been urgent that they are prioritizing this issue and putting massive efforts into warehouse safety. I actually believe this: I have heard detailed descriptions from people I trust of the intense work and huge investments. Good for them; and let’s grant that you don’t turn a supertanker on a dime.

> But I believe the worker testimony too. And at the end of the day, the big problem isn’t the specifics of Covid-19 response. It’s that Amazon treats the humans in the warehouses as fungible units of pick-and-pack potential.

He concluded the piece with:

> ...it’s all about power balances. The warehouse workers are weak and getting weaker, what with mass unemployment and (in the US) job-linked health insurance. So they’re gonna get treated like crap, because capitalism. Any plausible solution has to start with increasing their collective strength.

It would be like it is now, if it hadn't been workers organizing and speaking out.

It depends where you read. HN, and a lot of places that might be reporting/commenting on amazon normally comment on tech companies. Amazon runs warehouses alongside a tech shop. Comparatively, a warehouse is a tech shop. It's the clash of worlds driving the notoriety.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/response-tim-brays-departure-...

By firing them, they discourage others from coming forward so it’s not really possible to get a good picture of the situation.

You are begging the reader to throw out any knowledge of the company and the country it's in so that they can arrive to a conclusion of "We don't have all the facts!!!!". That's not going to be very effective.

1. News outlets have a huge incentive to report on anti-Amazon facts, but little to no incentive to report on pro-Amazon facts. "Megacorp is imperfect, but mostly okay" is not a headline that generates clicks.

2. Amazon has a huge incentive to ensure that they comply with the law. Every labor lawyer in the country wants to take them to court and extract a settlement. And there are plenty of politicians that would love to make their career by bringing Amazon to heel.

You are aware that Bezos owns one of the world's most influential news organizations, right?

Also, no, they don't. There's more money in sponsored puff pieces about how Amazon is tackling this or that recent controversy.

Your implication that the media is an anti-amazon conspiracy is absurd. The truth about bad actors is not kind to them. That doesn't turn truthtelling into a conspiracy. I seem to remember some positive reporting on Amazon recently, when they promised higher wages and more PPE for warehouse employees -- how does that fit into a conspiracy?

>At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people.

End this solipsistic tripe. Or else drive down to your nearest fulfillment center and start interviewing folks.

Still in the honeymoon period, give it time.

Tim Bray quit over the way Amazon treats labour organizers, not the fact that they protect the health of their workers during a pandemic.

HN has millions of users on all sides of every major ideological divide. When a community is that large and divided, the appearance of a comment you don't like is evidence of nothing more than that the topic is divisive. To go beyond that in terms of accusing or suspecting others, you need something more to go on, and if you have that, you should be sending it to [email protected] so we can investigate. You should not be tossing internet dross like these one-liners into the threads.

Generally speaking (not picking on you personally), when it comes to internet tropes about things like astroturfing, "pretty obviously" macroexpands to "entirely in my imagination", since if the users who post such accusations actually had anything to go on, they would be the first to mention it.

All this has been in the site guidelines for quite a while. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? Note this one: Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.

Notes for the troubled: (1) I'm not posting this because I love Amazon, hate warehouse workers, or for any ideological reason; it is routine HN moderation and the other side gets it just as well; (2) I'm not saying astroturfing doesn't exist—I'm saying we have to look at it with facts, not just loyalties. Running into comments that offend our loyalties is something we all experience on the internet, especially on a non-siloed (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) site like HN, where people can't self-isolate among the like-minded. There's a strong tendency to defend ourselves against the painful experience of the offensive by accusing the other party of being an abuser, a manipulator, a foreign agent. All sides do this, but it's fatal to the curious conversation that HN exists for, so we all need to coax ourselves out of it.