Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's feel good bullshit in part because the entire narrative is bullshit, driven by an anti-tech media stance that is not actually well represented in the real world.

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.

Chiming in for an anecdote to say: I'm boycotting Amazon because I am pro-labor and Amazon treats their employees and contractors like almost-literal shit. Even back when I first entered the workforce all the people I knew who went to work for Amazon had absolutely hellish descriptions of their times there. Employees regularly sobbing at their desks from pressure, PIPs being weaponized to assuage paranoid delusions of mutiny from middle management, etc. It sounded like that description of an experiment with monkeys who beat each other for trying to get food. My housemate drives delivery for Amazon sometimes and his depiction of their health standards and SOP during this crisis are atrocious. If there would be a Geneva convention for employment, Amazon would be most of its raison d'etre.

Thats a very virtuous and noble stance. According to the BLS, among the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America (warehouse worker didn't make the list) are loggers, pilots, fishermen, farmers, construction workers, roofers, trash collector and extraction workers.

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?

You seem to have conflated "Amazon the corporation" with "Amazon's labor force". They are not the same, but it is intriguing that you would take this line of rhetoric.

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?

your argument is just one big logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

also danger != horrific working environment

It's very condescending to say "I am doing this because I am pro-labor", as if, we the other users of Amazon are not pro-labor and don't care about their labour practices, and assumes that we can't read and comprehend. We all have worked at companies where you will have a set of disgruntled employees, and more so in places with more than half a million employees. The whole anti-Amazon narrative is trying to hold Amazon to higher standards using Guardian which itself doesn't have high standards for it's core journalism.

> as if, we the other users of Amazon are not pro-labor and don't care about their labour practices

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.

Yes, I do think Amazon is held to pretty high standards. I have seen more outrage for people who won't work at Amazon complain about the work conditions at Amazon than the actual employees themselves. If your defense is that they might not want to then you need to check your moral high ground.

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that what amazon is doing is necessarily illegal, one can still strongly disagree.

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.

What people are (or at least, I am) saying is that yes this behavior is technically legal, and that's a problem for those who care about human dignity and the ideal of the social contract.

As the article pointed out, there are reasons to avoid Amazon outside of this anti-tech stance. These reasons may not be relevant to some people, but they will be relevant to others.

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.

Some data to back that up.

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:

https://morningconsult.com/most-trusted-brands/

Exactly. For every vocal critic of Amazon, there are thousands who quietly buy everything they need from Amazon, and are satisfied with it. The critics are just the most vocal. But they are by far the minority.. by a long shot.

I used to be very pro-amazon. I'm not terribly anti-amazon for generic cheap shit, but if I have an option to get it somewhere else reliably (ideally direct from a company), I will. Especially if it's a moderately expensive niche product or an established brand. I've just been bitten too many times with junk/counterfeits.

This. Tech destroyed the print journalism business model, and irrational hatred of tech is brazen in most newsrooms (those that remain).

This has nothing to do with anti-success it's anti anti-social/asshole behaviour. I mean just Jeff Bezos (literally the richest or second richest person on the planet) asking his employees to donate each other sick days should make people boycott amazon. It's interesting how many people would never accept this sort of behaviour in their social circle, but somehow once a big corporate does it it's OK.

Bullies do get accepted into social circles, as long as they deliver enough value to make up for it. Same principle at work here IMHO.

The aspect they didn't even mention the digital service tax of 2% that was designed to target this whole Amazon tax aspect. Well, that does seem odd - so article is clearly slanted.

THIS:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t... Effective from 1st April 2020 and directly affects Amazon in the UK.

The anti-amazon thing is certainly tribal with a certain kind of person in the UK. Ask which super-ethical companies they prefer to shop with and the reply is often quite amusing.

No. I know a lot of people upset with Amazon in large part because they have devastated Main Street. Convenience is not the only human value worthy of consideration. I do use them sometimes, but even then, for some products it's a bad experience because you get fakes.

How much has Amazon really decimated "Main Street?"

Wasn't it already decimated by the big box retailers and Wal-Mart?

"Your Honor, Main Street was already bleeding out from Sam Walton's knife attack when Amazon ran over it with a car" is not a wonderful defense.

Main street was already on life support long before Sam Walton got involved. High prices is not a good business model for commodity items people but often. Any one of them could have lowered prices to something reasonable and stopped my parents monthly drive to the big city malls for the basics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com