Hacker News Reader

Comment by marchewkowa | Hacker News Reader

It's not the first case of work-related death in an Amazon warehouse in Poland; nor it is the first such case in Amazon globally. Most of those deaths happen because of appalling work conditions or management incompetence.

A similar case from Amazon, where the worker was lying unconscious for 20 minutes before receiving help (he died): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/17/amazon-wa...

In normal companies, an accident like this leads to an overhaul of the working systems, internal audits, conversations with employees, and so on. So many IT companies have post-mortems for what can objectively be called the silliest stuff (compared to an actual death of an actual person). But here is Amazon, with its history of endangering its workforce, that once again will do nothing.

View on HN

> Most of those deaths happen because of appalling work conditions

We need data to be sure of this. Remember when all those people making iPhones committed suicide because of the terrible working conditions [1]?

But further investigation then found that suicide rates amongst workers were actually lower than suicide rates of regular people in China or the USA...

This might well be a story like that. Without data we can't know.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

>> or management incompetence.

Seems to be absolutely the case here. The worker has reported to his "leader" that he's feeling unwell but was ignored. I'd expect criminal charges to be brought against him at this point.

I think Amazon can implement whatever solution they want, but if your manager ignores a very direct report of feeling unwell then what else can you do?

>>But here is Amazon, with its history of endangering its workforce, that once again will do nothing.

Well, we'll see what happens in this case. Polish prosecutors can be very zealous(for better or worse) so I don't think "nothing" is on the table.

The problem is that the manager's behavior is likely a result of incentives. It's not that managers at amazon are worse people than managers at other companies. And if their incentives make it so hard for them to allow longer breaks or help employees that are feeling unwell, it is Amazon's fault that this happened.

And I'm sure the stated policy even within Amazon is that a medical issue should be immediately reported and a medic called. If the manager disregarded that policy for whatever perceived or real incentive...then that's still their fault.

This is disregarding reality. If incentives aren't aligned with policy then you'll get bad outcomes. If the company says "report medical issues" and also "no downtime" then you won't always get people reporting issues.

Sure. And it's a problem within the company that amazon will have to fix. But right now, for prosecutors, I can only imagine that the manager will be found criminally liable.

There is a lot that you can do, pointing out a single manager as scapegoat for systematic failure won't solve anything.

You can make sure that the incentives in the organisation aligns with preventing deaths like these.

You can educate your workforce.

You can hire more people.

And so on.

The incentives matter: what is the process that the manager is expected to follow? What is the impact on the manager's own employment metrics for allowing sick employees to leave?

(Note that the latter is a problem in lots more places; see "Bradford factor")

I agree that the person directly responsible for this tragedy is the manager, but this category of cockups almost always has systemic reasons.

In other words, we can punish the local manager, but that won't fix the fact that the corporate leadership of Amazon seems to foster an environment where this kind of management is accepted and perhaps even encouraged.

I have never worked at Amazon (and by the sounds of things, I never want to either), but it sounds like a dystopian nightmare. And we should not be surprised when people optimize their behavior to the dystopian nightmare if that's the environment that they have to succeed in.

Not a whole lot of consequences after they were found to employ self-proclaimed neonazis to keep literal slaves working in a German warehouse either. Amazon is irredeemable and nobody should buy anything from them.

Your comment belongs to some sort of dystopian fiction, but it’s sort of real as Amazon uses third parties so the blame doesn’t really ‘lies’ with Amazon, sickening.

> BERLIN — The workers came from across Europe to pack boxes for the online retailer Amazon at distribution centers in Germany during the Christmas rush. They did not expect to be watched over — some say intimidated — by thugs in neo-Nazi-style clothing and jackboots.

> On Friday, Amazon said it was investigating claims made in a documentary that a subcontractor employed security guards with neo-Nazi ties to oversee the immigrant workers. > The documentary, broadcast Wednesday on the ARD public television network, showed guards in black uniforms with H.E.S.S., after Hensel European Security Services, but also the last name of Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, emblazoned on their chests.

> According to the film, security guards employed by the subcontractor scared and intimidated hundreds of temporary workers from Hungary, Poland, Spain and other European countries.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/world/europe/amazon-to-in...

The worst thing about telling people about why they should boycott Amazon IRL is that they just don't believe it. It sounds so outlandish that even with proof (such as this newspaper article) you can tell it doesn't really land. Very sad.

Can confirm, I just don't 'believe' it. I do not think that Amazon was knowingly employing neo-nazis.

They benefited hugely from this and I have to this day not seen a public commitment to change things to make sure this does not happen. Even if Amazon was unaware of what they were doing, the fact that afterwards they mostly just papered over it and went on with their lives lends it a tacit approval ("don't get caught again"). If you don't see how this makes them evil, I think we just will never agree on it :)

How did they benefit in any way? ( I read the article but didn't watch the documentary).

It sounds like they needed security guards, and the firm they hired turned out to be one that liked to play fascist dress-up.

Did they benefit more than if they had hired normal security?

The firm kept slaves (took passports, no pay, etc) to do the work in the warehouses that were guarded. Free labour is very cheap, that would be how they benefited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com