Imagine a Walmart that was several degrees hotter or colder than you’d like your house to be, with less bathrooms and a concrete floor. Now imagine running around it all day bending over to grab things off the bottom shelf and being timed by a buzzing iPad if you’re too slow. And say you’re you’re 65 and Social Security pays half your rent.
Now imagine that you’re the part of Amazon’s supply chain that the local jurisdiction that demands you’re treated better than the other 97% of Amazon’s chosen supply chain.
Refreshing is one word for a company being honest about the fact that they are lobbying hard to make your hypothetical life 0.001% more efficient.
I agree with them - this is not a good look for Amazon. I have already essentially stopped purchasing on Amazon prior to this for various reasons (endless counterfeits and worker abuses) but will likely look to disband my relationship with AWS as well if they continue.
I'm also stopping purchases from amazon.com based on this, but I'm not yet ready or able to cut out AWS
Sure, I sympathize with this. But one person's lies are another person's truth in this day and age, unfortunately.
The memos that say "please don't leave pee in the trucks, please don't leave poop, we can figure out who you are".
This is just the same old Amazon - they optimize everything to the point that humans can't keep pace with their metrics without cutting corners.
Contractors can choose to pee where they want. But employees can sue so easily over this sort of thing. It's a specific OSHA violation.
This story depends on confusing the issue about who is and isn't a contractor, doing this to themselves.
The contractor should be let go. As the response notes, they represent the company and represent it badly.
It’s a giant hassle to do otherwise and peeing in a bottle ain’t that bad.
That's the problem when you make corporate statements that are both controversial and on shaky factual ground. The shakier the factual ground the more people might decide you are not telling the truth (as they see it) and stop doing business with you.
Again, I have _zero_ problem with a company being snarky with politicians. Criticizing our electeds is the core of the first amendment and I fully support citizens right to disagree with political figures—even political figures I mostly agree with. For example, this particular tweet from @amazonnews I quite agree with: https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375529101931520007.
> This is extraordinary and revealing. One of the most powerful politicians in the United States just said she’s going to break up an American company so that they can’t criticize her anymore.
I have no problem with companies being "powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets". I actually have a problem with the inverse: there should be no company that is not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.
For the record: Amazon, you, me, or anyone else is absolutely entitled to send Elizabeth Warren snotty tweets. Or send her snotty emails. Or make snotty phone calls to her office.
She is a public servant, not a noble or a pope or whatever.
If she can't handle people being rude to her, she needs to find another line of work. The "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!!" attitude is not a good look, either.
Bite me, Senator Warren. I'll "heckle" your entitled ass any time I damned well see fit to do so.