The article seems to contain nothing that would qualify for the words "Company Town". It appears to boil down "look amazon is big, surely it means that it must be evil!".
I guess this is the difference between a literal v. figurative interpretation of the title. The article itself is speaking to Amazon's efforts to sustain its hiring pipeline in the face of colossal churn, describing activities such as sponsoring secondary schools while installing their own branding as a condition of sponsorship.
> > A dozen students sat clustered at work tables inside an air-conditioned classroom, which was designed to emulate the inside of an Amazon facility. On one wall, Amazon’s giant logo grinned across a yellow and green banner. The words “CUSTOMER OBSESSION” and “DELIVER RESULTS” were painted against a corporate-style yellow backdrop. On a whiteboard, a teacher had written the words “Logistics Final Project,” and the lesson of the day was on Amazon’s “14 Leadership Principles.” Each teenager wore a company golf shirt emblazoned with the Amazon logo.
> > Students and staff members expressed pride in being associated with the company. Amazon partnered with the school as part of its five-year anniversary in the Inland Empire, donating $50,000 to start the pilot program, the giant sweepstakes-style Amazon check displayed prominently at the classroom entrance. The students had already taken field trips to tour the nearby Amazon warehouse.
> A public high-school classroom designed to resemble an Amazon facility, with students wearing Amazon logos on their clothing as they memorize Amazon’s leadership principles (which, it is worth noting, also include “Ownership” and “Think Big,” injunctions that hold merit for readers of this magazine when imagining how we might solve the problems exemplified by Amazon). Such a relationship between the company and public goods like a high school is part of what it means to consider Amazon as “the major working-class space of suburban and exurban socialization.”
Further (and quite interesting) reading on the concept of a company town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
Isn't this very banner in the outfield of little league games in America? As in, companies big and small ask for their branding to be visible when they sponsor things.
I think there's a material difference between a monopolist trying to impress its values upon the audience and a market participant trying to attract some of the audience.
Oh, I'm surprised that is allowed on HN.
Like one step above tabloids.
In the movie 'Sorry To Bother You' by Boots Riley, they have an Amazon-like entity called 'WorryFree' that does exactly this.
I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or other big employers making housing for laborers they employ), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power.
Even in the 19th century, workers had a significant amount of bargaining power, and company towns were in fact an attempt to improve working conditions, in light of workers' sensitivity to high prices.
Without things like company stores and company housing, what was found to happen is that an independent store owner or housing provider would take advantage of their monopoly status, and raise prices, leading to workers quitting. So just like oil rigs have their own company restaurant on-site, isolated 19th century worksites had their own company businesses on-site to ensure their workers had competitively priced goods available to them.
Companies did this at the time because workers in the 19th century were aware of the comparative wages/living-standards on offer, and had enough mobility to leave sites that didn't offer the best available in the market at that time. Compared to the late 19th century, workers today have enormous mobility, and ready internet-based knowledge of market options, so what would happen if company towns emerged today would not be exploitive.
Sure, as long as they can externalize this cost, they won't do this, but in the Bay Area Google determined it costs them less to to fight for housing projects and fund those, than pay the enormous overhead for getting their employees living there.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-ba...
Is there anything positive about company towns? Maybe they're better than towns with no jobs, but I'm not even sure about that..
Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town.
> being unable to change jobs without having to move
That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company.
> ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous)
Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land.
Yes, because it's now illegal, at least in the US where this practice was pervasive.
> That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company.
There's a world of difference between there are few options for jobs without changing your field ( e.g. working as a waiter/waitress when in a financial emergency) and literally having zero jobs outside of a company where you live. One is " we probably have to move if i piss off my boss", the other is "we need to move".
> Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land
That's extremely naive. Everyone in that town works for the company or has immediate family working for it. How many people would dare refuse or blow the whistle on illegal activities when their lives would be uprooted as a consequence? The power dynamic is very heavily tilted towards the employer.