Hacker News Reader

Comment by fdschoeneman | Hacker News Reader

The article mentions an Amazon policy to always call an ambulance when they find a medical issue. Seems to me the journalist should have told us more about this policy, as well as whether or not a similar policy exists at Tesco. This isn't enough for me to conclude this is just more biased opinion masquerading as journalism from socialists at The Guardian about one of the left's favorite capitalist whipping boys, but sounds like it would make sense to take a deeper look.

View on HN

I get that it's a CYA on Amazon's part but it also puts other people at risk. There are limited ambulances and if they are always running to the Amazon warehouse for some triviality, someone seriously injured or having a stroke or heart attack somewhere else could have to wait longer.

I wonder if there is a technicality in the wording. It says "Ambulances have been called out" or "called to" it doesn't say they "attended" the warehouses.

999 operators will triage and prioritise ambulances based on the symptoms being exhibited.

As a paramedic, this infuriates me.

Even worse, it happens at some nursing homes for anything worse than a bandaid.

"You have nurses! Even moreso, you're charging the patient/their family for '24/7 Nursing Care!'", meanwhile grandma has a slightly swollen foot and you're calling 911 to CYA or be lazy.

That is a valid criticism but it seems like a criticism of Britain's health care system. When people and organizations can have access to free ambulances and healthcare and the costs are paid for by others, the demand goes way up.

>The article mentions an Amazon policy to always call an ambulance when they find a medical issue.

True...there's a difference between having a policy and it being enforced, though. The article also contains a quote from a union organiser who seemed to cast doubt on that "We know from our members in Amazon warehouses that first-aiders are actively discouraged from ringing ambulances – instead told to take taxis"

I know I'm not coming from a neutral place here...I detest Amazon utterly, but I have been around too many large companies for too long to know that the "policy we quote" vs the "behaviour we enforce" are two entirely different things.

I got injured at work (not at amazon) once (required surgery and I have chronic pain as a result).

I opted to have a coworker drive me to the hospital while I was bleeding rather than wait for an ambulance.

In my situation, it would be 10 minutes for an ambulance, 10 minutes to the hospital versus 10-15 minutes directly to the hospital…

Obviously they shouldn't use community resources that frivolously. Calling an ambulance for a paper cut is ridiculous. This is why there are first aid teams. I was one of those in Ireland and the number of times we called an ambulance was probably 1 in 10 incidents or so.

> socialists at The Guardian

A _liberal_ paper, not a socialist one.

Always calling an ambulance when there's a medical problem may simply be a terrible policy that puts a strain on public resources for the benefit of reduced liability. Tesco may take an approach which is more measured and less of a drain on wider society. There's something up, regardless.

There may be something worth investigating further, but that's not relevant to the point I made about the Guardian's journalism here.

“Socialists at The Guardian” - what does it even mean in this context? Even if ALL 1400 were Amazon being cautious and taking care of it’s employees (lol), how does it make sense to waste a precious resource like Ambulance for cases that can be fixed with a band aid?

left’s capitalist whipping boys - this is not without reason. How many times do you hear negative stories about Costco (as an example) mistreating their employees vs Amazon? Amazon is beaten up in the press because of their actions - just their union busting practices alone is worth the bad press they’re getting

It means the poster has an agenda and a bias of their own and you should probably ignore them.

It means that the Guardian is run by, written by, and read by people who are significantly more likely than other British people to be socialist or agree with socialist ideas.

Is the larger point I was making unclear?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com