Slashdot Mirror
Struggling Workers Found Sleeping In Tents Behind Amazon's Warehouse (thecourier.co.uk)
"At least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail giant's base," reports a Scottish newspaper -- hidden behind trees, but within sight of Amazon's warehouse, and right next to a busy highway. An anonymous reader writes:
Despite Scotland's "bitterly cold winter nights" -- with lows in the 30s -- the tent "was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home," one Amazon worker told the Courier. (Though yesterday someone stole all of his camping equipment.) Amazon charges its employees for shuttle service to the fulfillment center, which "swallows up a lot of the weekly wage," one political party leader told the Courier, "forcing people to seek ever more desperate ways of making work pay.
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000 temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline, "The company came under fire last month from local activists who claimed that agency workers are working up to 60 hours per week for little more than the minimum wage and are harshly treated."
Amazon responded, "The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000 temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline, "The company came under fire last month from local activists who claimed that agency workers are working up to 60 hours per week for little more than the minimum wage and are harshly treated."
Amazon responded, "The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
You should be ashamed you pay so little for the goods and services that free-market economies provide. Calculate all the money you've saved and remit that total to the workers' salary augmentation fund.
Yeah, you could also have titled this story "Amazon hires thousands of temporary workers desperate for jobs, giving them a chance at Christmas!"
But then, that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? 4,000 jobs in a small town is a massive benefit to those who need work, but I guess some would rather they sat at home and just collected a check from other people's wages instead.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
"The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
When a big stink was made about all the counterfeit products on Amazon, maintaining customer confidence that all products are legitimate was your number one priority. When 80,000 Kindle users' passwords were dumped online, the security of your customers was your number one priority. Now you claim the safety of your employees is your number one priority.
This is all bullshit. You can only have one number one priority, and we all know that's MAKING MONEY.
It's weird how lefties hate Walmart for the same thing, but love amazon.
Hating Walmart is party-line obedience to union leaders. Plus classism. Amazon hasn't become a big focus for union organizers yet, and Amazon employs many members of the progressive tribe in The Seattle area. So they get a pass, for now.
None of this has ever had anything to do with actually caring about the employees of these companies.
The whole story is bullshit whining about nothing, pushing a political agenda by pretending any of this is news. So yeah, all the talk about it spikes the bullshit meter.
Negotiate? How much power do you think an individual has as compared with the corporation currently? There is no negotiation... you take it or leave it.
Ultra conservative write Ben Stein wrote this after visiting the Walmart in Idaho
“These were enormous sallow men and women, grotesquely obese teenagers, horribly tattooed women in sun dresses at 10 p.m. These were the Jukes and the Kallikaks. Their RV’s were parked in the Walmart parking lot. Terrifying, especially in Walmart’s ultra-bright jail line-up lights”
Now tell us again what Liberals do?
I suppose I can take your post and extrapolate and say conservatives indulge themselves in classism by rampant over generalizing and attempting to describe what liberals do in which in reality is what they do.... AKA hypocrisy.
It's neither strawman nor bullshit. If individuals are permitted to control their costs by selecting the lowest-priced goods and services available to them then why would a corporation not be permitted to do the same?
Unfortunately the big conglomerates have killed off the smaller companies. It's a vicious cycle where where people get paid less so need cheaper goods which depresses wages.
I hate Wally World and I've never even been in a union.
Don't tell people what their issues really have to do with. Instead, listen to them and they will tell you. In my experience even those union guys are capable of independent thought and can determine what their motivations are.
People aren't going to hate Amazon because the customer experience is pretty good, and they rely on the government to enforce basic labor standards. It isn't something people are very interested in on a per-company basis. Whereas issues with big box stores replacing numerous industries with many fewer jobs is more of a community issue, where the only solution is for the people who care to shop more locally and preserve some fraction of the smaller businesses.
The one time I did shop at Wally World, we received a wedding gift of a $50 gift card from there. Which was easy to solve, we bought a gift for a holiday charity event.
Price alone isn't a justification for such conditions. If anything, price-related justifications show a callous disregard for those that do work (or seek it).
If anything, this is a reason why permatemping (what Amazon is doing), classification abuse (hiding behind a third party), and zero-hour work (the ultimate in precarious work when combined w/ UK-style workfare) needs to DIAF and the remains be shoveled into the nearest black hole.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yes, we should thank Amazon for allowing workers to sleep in tents.
Once an employee leaves Amazon's premises it is none of Amazon's damn business what they do or don't do. They have no right to "allow" or "prohibit" their employees from using, or not using, any sleeping arrangement.
Disclaimer: When I first moved to Silicon Valley, I lived in a van for two years.
Out of 4,000 workers, a newspaper managed to find three tents out in the woods, one of which they reported as apparently abandoned and the actual person in one tent made it clear he had a home elsewhere he could sleep in, but preferred to be closer to work to save on commuting costs.
Clearly Amazon is at fault for daring to provide someone employment. Probably the other 3,998 or so people they hired are just sleeping without tents because of their super low wages, right?
In most places (notably, non-prisons and without servant's quarters...), companies don't decide for and aren't responsible for their employees where and how they are allowed to live. That's up to the employee to decide for themselves.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
The summary says "he stuff was stolen". But the article itself is much less clear:
He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon.
Did he say it had vanished? Or did the article writer find it had vanished on Friday? Not at all clear.
Also no aspect of the interview really asking the guy if he "had to" camp as the Willie bloke claimed, they just want you to assume that is the case. The actual guy who was camping just said it was cheaper and easier - if you are just going to be there a few week or two for seasonal work why wouldn't you prefer this to any kind of commute? Back when I used to work insane hours programming I slept under my desk for a week. It wasn't because I had to, it was just way easier at the time.
Also low 30's (assuming F) is not "battery cold", it's just mildly chilly and most sleeping bags would handle that temperature easily. I've camped before in sub-zero (again F) temperatures before and that's not at all uncomfortable with the right equipment.
Basically the whole thing seems written with a pre-determined viewpoint in mind and hardly any real research or interviewing done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's neither strawman nor bullshit. If individuals are permitted to control their costs by selecting the lowest-priced goods and services available to them then why would a corporation not be permitted to do the same?
Ask any Irish friend you have about the "Penny Walls" in Ireland, and you'll have your answer.
Yes, in part, it is Amazon's fault. But only in part. The problem is complex with many parts so it's only natural that the solution will be as well.
Because of the asymmetry in levels of influence. Don't you remember the 19th-century industrialization process and the civic problems it spawned I until proper worker protection, unions etc were invented? Geez, don't you guys learn anythingnin school over there?
Commuting cost is because Amazon shuttle is expensive. Amazon pay people salary and then charges them a lot to get to and from work. The commuting cost is not independent of Amazon.
You had to over embellish with "tips", didn't you...
No you where told that Brexit was a risk to the economy and could jeopardise the fragile recovery from the financial meltdown of 2008.
The reality is that with our currency down the shitter since Brexit that you will be worse off as a result, probably to the tune of hundreds of pounds a year. For me personally it will be over one thousands pounds by my calculation. Fortunately I am well off enough to be able to manage. The bulk of the morons that voted for it (aka the uneducated just about managing's) will struggle.
As a side note 60 hour weeks would be illegal in the UK, but of course Farage and Johnson both independently wealthy individuals who would not care if everyone was £2000 a year worse off, just so long as they could stick it to the EU, are rubbing their hands at repealing the working time directive.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Indeed never presume to understand the reasons why people do something. We had an instrument technician who parked his caravan outside our plant when we hired him as a temporary worker. I asked him about it and he said it was easy. He was single, not attached to a location, had no expenses, and after doing it for under 2 years had enough money to buy a house in cash setting him up for a fantastic future life.
Here I am 8 years later with a mortgage.