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."

Comments

They could always work elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is forcing them to stay in tents, or to even work there at all. It's their choice. If it's so horrible surely they would leave for greener pastures. It sounds like this individual chose to do this out of convenience, nothing more.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[_Sharp'r_]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

I have a cousin who worked as a delivery driver for Amazon Now, contracted through some no-name third party company. He said he really liked it because in a typical day he made between $200 and $300 in wage+tips, but after the media did an "expose" on the fact that Amazon was treating them as contract-for-hire with no benefits, then suddenly he stopped getting work.

Nobody was forcing him to do that work, but whistleblowing like this likely did force him to stop.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[TroII]

Yeah! Why don't these losers just stroll over to the Job Forest, where jobs grow on trees in wondrous abundance?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm sorry but companies aren't allowed to operate like that in the EU or the UK.

Apparently they are.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[MichaelSmith]

Yes, they could work in a book shop for example.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

That probably explains why my RERFX investment is performing like shit compared to everything else I have. I think I'll probably trade it for DODGX, or maybe something Asian based just to maintain a foreign holding.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Kohath]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[MickyTheIdiot]

This is the type of selfish bullshit that is threatening the US and the whole world right now. Thanks, jackass. You're the problem.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Aighearach]

In my experience there is always somebody trying to camp in the parking lot to save money. This says nothing at all about the company or the job. Even at google there are people who want to live in the parking lot. It is also somewhat traditional to provide a place for employee camping, though unpopular these days.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Aighearach]

The job that grows on trees is called Hunter or Gatherer, and unless you have the right family tree it is generally banned, though in some cases you can buy a permit during a season.

Within what is available for individual commercial harvesting with a permit there is often 5 or 6 weeks of the year when money can be made, depending on your region.

And subsistence foraging is difficult or impossible if you're not allowed to live on the land.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[unixisc]

Or move into homeless shelters and refuse to work for such a pittance

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Camel Pilot]

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.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Luthair]

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.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[PopeRatzo]

Extra points if you get one in a wheelchair or one with bad teeth, because then you get to use your inbred and meth-head jokes.

Inbreeding doesn't really limit itself to poor meth heads.

https://pmchollywoodlife.files...

https://fabiusmaximus.files.wo...

http://telegrafi.com/wp-conten...

And the kicker:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[JoeMerchant]

It's the export of US culture and values - first you watch our movies, then you follow our politics... careful, it's highly contagious.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Kohath]

Yeah, once in a while someone will say something mean-spirted and you'll look expecting to see yet another leftist hater, but you'll be surprised to see a non-leftist. How about we stop giving haters a pass because they're on our team?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[mspohr]

Yes, we should thank Amazon for allowing workers to sleep in tents. They may freeze but they won't starve!
Corporations are great and always have the health and well being of their employees as top priority.
A temporary job where you freeze at night is much better than no job at all. We thank Amazon for providing great temporary jobs. This makes Amazon great again.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[_Sharp'r_]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Waffle Iron]

Down by the river?

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Type44Q]

Extra points if you get one... with bad teeth

Shouldn't the extra points be for spotting the atypical ones??

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[0100010001010011]

I've met a lot of people that have trouble wrapping their head around how I feel about unions.

Unions are a glorious thing that have helped a lot of workers. I wish I had an engineers union like the Germans do that fight for all workers in it.

The UAW one of the most corrupt, bloated, useless organizations I've ever had to deal with.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[KingMotley]

Companies are forced to track each employee and where they live, and what they spend their money on in the EU and the UK? Interesting.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Serge_Tomiko]

neoconserative is not conservative, ultra or otherwise. Ben Stein is a typical neoconservative. Secular, bourgeois, Jewish, with the hypocritical belief that Israel can be an ethnostate for Jews, but white people must all become minorities in their own countries.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Sir Holo]

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.

That part about "leaving their premises" –– I think you missed something.

The Amazon shuttle to the Amazon-owned (or rented) parking lot where your car is charges a lot of money. Once their car leaves the Amazon parking lot, then that is where your condition kicks in.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Ostracus]

Next they'll start dating our women.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

If you order something on Amazon Now, there's a field to put in the tip with a mandatory $5 minimum.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

I'm part of the problem because I'm doing the responsible thing by investing in a 401k?

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to bank on social security giving me just enough money to afford to live in an old folks' home. In case you haven't noticed, social security by design isn't intended to be enough to survive off of in retirement.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[h33t l4x0r]

I prefer to be optimistic, there's a bright side to everything. In this case, for example, think of the positive impact on the climate from all these people dying of cold and starvation.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[tsotha]

Heh. I worked at a place that made specialized data processing equipment. We had a shower so people could ride to work, say, or work out during lunch.

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[tsotha]

Just out of curiosity, why is it you figure they're not all living in tents? I mean, if they're not making enough money to get a place they should all be out there in the field... right?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[tsotha]

I know, right? You always hear about third world countries like the UK not offering their citizens any opportunity for employment.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work at the warehouse in the article. The car park is immediately outside the building. The shuttle bus is to the centre of town. You literally have to walk through the car park to get to the bus.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[oobayly]

You had to over embellish with "tips", didn't you...

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[serviscope_minor]

It's nearly Christmas, so time to being out the Christmas themed quotes.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[cyber-vandal]

A van in San Fran is significantly warmer than a tent in Scotland especially in the winter.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Entrope]

Still, unless you're talking Kelvin or Rankine, 30 degrees shouldn't be anyone's idea of "bitterly cold". Here in balmy Virginia, our overnight lows this time of year are 5-10 degrees below freezing.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Applehu Akbar]

There is another columnist like that today, Kevin Williamson at National Review. He spent this whole election season poking fun at people who don't have Roman numerals in their names, until suddenly the ignorant horde rose up and elected the 'wrong' candidate. Oopsie!

But it's on the left, once the defenders of the working stiffs, where this attitude is standard operating procedure.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[HornWumpus]

Europeans tend to be a bit wimpy.

FTFY

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

You could stop thinking about yourself for a second and whether or not you can have a one or two story house on the beach when you retire. Try helping people and donate a tiny fraction of the ridiculous amount of money you have.

Uhh...you know there's an income limit for 401k, right? The maximum income you can make to be allowed to contribute anything is $132,000 if you're single. That's far from being able to afford a house on the beach. And even then, the maximum you can put in your 401k each year is $18,000 per year with roth being $5,500 per year (meaning you can contribute up to $23,000 per year.)

Between work and other stuff I do, I make about $80k per year, with my 401k contribution set to 20%, AND, I very aggressively save my money for the ultimate purpose of paying cash on a house in suburban Phoenix. I have to live very cheaply just to do this, and I'm not doing it just to give it away. I have stage 4 CKD, which could soon render me unable to work, so this is prudent financial planning.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Sir Holo]

I used to work at the warehouse in the article. The car park is immediately outside the building. The shuttle bus is to the centre of town. You literally have to walk through the car park to get to the bus.

Well, that does change things then. Completely.

Thanks.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[kenh]

The issue is the economy in Scotland, not Amazon - Amazon created jobs, and because of a glut of applicants can pay workers lower wages. The workers camping out in tents are workers that do not live near the Amazon facility, and as noted in the story, the issues for the camping workers are equal parts cost and convienience: the tent "was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home,". Easier and cheaper than commuting from home - these aren't homeless workers, they HAVE homes, just not local to the Amazon facility.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[kenh]

The article describe three tents outside the Amazon facility, one abandoned, one where the occupant say he's there out of convenience (the tent "was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home,"), and no word about the third.

We're talking about 2-3 workers out of several thousand temporary workers...that is a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the workforce.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[fferreres]

They could at least TRY. The owner is one of the richest persons on earth and has made a business of destroying local shops because his system is better IF you exclude de employment side (which buyer don't experience directly). Starbucks charged more, and pays growers extra vs market price in what is the fair price program. You could argue that Starbucks doesn't need that, but guess what? Many people like to pay a bit more and know those growing the crops can have a better pay for growing coffee usually with hugely difficult personal conditions.

Why Amazon can't have a "2-day Fair Price Shipping"

I think smart people miss the chance to say, people working at very low wages for thinks I need should get paid market price, but something better. And it is MUCH BETTER to fund working people through thise that can aford to help a bit (millions and millions) that it is to have the governement comoeting with thanda m so they don't starve as this results in: 1) rise and ultimate takeover by populism 2) many people that prefer no work at all vs a small premium for doing a huge effort for some extra bucks

We need those up the wealth chain to be able to pay a bit more so workers earn a decent living and have a chance to enjoy a fairer planet.

The last thing to note is that in a world where there are more people that need to work to eat than jobs (this happens city by city, is not linear) then workers have no negotiaring power. During the industrial revolution people would die on mines, children would work. It was a hugely sad time with some jobs costing parents their lives in mines for just food. It was a huge factor that many of these emigrated to the US to built the country Slashdot lives on. Today, there is nowhere to go.

Where are the efforts to investigate hie to get everyone to contribute their lives and work hard for a future designed to include everyone living on this floor? Let's asume we don't need everyone to work with our current direction. What ideas can we have to need everyone? If we can figure it out we can avoid turning our future into the dystopian metropolis movie or the 20-25 movies that note this (Oblivion and so many others), and we can also avoid it turning it into Venezuela of sorts that cause the sane problems but without any progress at all.

I'd pay a bit more shipping and would like Amazon to think they have no interest in contributing something in the world of extreme automation they are forging for society.

Amazon, wake up!

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[dryeo]

I've camped out in the interior at 30 below and on the wet coast, which is more like Scotland, at a couple of degrees above freezing and camping out in wet is worse. Tents have a habit of leaking, clothes don't dry out or you have to sleep in them all night to dry them out and even that heavy sleeping bag doesn't keep you warm when damp. Much rather camp out below freezing.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[fferreres]

Why new generations on Slashdot think the can be extremely offensive and rude? If you cannot have punch in your argument and need to through insults you just list the point and made a fool of yourself in public.

Why is this even tolerated?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[thegarbz]

The commuting cost is not independent of Amazon.

Actually it is. Commuting is always independent of work unless the only way to get to that work was by shuttle, but as this person has shown it's not.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[cyber-vandal]

Europeans didn't invent safe spaces and trigger warnings.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[geek]

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.

So where did he generalize? He was being specific about one particular walmart. BTW I live near that walmart right now and he's fucking right. They are the biggest freaks and wierdos on Earth.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[swillden]

Commuting cost is because Amazon shuttle is expensive.

We don't know that. We know that one employee preferred not to pay it. Maybe it is expensive, maybe the employee in question is just very tight-fisted. Some numbers would be nice.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[Zorpheus]

As someone else wrote, Amazon charges for a bus that it provides to the city centre. People don't pay for that bus when they come by car.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[ArmoredDragon]

If you're married, you can make up to $186,000.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[retchdog]

As they say, there's a time to reap and a time to sow. Reap plebs, that is! For years, we've participated in more and more intricate and abstract systems to, ultimately, shuffle money from the poor to the rich, where it is ultimately hoarded (i.e. destroyed). Unfortunately a certain number of people had to be paid to achieve this level of destitution! Well, let me tell you, if you think nature abhors a vacuum, the market hungers on stuffing those holes and closing loops. Coming up: riots and automation of the far-overvalued circle jerk that is called the "middle class".

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[yuriklastalov]

No, but they gave us Hitler and Communism, so... yay?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[mjwx]

You had to over embellish with "tips", didn't you...

The fine article mentioned Scotland.

Scotland as you may or may not know is part of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland otherwise known as the "UK" for short. The UK is a short trip across the Atlantic Ocean which re refer to as "the Pond", right above this little consent that a certain NASCAR driver may call COMMUNIST but most of us know as Europe or Overbearing Money Grubbing Wankers... depending if you're sane or a UKIP voter.

Here in the UK we do not engage in this vulgar activity of "tipping" as we prefer to pay our workers a wage they can live on rather than relegating them to begging for scraps from the lords table... We did away with that nonsense centuries ago.

Of course, that being Scotland they will be fine if Amazon dropped off some Tennents and a few packs of fags.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[mjwx]

I've met a lot of people that have trouble wrapping their head around how I feel about unions.

Unions are a glorious thing that have helped a lot of workers. I wish I had an engineers union like the Germans do that fight for all workers in it.

The UAW one of the most corrupt, bloated, useless organizations I've ever had to deal with.

A lot of people understand.

Especially outside the US where we can separate the concept of labour unionism and the current sad state of some unions.

I agree and support the idea of labour unionism, it has bought us many advances and was instrumental in the rise of the working middle class. What I cant agree with are 6 union secretaries sitting around a table at a Chinese restaurant deciding things for everyone else.

Most of the above quote can be attributed to Australian politician and columnist, Mark Latham. You can support the idea of a union whilst opposing corruption within a union.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[0100010001010011]

You can support the idea of a union whilst opposing corruption within a union.

I wish that was true here. You should visit 'Murica sometime.

You can't support single payer helathcare without being a dirty communist. You can't hate Monsanto and like GMOs. You can't say anything positive about Trump without being a sexist, racist, or homophobe. You can't support unions while hating the UAW.

For politics you have Democrats or Republicans. So you're either for us or against us.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[dcw3]

"over embellish"

Pot, kettle?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[oobayly]

I'm confused, not about the UK - I'm a resident but not a citizen - but because you seem to think that needed explaining to me!

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[oobayly]

Uh?

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[dcw3]

Social Security was never meant to be all you survived on. And, I'm saying that as someone who's supporting both his mom and mother-in-law, both of whom are living on only their SS, and my support.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[dcw3]

You only need to google "mafia influence on UAW" to understand why. The Teamsters is another example.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[swillden]

... maybe the employee in question is just very tight-fisted

Wait, this is Scotland, right? Why the maybe?

The employee may not be a true Scotsman.

Re:They could always work elsewhere.

[painandgreed]

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.

One of my friends working at Amazon in Seattle has a coworker that lives out of her camper that she parks around the area. Uses the company facilities to shower and all that. There are plenty of such camper vans that you can find just walking around the various parks or anywhere parking is not metered. One can blame the high housing costs in Seattle for part of the reason. Still, there are plenty of people doing the same thing out on the peninsula too, old hippies living out their self sustaining farming dream, younger guys living out of their 10'x10' cabins, etc. Once ended up at a friend of a friend's land. He had a job and bought himself ten acres, slept in a small camper, and spent most of his time sitting around a bonfire drinking beer with friends. I had one friend who working on his PhD just decide to leave and hop trains and camp for the next two years. Some people just decide to do that sort of thing.

Re: They could always work elsewhere.

[Nethemas the Great]

If you live in a developed nation and despite opportunity to do otherwise your ambition in life is no greater than to be a surrogate robot producing and/or shuffling commodities why should we care? I would much rather use my money be used to pull people otherwise able and willing up out of their desperate situations. Kind of like those coffee plantation workers living in impoverished nations.

If you want to run a small shop as a hobby--perhaps for your retirement--then go for it. But don't expect people for the sake of a nostalgic era long past to prefer inefficient distribution of commodities to modern alternatives able to offer superior choice and price for everyday needs. Mom and pop shops are a recreational activity for the consumer and should be operated in kind by their owners.

"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[JoeyRox]

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.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[unixisc]

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.

Just that we don't have the money that would enable them to sleep comfortably in a reasonably heated bedroom in a nice and modest house. Once all this is automated, they won't have any work or income, but hopefully, they can sleep in the comfort of their homes, assuming that they're not evicted for the crime of not paying their rent

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[laughingcoyote]

Cut executive salaries in half, put the savings in your hypothetical fund, and I bet you'll find it has plenty of money.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

In America, we obviously elected a guy who basically said he would make it all better, but gave no specifics. Looking at his choices, I don't see it all getting better, though it is possible we get involved in a trade war so more gets made here. Even if that happens, most things are going to be made by robots, unless it is cheaper to use minimum wage labor. Also, if we get involved in a trade war we hurt exporters like Boeing, though in their case they are already a multinational. They just move the creation of those aircraft completely to other countries, and there is nothing to tax. Still the net result of that kind of actions is unlikely to be high paying factory jobs, baring a few exceptions. Those times have passed. Sure you will hire some engineers and computer programmers, but not a lot of them.

The kind of people he is hiring are basically people that got rich by making sure their employees were not. In their companies most profit went to the top tiers and that was it. How can we expect a different outcome by putting them in charge?

You could say something like, well people should buy local/American/etc to support their fellow Americans. For that to work people have to be living well enough above their means that they can effectively donate money for these American made goods, and even then it won't happen often.

You could cut benefits and aid so that taxes were less and people could make more money, but then without those benefits and aid many of those people are going to turn to crime, since it is all that they have left. It is generally more expensive to keep people in jail than in a house. (You also have to pay for the larger force of police, judges, court system officials, lawyers, etc.)

You could retrain people to get them in jobs that do exists. That does work, at least better than most other options.

You could focus taxes on those who can afford it. That does work, since those with the most money are more apt to hoard it. Now one can argue fairness there.

You could focus on revising policy proposals so that they better do the job intended. That can also work. For instance, Obamacare was a step forward. Its mandate was necessary to create a larger risk pool. Too many people just ignored it in favor of the fine. In short, use science to figure out how to fix things, and don't just cancel the bits people don't like such as the mandate. I have relatives that hate it, because they demand health care for free, such as with emergency rooms.

You could focus on teaching kids to spot lies and critical thinking. Here I think is where we really need to focus. That kind of training will server them better than pretty much every other thing they learn. When you do a complex job it is seldom only with what you know, but how you apply what you know to learn what you need to know to solve the problem at hand. This is vital, yet politicians often win by lying or oversimplifying things, and it is not linked to one party.

You could focus on allowing other parties a shot with things like instant run off voting. Sometimes our politics are so messed up that both parties screw up on particular issues. We need to get beyond two parties.

Education might be a good place to start people in learning how to do real work, at least say in the high school phase. Pay them for their results and make it hard. If everyone is getting a B your making it too easy. College is similar. In areas that are in demand create scholarships, but set high standards. We need to somehow instill a hard work ethic. I'm not sure how to do that.

At some point we may have to start reducing the work week since full employment will become more and more difficult to implement. Already at work we have little stores that have nobody wo

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[JoeyRox]

Cut the financial incentive for employees to move up the ranks in half and see how well that company performs.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[beelsebob]

Probably exactly the same given that it's repeatedly been demonstrated that beyond being comfortable, salary is a really terrible motivator for job performance or job satisfaction.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Bullshit. If you cut the incentive to move up the ranks vs. move to a different company, sure, the company will suffer. But I don't know anyone who would say "Well, for a $12M bonus I'd want to be CEO, but at $6M, no way" Or at least, I don't think any significant number of people would, and I sincerly doubt the one you'd want to be CEO would.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

We usually would do that through progressive taxation and redistribution (esp. through services). That way, instead of hammering the person saving 30 pence of cat food (who may not be able to afford it), you get it from the profits of the people who aren't paying enough to their employees.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith stated that workers should be treated as a renewable resource.

That is: Pay your workers a wage that can sustain a livable condition. Because if you don't, they'll come in to work tired and hungry, and will be less productive.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[ThatsMyNick]

Yeah, plenty of money, if we define an increase of 2 cents per hour as plenty. Do you realize how many executives amazon has, and how many employees amazon has, world wide. It is extremely disproportionate.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[radarskiy]

In this day and age, Adam Smith is considered a communist.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

Probably exactly the same given that it's repeatedly been demonstrated that beyond being comfortable, salary is a really terrible motivator for job performance or job satisfaction.

BS.

I could fix your computer no matter the make; no matter whether it's a software or hardware problem. But my PhD and 20 years of experience in Industry & Academia will compel me to say, "No", no matter what pay rate you might offer.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Barlo_Mung_42]

But then the executive will have to decide between the yacht and a third home. Think of the staff they'll have to let go! /s

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably exactly the same given that it's repeatedly been demonstrated that beyond being comfortable, salary is a really terrible motivator for job performance or job satisfaction.

(snip)

...will compel me to say, "No", no matter what pay rate you might offer.

Pretty sure you just proved his point? You're comfortable, so no matter the salary, you're not motivated enough to fix a computer.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[laughingcoyote]

If that would happen, sure.

But it wouldn't matter for two reasons. Your average employee might reach management, but the days of there being a career path from the factory floor to the CEO's office are long gone. (It wasn't very often the case to start with anyway.) We're talking about executives, not your average floor manager position that an employee might have a chance of reaching.

Secondly, the reason I say to cut it in half is because these people make tons of money. Are you telling me you'd take the position for $3 million a year, but $1.5 million just wouldn't cut it? Because I suspect most of these lower level employees would be overjoyed to take it at the $1.5 million level.

There is no excuse for the people at the top making that much while paying employees starvation wages.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[wisnoskij]

People have studied that popular saying to death. The most outrageous offenders might be able to raise the income of their employees by a cent an hour.
In this case, if you cut every Amazon executive's salary in half, they could give every employee a raise of a few thousandths of a cent.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Grapekiller]

Cut executive salaries in half, put the savings in your hypothetical fund, and I bet you'll find it has plenty of money.

If you take ALL of the salaries of the 6 highest paid executives at amazon and redistributed it evenly among the rest of the employees it comes out to less than $45 per year each. Say what you will about worker wages and about executive compensation but the idea that you could improve the former by cutting the latter is a foolish one.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Anonymous Coward]

Our new President would say that the best excuse is "because they can."

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut the financial incentive for employees to move up the ranks in half and see how well that company performs.

Do you really need to pay executives 300 times more than the average worker to make a worker aspire to climb the ranks? Wouldn't 10X salary also encourage workers to move up?

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably exactly the same given that it's repeatedly been demonstrated that beyond being comfortable, salary is a really terrible motivator for job performance or job satisfaction.

BS.

I could fix your computer no matter the make; no matter whether it's a software or hardware problem. But my PhD and 20 years of experience in Industry & Academia will compel me to say, "No", no matter what pay rate you might offer.

Technically, what you said doesn't necessarily disagree with what the parent poster said. You make enough not to be bribed by work you really don't want to do. My PhD and experience means my job doesn't completely suck. The fact that few employers in this area need someone like me means I'm stuck in a defense related job that I wish I wasn't, since that is who wants my skills. It is not salary that makes me stay or go, nor is it salary that really determines performance that much. If I go I want to work at a company that is clearly ethically better. So far I haven't found one. Now, a higher salary would mean I could retire sooner, and it would mean the company gave a crap, or at least was willing to put substantially more money to pretend to. It won't happen, nor will I do the necessary sucking up to make it happen, though admittedly I am doing a bit of it lately. It is amazing how life can corrode one's sense of ethics, though to be fair it is not that much of an ethically gray area to pretend you care about someones opinion, if doing so results in a useful result, or is it? I forget.

More importantly, I think we need field trips where we show high school students what types of jobs they can get if they don't get a good education. That would be useful. Maybe we could also show them what a good education can result in. Yes, in today's world if you have a good education you can be middle class ;) My how standards have fallen. Still it is important to base ones plans on reality, not pie in the sky promises, such as we have heard of late from some orange persons.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Hognoxious]

Makes me wonder what his PhD is in. And where it's from.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[lgw]

Cut executive salaries in half, put the savings in your hypothetical fund, and I bet you'll find it has plenty of money.

Amazon has a salary cap. No one makes more than ~$180k in salary. Perhaps you wanted a different word? In total executive compensation, the CEO made 1.6M, and one other guy made $230k. So try doing the research next time. http://finance.yahoo.com/quote...

Bezos is vastly wealthy because he founded the company and owns a non-trivial percentage of the stock. The other executives are no doubt also worth many millions, for the same reason - they held on to early stock grants. Amazons average profit per employee is ~$2600. Of course, their gross profit is much higher, but they spend most of it hiring more people, and buying servers.

All of this is public record. But you seem to prefer ignorance.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[serviscope_minor]

I don't get it: you open the post claiming bullshit, then spend the rest of the post vehemently agreeing.

You have a PhD and 20 years industry experience so you expect a more interesting job that fixing computers no matter how well it pays. If that's not an example of salary being a poor motivator, then I don't know what is.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[serviscope_minor]

All of this is public record. But you seem to prefer ignorance.

Well done, you managed to be extremely pedantic. Reread the parent post with "renumeration" in place of salary.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Waccoon]

If only that applied to executives, too.

Oh, right... you said salaries, not bonuses.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[geekmux]

Cut the financial incentive for employees to move up the ranks in half and see how well that company performs.

There are two groups of people in companies today; those that are willing to work in the slave labor class, and those that are hired into the buddy-system executive class.

H1-B abuses are a prime example of keeping the willing pool of applicants full, so good luck finding a fucking ladder anywhere.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[kramerd]

In 2015 Amazon had 230,800 employees. CEO pay (Jeff Bezos) was 1.68 M. Other publicly listed officers made 175k, 231k, 73k, 175k, and 7.8M. I dont see how cutting their pay in half and giving each employee an extra $21.77 per year (1.1 cents per hour on 40 hour work weeks) would make any difference.

http://www1.salary.com/Amazon-...

These numbers include equity (stock options).

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[swb]

If you're making $15/hour and the senior executive is making the equivalent of $150/hour and that gets cut to $135/hour, do they really lose their incentive to move up in the ranks?

I'd say what kills their incentive isn't trivial cuts to top executive compensation, it's when the next rung up involves a pay increase to a whopping $16.50 an hour and an additional 10 hours a week of unpaid overtime.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[msauve]

"Reread the parent post with "renumeration" in place of salary."

Renumeration? You're arguing that he should just make up numbers?

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[stabiesoft]

Except the senior exec is not making 150/hr, they are making 1500/hr. 150/hr is only 300K/yr. 1500 is more like senior (actually a tad low for the really top brass) for 3M/yr. Some of these chiefs get upwards of 30M/yr or 15K/hr.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[swb]

I would make the argument that the most senior executive positions which make that kind of money aren't even aspirational targets for the $15/hr worker. Believing those positions can be obtained by average workers is in the same category of believing one day you can be Superman or Han Solo. It's ludicrous to believe that reducing their compensation somehow effects the motivations of the average worker.

I do think it's somewhat credible that if actually obtainable positions (ie, high skilled white collar worker or entry-level management in the 100k range) see huge pay cuts, it might actually influence aspirational workers, but only maybe.

By the time most any worker is in the $15/hr category as a full-time employee and not working in a career track, they have probably lost all aspiration. The only thing which would be really motivating is that their next step up includes both a nominally large pay increase ($15 to $20) and a real improvement in working conditions which includes some respect for work/life balance and management that actually pulls off caring about and giving consideration to worker input.

One thing that corporate management has really fucked up IMHO is that they've kind of gone backwards, pushing fascist management tactics up from the bottom of the work force into the broad middle tier of the work force. Why would anyone at the bottom be motivated to move up, outside of only the tiny increases in pay, when the job is just as awful as it ever was?

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

I don't get it: you open the post claiming bullshit, then spend the rest of the post vehemently agreeing.

You have a PhD and 20 years industry experience so you expect a more interesting job that fixing computers no matter how well it pays. If that's not an example of salary being a poor motivator, then I don't know what is.

OK, so I clearly did not phrase the post properly. How about this:

I do fix computers, for family and for free. But if you wanted me to fix your computer the hourly rate that I would demand –somewhere in lawyer-territory – would be so far out of the range that you (the employer) would be willing to pay, that effectively no pay rate that you would be willing to offer would be high enough to entice me.

It is the same retort, framed slightly differently. It puts the decision on the employer, not on the employee.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[lgw]

Doesn't change my point - the total amount of cash the Amazon executives took home is public record, and it's entirely unimpressive. Dividing it up between hundreds of thousands of employees wouldn't make any difference.

This is just envy and jealousy. If you look at most large corporations where the founder is no longer running things, the CEO is typically making a dollar or two per month per employee. That may add up to a nice number, but he's not impoverishing the employees to pay himself. When the founder is still involved he's typically quite rich because he owns a chunk of the company he created - hard to see that as unfair.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

I don't get it: you open the post claiming bullshit, then spend the rest of the post vehemently agreeing.

You have a PhD and 20 years industry experience so you expect a more interesting job that fixing computers no matter how well it pays. If that's not an example of salary being a poor motivator, then I don't know what is.

OK, so I framed my post in the wrong way, and worded it poorly. Let me put the same response another way:

I do fix computer, for free, but only for family. The pay rate that I would demand to fix your computer would be so high – think lawyer-level rates – that you would be unwilling to pay it. The result: Your computer is not fixed.

There. Same outcome, and still about salary, but the decision rests on the you (the employer), not on me.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

that effectively no pay rate that you would be willing to offer would be high enough to entice me

So.. beyond being comfortable, salary is not a good motivator. You are proving beelsebob's point.

Wrong again. The guy simply is unwilling to pay me what I am worth.

Not everything is supply-side, you know.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Are you telling me you'd take the position for $3 million a year, but $1.5 million just wouldn't cut it?

Why exactly would I take $1.5 million if I could get $3 million somewhere else? If the market prices talent at X, then you're going to need to offer something worth at least X in order to attract people.

Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little"

[Sir Holo]

The guy simply is unwilling to pay me what I am worth.

By definition you aren't worth that much if no one will pay it. Trust me, you have proven beelsebob's point many times over.

Doesn't the market define "worth" (or "value")? It is not an absolute value, like pi, but varies with varying circumstances.

Brexit will ruin this paradise

[Kohath]

I was told the economy in that area was great and that it would all be ruined by Brexit. If the economy is so terrific, how can Amazon find any unemployed people to work at their fulfillment centers?

Re:Brexit will ruin this paradise

[jabuzz]

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.

Re:Brexit will ruin this paradise

[Britz]

I never heard that Britain's economy was in good shape. Only their financial industry. But I have heard that Brexit is likely to make it worse, because both the financial industry will suffer and the rest of the economy as well. The one that was already in bad shape.

But I guess we will soon find out what exactly is going to happen, won't we?

Re:Brexit will ruin this paradise

[Kohath]

As a side note 60 hour weeks would be illegal in the UK

Someone wants to work 60-hour weeks at a 2-month temporary labor job for some cash. Do you want to arrest them for that? Or do you merely want to deny them that opportunity?

Re:Brexit will ruin this paradise

[jabuzz]

Yes. People who work excessive hours become dangerous to the rest of society. They might make a mistake in their job that could kill someone. For example here is a pharmacist that killed someone by working 60 hours a week, which is down right illegal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-n...

You say someone working in a warehouse is unlikely to kill someone from being over worked. Maybe, but what about say when they are commuting to and from work in a car on public roads. This is what can happen when you fall asleep at the wheel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's 10 people dead, 82 seriously injured and serious disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Yeah people who work over long hours are in effect sociopaths, who put a potential gain for themselves ahead of potential serious outcomes, and I have no problem of denying them that right. I would also vastly increase the penalties from causing death when overwork was a contributory factor. Minimum 10 years in jail seems appropriate.

Re:Brexit will ruin this paradise

[kaatochacha]

I'm sorry, but you sound a bit lazy. Anyone who hasn't had to knuckle under in their life and occasionally ( I say occasionally, not constantly) work long hours to get something done isn't someone I'd want to employ.
Yes, I'm saying if that during a crunch period if you can't pull one or two weeks a year of serious OT, then you're lazy.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Bullshit

[rmdingler]

"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.

You can only have one #1 priority. At a time. So, if these are nonsimultaneous examples, there is fallacy in your logic.

But that last point, about a malevolently greedy, publicly traded corporation being motivated by profit-seeking... well, that's just reprehensible.

Re:Bullshit

[EmagGeek]

"You can only have one number one priority"

You've never been an engineer, have you?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the priorities came from marketing. Ranked. The ranking changed weekly so we stopped paying attention.

Re:Bullshit

[phantomfive]

Worth mentioning that NewEgg does a good job being a customer friendly site. I've been happy with them a lot.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The welfare of our staff is our #1 priority for 1ms on 29 February.

Re:Bullshit

[oobayly]

I think by definition "You can only have one number one priority"

Re:Bullshit

[geekmux]

"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.

Well, you do have to admit that PR campaigning of utter bullshit is at least their number two priority...

Re:Bullshit

[geekmux]

You can only have one #1 priority. At a time. So, if these are nonsimultaneous examples, there is fallacy in your logic.

Did Amazon actually do something other than pay "number one" lip service for all examples provided? There is fallacy across their entire bullshit-riddled PR division, so let's see what happens with employees living in tents.

But that last point, about a malevolently greedy, publicly traded corporation being motivated by profit-seeking... well, that's just reprehensible.

The key word here is malevolent, which is the reason that chasm between the slave labor working class and the executive class continues to grow and will never be bridged. Companies don't give a shit about offering you a path to a bigger and better job. They don't even give a shit if you leave because of it. In short, malevolence has driven greed to unprecedented levels.

Demand for minimum wage goes up? Corporations respond with hiring robots to replace humans. CEOs making 500x more than the average warehouse worker. "Go to college to succeed", as young people can't even find a job that allows them to attend college. That chasm between the 99% and the 1% isn't fucking shrinking...

Re:Bullshit

[msauve]

"You can only have one number one priority"

When I'm called to action, #2 is a higher priority than #1.

Re:Bullshit

[EmagGeek]

Any engineering manager will tell you that you can have an infinite number of number one priorities.

Camping in a tent behind work?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No True Scotsman would use a tent... He'd cuddle up with some sheep behind the nearest hedge and wait it out...

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[quenda]

No True Scotsman would use a tent... He'd cuddle up with some sheep

Thats a phallusy.

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[iggymanz]

you can't use a stranger's sheep, you don't know what partner's they've had

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

No True Scotsman would use a tent

A tent!?! Luxury!

When I was a lad, we lived in a cardboard box, at the side of the road . . .

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[Aighearach]

A true Scotsman is going to bring one or two into the tent to keep warm.

You thought that sound was bagpipes! lol

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[Aighearach]

That explains the Scottish national motto, Wha daur meddle wi me sheep?

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[Aighearach]

Or Nemo ovis impune lacessit in Latin.

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[PopeRatzo]

When I was a lad, we lived in a cardboard box, at the side of the road . . .

Big deal. I still live in a van, down by the river.

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[beelsebob]

You're thinking of the Welsh.

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[iggymanz]

that's funny, all the latin speaking people I know are into altar boys not sheep

Re:Camping in a tent behind work?

[HornWumpus]

He'd live in the body cavities of a decomposing cow.

Oversimplification

[hackwrench]

People are jumping past the questions as to whether the economy is worse now than in the past and why, to whether Amazon and other companies are paying what they should.

Re:Oversimplification

[Aighearach]

If true, then I applaud them for not comparing apples to oranges.
I'm highly skeptical though. Surely if a person cares about both they'll mix and muddle them all together! Intentionally.

Re:Oversimplification

[hackwrench]

If the economy is worse now, then Amazon and other companies may be more justified in paying less. The people talking about this aren't really bringing up the situation these companies find themselves in.

Lows in the 30s?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, I wish I could live where the lows were in the 30s. That's downright tropical!

Re:Lows in the 30s?

[currently_awake]

America still uses the old pre-metric measurements, that's not in Celsius. He actually meant -2C, a rather nice winter temperature if you can avoid the ice storms and black ice.

Re:Lows in the 30s?

[Fly Swatter]

The original linked article only says 'bitterly cold', which depending on the person could be anything below room temperature. The slashdot summary may have looked at the area weather forecast, and says lows INTO the 30s, which could just mean 39F. Then you have a poster reminding readers that 32F = 0C, now we hit freezing. The latest number thrown out is -2C (around 28F), now it's below freezing.

Isn't it fun how numbers change so quickly?

Re:Lows in the 30s?

[ChrisMaple]

physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686–1736) invented the mercury in glass thermometer. The lived most of his life in the Dutch Republic. Aren't you glad you asked?

Re:Lows in the 30s?

[tomhath]

0 C, aka freezing point for water.

Only under one very specific set of conditions. It's just an arbitrary starting point, same as 0 F (do you even know what that is based on?)

Is this a straman argument

[rsilvergun]

Or moving the goal post? Anyone want to weigh in on exactly where the bullshit meter this falls?

Re:Is this a straman argument

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

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?

Re:Is this a straman argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Because corporations have more power than individuals. The playing field is far from even, and the rules should reflect that.

Re:Is this a straman argument

[Sir Holo]

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.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

Take your point back 20 to 100 years. The level of wealth we enjoy today is due to productivity increases from innovation and technology. Those changes hurt people then the same as they do now yet here we are enjoying the spoils of that change as a society in whole. Why would it be beneficial to declare that no more automation should be allowed from this point forward? What if someone did that 30 years ago?

Re:Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

Corporations are people. And some corporations are very small - how large does a corporation have to be before we arbitrarily say that corporations no longer deserve due care?

Re:Is this a straman argument

[fluffernutter]

This is why it is a huge problem that the government no longer looks out for people. It is government that is supposed to find a balance.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[fluffernutter]

I laugh every time someone compares to 100 years ago. 100 years ago did didn't make sense to do anything overseas, and people didn't want to take advantage of desperate labor in oppressive countries any way because there was pride for our way of life. These says everything is done over seas. 100 years ago there was something local that opened up, today there will be nothing.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

You mean how we took advantage of Chinese labor for the past 30 years. I wonder how that's worked out for the Chinese people.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[Kohath]

Lots of people don't remember the 19th century.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[hairyfeet]

" The level of wealth we enjoy today is due to our exporting misery onto the third world for the profits of a few at the top and cheap stuff for the first world"...FTFY.

See Chinese cancer cities,African kids sucking plastic smoke scraping our e-waste, boats filled with toxic waste sunk off the coast of Somalia, etc. Really easy to "enjoy this level of wealth" when you make all the actual costs of it someone else's problem. But hey its just poor people, who cares if they get cancer and have to live in our filth...right?

Re: Is this a straman argument

[fluffernutter]

Chinese (and in fact most other) immigrants were treated poorly yes, but that pales in comparison to the effect of shipping everything to their country to do the work.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

Ever been to an inner city in the USA?

Re:Is this a straman argument

[dcw3]

Corporations are people. And some corporations are very small - how large does a corporation have to be before we arbitrarily say that corporations no longer deserve due care?

No, corporations are composed of people. And that's where a line should be drawn. If a corporation (CEO, President, or Board) wants to do something, fine...those individuals should be accountable in every sense, including doing jail time if the corporation fucks up. Care to count how many Wall St. bankers have gone to jail after the housing crisis? Corporations also wield undo influence because they can hire lobbyists that individuals simply can't afford. And, because of that, much of government doesn't do the will of the people, it does the will of their corporate benefactors. This is where SCOTUS fucked up when equated corporate "speech" as a right.

Re:Is this a straman argument

[JoeyRox]

Saying a corporation is composed of people is like saying a herd is composed of animals. The former doesn't exist without the latter. A corporation is not some inanimate entity - it's only people.

Re: Is this a straman argument

[Talderas]

I would say that there are literally only three people would could remember the 19th century if you believe infants and fetuses can remember things.

Economic fallacy

[Okian Warrior]

if you're not paid enough, find another job!

A 2nd-order economic fallacy: "There are an infinite number of jobs".

It is a derivative of the base, first order fallacy: "infinite consumption".

We will always have infinite consumption because of ever increasing population (see: Malthus) and ever increasing wants and needs. No matter how much food or shelter you have, you will always want more. It's basic human nature.

Infinite consumption demands infinite production, which necessarily requires infinite labor.

If you're not paid enough, go find another job!

It's not as if they are in limited supply...

Re:Economic fallacy

[Aighearach]

With automation we're faced with a choice: share their production, or let the poor... go away to wherever people go when all the land is owned and people aren't allowed to subsist anywhere. Wherever that is.

That is the choice, Star Trek, or a small number of people living in defended bubble cities with police that go out and make sure any surviving commoners aren't trying to build homes or farms on any of the land.

Increasing productivity is only "good" for most people if society modifies the economic formula in some way in response to efficiency gains. In Europe they're committed to simply working less hours per worker as a solution. I don't really care which formula is modified, but lets do respond somewhere in the system!

Re:Economic fallacy

[Namarrgon]

The whoosh is strong with this one.

It always amazes me how some are so astoundingly oblivious that they can post "just find another job!", as if it might never have even occurred to the person to consider something different. It invariably never seems to occur to them that, shitty as that person's job is, if they're still doing it then all the other options must be even worse.

Re:Economic fallacy

[Billly Gates]

Look I am turning quite conservative myself after studying economics. However, unlimited consumption is a fallacy. THe Great Depression proved this as economists at the time assumed people would simply lower their salaries and products would deflate and people would then buy again and all would go up and be good soon.

That didn't happen as the invisible hand amplified the problem where people and business consumed less and cut back which caused them to lay off workers who in turn cut back in a horrible vicious cycle waiting on the other to spend first.

It doesn't matter how much you value your labor back in 1931. Even if you worked for $0 no factory wanted to produce more as there were no spenders for their unsold products on shelves. Make it cheaper? Yeah, unless it is food no one would buy without a job or had one but with economic uncertainty.

Human nature responds to fear too and not just wanting to outdo the other guy. Jobs are more limited now thanks to automation and cheap outsourcing in expensive first world countries. That is a fact and is how Brexit and Donald Trump came to power. Consider ourselves lucky we have nice white collar jobs. Those who are not as bright or made poor choices are kind of screwed now as the jobs they once did are gone.

Dunfermline...Dunfermline

[Applehu Akbar]

I remember now - the birthplace of Andrew Carnegie!

Good luck

[rsilvergun]

with that. This is only going to get worse too. One of the big things companies have been waiting for is the opportunity to bring the trillions of dollars they've had socked away in tax havens back into the global market without all those pesky taxes. The US, and specifically Obama, have been blocking this. Welp, we done just f'd that up. And what are they planning to do with all that money? Mergers and Acquisitions. Lots of 'em. Expect the amount of competition to drop like a rock.

Now, in the face of all that, what you _you_ going to do? You, Mishotaki. What, specifically will you do when there's nowhere else to buy bread except Amazon and it's $10, $20 a loaf? Maybe when you finally don't have enough to eat, maybe when it's you in one of those tents you'll finally wake up. But ya know what, by then it'll be too late. You'll be too busy surviving to do anything about it. You won't even have time and money to waste posting drek to /. None of us will.

Re:Good luck

[deadwill69]

I so wish I had mod points. I wish more people would realize that jobs have become a zero sum game to the corps.

Re:Good luck

[Aighearach]

If you're going to worry about silly inanities like "what are you going to do," then in the short term you should consider: The stock market is shooting up up up in a situation where economists are predicting gloom. What does that mean? That means there is going to be a boom before the bust, baby!

Get ready, history's biggest bubble is coming! The billionaires are running the show. Find a way to dip a cup in, and then get out and keep your little pile of loot for the dark days ahead.

'No such thing as free shipping'

[Vegan Cyclist]

Came across an article (https://www.fastcompany.com/3061686/free-shipping-is-a-lie) a few weeks ago that spells out part of the problem: Amazon loses around 45% of all shipping costs. They can take part of the hit because they have so much volume, but it also has to be paid for somewhere...and how they treat their staff is an obvious area in this instance.

Full disclosure: I also work for an online shop, and we struggle with the idea of 'free shipping'. Since we deal with food, our margins are already low, plus we ship a lot of refrigerated items, so a lot need expedited delivery. In the US it's not so bad (seems like $8 will get many packages just about anywhere in 2 days), but here in Canada, shipping fees are brutal -- even shipping in our own city is a minimum of about $10 -- and no doubt most people expect free shipping as well. As the article points out: it's just not sustainable. 'Free shipping' fees are paid elsewhere down the line.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon's (and everyone else's, in the past few years) free shipping isn't free for Amazon. You should have already known that.

But the part you probably didn't know is how they brought the cost of shipping down to make it an effective loss-leader.

This is where you learn about "SmartPost". SmartPost is a FedEx shipping priority. Most people have never heard of it. It's not a public brand that FedEx makes available to everyone. Basically, how it works is that FedEx bills according to a very rough volume. Pallets, truckloads, or something else non-granular. If I had to guess, it's pallets. Now, that's not where the savings is, or where you, the end user actually gets the benefit. That part is just where Amazon (among others) gets some cost savings that amounts to enough to make "free" shipping a thing.

FedEx gets some cost savings too. They don't actually ship anything in SmartPost. They handle the freight and palletize it, then load the trailers. Then they contract out to other over-the-road trucking and logistics companies to actually deliver the freight from their docks to the "DDU" locations.

So these OTR carriers take a cut too. But some of those OTR logistics companies don't actually run fleets of their own, either. Some of them simply wrangle data exchanges, oversee sorting and cross-docking, and subcontract the actual shipping to small long-haul trucking companies (a.k.a. "linehaulers"). So the linehaulers take another cut.

But then FedEx has an arrangement with the USPS to handle the actual delivery. The "DDU" locations are actually just post offices. The palletized freight gets dropped at the post office, where the USPS employees break down the pallet, sort it onto postal routes, and deliver the freight.

This final step is where you, the public, get some kickback benefits. The payments from FedEx to the USPS are substantial. This makes your postal rate for other things stay low. Notice how the price of stamps went from $0.25 prior to 1991 up to $0.49 in 2014? And then how in April 2016, it went back down to $0.47? That's the first postage decrease since 1919. You can thank FedEx and Amazon for that. The USPS is suddenly making serious bank from SmartPost. Now, a few years in, UPS has a similar arrangement, Amazon isn't the only one doing the "free shipping" loss-leader, and the USPS is rolling in the dough. The hand-wringing and fear of a few years ago when the postal service was "in financial trouble" are gone, and for good reason.

So not only do you get stuff from Amazon with no additional shipping charges tacked onto your order, you also get lower first-class postage rates. This is the proverbial "win-win-win".

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[serviscope_minor]

but here in Canada, shipping fees are brutal -- even shipping in our own city is a minimum of about $10

That's costly. Have you looked into getting your own refrigerated van and driver?

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[guruevi]

There is no such thing as "free shipping". You can clearly see it on Amazon: an item through Amazon Prime: $11, from a 3rd party: $7 + $4 shipping. Free shipping is a marketing technique, you'd rather go with the $11 with free shipping than the $7 with $4 shipping.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[argStyopa]

That article is idiotically stupid.

"For many online shops, the cost of a free shipment is either folded into the prices for items or funded by investors. "

Funded by INVESTORS? Seriously, how could a company operate more than about 15 minutes if its capital investment was being spent on SHIPPING.

It shouldn't be news to anyone: SHIPPING ISN'T ACTUALLY EVER FREE.
It's just that shipping costs don't increase proportionally to purchase prices.
Here's how it works when they say "if you buy more than $50 shipping is free"
Buy item for $10, of which $4 is profit. Costs about $8 to ship.
Buy FIVE of them for $50, $20 is profit. Shipping is only maybe $12. So if they throw in free shipping, sure, the retailer only makes $8 profit (instead of $20) but a) their sales quintuple (which is more of a metric companies are measured by), b) more importantly, they've generated goodwill with the customer, c) possibly gained a sale because the final perceived cost-per-item for the customer isn't $18, it's $10..

TiA: I work in logistics for a large manufacturer.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[DogDude]

(which is more of a metric companies are measured by)

And there's the rub. Stupid people measure a company by sales. Unfortunately, most people are stupid, hence companies like Amazon's valuation via the stock market. Any moron can sell a $1 bill for $0.90. That's essentially what all of these "e-commerce" companies are doing. There's no value to that (or there shouldn't be).

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[ThatsMyNick]

Amazon is profitable FYI. Any moron that can sell a $1 bill for $0.90 and still profit out of it, is alright by me.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[DogDude]

They're not profitable from selling stuff, that's for sure. Never have been, and probably never will be.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[Vegan Cyclist]

We have two free pick-up locations within the city, so only have a handful of in-city deliveries a month, it's not an issue. I just gave that as an example - the rest of the province is about $12, and the next province over (Alberta) is in the $15 range, for the very same package.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[Vegan Cyclist]

It's a bit complicated - there actually is a storefront where we operate out of, and we'll soon be taking it over as well, so we'll be both brick and mortar and online. It would still be tight even if we were just a warehouse, margins for packaged food items are low, typically in the 20% range, so if a refrigerated order needs $40 to cover shipping, you can see how much needs to be sold. Also, margins shrink further as we try to be competitive with much larger chains who carry some of the same products, and carry much more volume.

We're doing pretty well all-said, but the free-shipping thing is a pretty big hurdle in our market. (You care barely find anyone in Canada who ships refrigerated items.)

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[ThatsMyNick]

No, they are and will be.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[LunaticTippy]

The marketing technique equivalence breaks down with returns. Many sellers won't refund shipping fees or pay return shipping - "free" shipping removes this obstacle to returns. I'm willing to pay quite a bit more for "free" shipping if I think a return is possible.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[LunaticTippy]

My friend who fancies himself a power investor claims that Amazon makes a ton of money from cloud services. They keep plowing this windfall into their retail infrastructure despite it being a money losing venture. Their strategy is allegedly to make it so damn big that eventually it will be profitable.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[guruevi]

Not really, in most if not all cases, you're still on the hook for paying for shipping the return and you'll have to pay a 'processing fee'.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[tehcyder]

My friend who fancies himself a power investor claims that Amazon makes a ton of money from cloud services. They keep plowing this windfall into their retail infrastructure despite it being a money losing venture. Their strategy is allegedly to make it so damn big that eventually it will be profitable.

The bigger you are, the slimmer your margins can be, and therefore the lower your prices, and therefore people choose you instead of competitors and so you keep growing.

It's not rocket science, but as long as you can keep funding the business while it's not actually making much profit, it will work in the long run, and you will have a nice monopoly.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[LunaticTippy]

I had a different experience than you did. I was a Prime member for a year and bought a lot of stuff, made a handful of returns, perhaps 6. They were all for items that were significantly not as advertised, broke within weeks, or DOA. In every single instance I was given a return shipping label gratis and a full refund upon receipt of the item. They offer to ship a label for $1 or let me print it myself no charge.

I was so pleased with the return experience it was difficult to keep my resolution to cancel my prime membership after the year was up. I justified it by intending to reduce how much stuff I buy. Having the membership tilts the decision making for me towards "buy it" whereas having to consolidate items to get free shipping or coughing up the occasional shipping fee tilts it away from "buy it."

I've had awful return experiences with other online merchants, especially the dodgy chinese ones.

Re:'No such thing as free shipping'

[LunaticTippy]

It's not rocket science, but as long as you can keep funding the business while it's not actually making much profit, it will work in the long run, and you will have a nice monopoly.

They are well on their way. Amusingly Walmart is frantically trying to play catchup with Amazon. It is funny to see them be the scrappy pint size underdog.

Re:POTUS Trump will MAGA

[Applehu Akbar]

"POTUS Trump will fix this."

By not letting Amazon Scotland build a warehouse near any of his golf courses?

Re:POTUS Trump will MAGA

[Falos]

They already weed. They intentionally squeeze everything out of their fodder, because there's plenty more desperate proles lined up outside. Unreasonable demands and conditions are optimal for this scenario, ignore turnover. The margin is happy.

Minimum wage is even more fragile. Try to pressure Amazon into paying a livable salary and they'll just proportionately shift towards automation. Or find a country of even more desperate peasants. Bleeding GDP doesn't matter, the margin is happy.

Re:poor workers?

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[smooth wombat]

The highest minimum wage in Scotland is 7.20/hour is you are 25 or over, whereas the Living Wage is 8.25/hour.

For the sake of argument let's say these folks are being paid the Living Wage. 8.25 X 60 = 495. If you get paid every other week that is 990 gross pay.

Let's assume these people are working full-time so 26 paychecks X 990 = 25,740. Based on this tax rate guide that means they pay a 20% tax on their wages. However, they get the first 10,600 as a personal allowance. So, 20% of 15,140 (25,740-10,600) = 3,028. Subtracting everything out leaves 12,112. Add in the 10,600 and you get 22,712 to live on (assuming my math is correct).

All of the above is assuming Amazon uses the highest possible minimum wage rate. If they use the lower value of 7.20 then the take home pay gets even smaller. Which now brings us to conclusion: either the prices for a flat in Scotland are exceptionally low, as is everything else, or trying to live on a minimum wage in Scotland is nowhere near a comfortable living. At 500/month, rent will consume 26.4% of your earnings.

Once you start adding in food, clothes, any form of entertainment (alcohol most likely), not to mention electricity, heating (if separate from electricity), your monthly phone bill, transportation costs and so on, you're not really left with much to be considered comfortable.

Re:POTUS Trump will MAGA

[unixisc]

Trump's policies won't touch Scotland. He can't even get rid of the windmills that are an eyesore from his golf course(s).

Re: If you are not paid enough find another job???

[Anonymous Coward]

Those poor guys camping in the woods could be actually forced to take the job OR lose unemployment benefits.

Not an easy choice to make ....

At an Amazon warehouse it's fun, fun, fun!

[colinwb]

From the first linked article:
... Criticism continues from some quarters about working practices, but Amazon general manager Paul Ashraf insists that the company cares about its staff -- and is disappointed by the perception some people have of the business.
"I think from my point of view we're a global brand, so that brings headlines in relation to what people think about Amazon and this place," he told The Courier. "From my point of view I try to focus on what's within my control. I focus very heavily, especially in peak times, on associate experience. ... It's hard work at this time of year, of course it is. ... We just focus on customer obsession, making sure we deliver the customer promises. Whatever we've promised a customer in terms of what's going to be delivered, we make sure that it is processed and shipped on time.

While we're doing that, we make sure we keep people here safe, so it's all about safety first, and make sure that from an associate experience point of view we try and have as much fun as possible. We had DJs on every floor on Black Friday, we had tombolas, we had raffles that people get free entry into -- it's all about keeping associates safe and having fun."
...

Quit then!

[p51d007]

If the conditions are that bad, QUIT, go somewhere else! "But there isn't anything else"...and that's Amazon's fault?

Re:Quit then!

[Barlo_Mung_42]

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.

Bonus Army

[PopeRatzo]

In late-stage capitalism, living indoors is optional for workers.

"They live in tents because they've chosen to live in tents. Now pass me some more frog legs and foie gras."

CEOs and gangster capitalists are going to be so shocked when they see mobs building guillotines outside their office windows. The recent elections - Brexit and Der Trumpen - have moved us toward that day. What will voters who said, "Fuck it, I'm voting for Trump to burn the whole motherfucker down", say when Trump doesn't improve their lot (like the 1100 Carrier workers whose jobs are going to Mexico despite Trump's much-trumpeted "deal")? Hell, they're going to skip right to, "Let's burn this motherfucker down ourselves."

Re:Bonus Army

[mspohr]

I wonder how long it will take the ignorant fools who voted for Trump to figure out that he is screwing them, too.
Could get interesting if they decide to go all agro.

Re:Bonus Army

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I wonder how long it will take the ignorant fools who voted for Trump to figure out that he is screwing them, too.

The smarter ones - the ones who wear shoes and occasionally visit a dentist - have already figured it out.

Just wait a year, then they'll really be screaming. We're in for epic levels of corruption, nepotism, malfeasance, dismantling of the social safety nets...

Re:Bonus Army

[Anonymous Coward]

My prediction is the opposite. We're already in a post-fact world; they'll dig in their heels deeper to avoid cognitive dissonance. Anything Trump does will be written off as "Lugenpresse". If he has some trouble, complaining about immigrants will cover it nicely. If he starts up a new war, they'll be in a screaming blood-frenzy.

Re:Bonus Army

[HornWumpus]

in for?

Have you been asleep for the last 20+ years?

Re:Bonus Army

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Have you been asleep for the last 20+ years?

No, not at all. Yeah, there's been a ton of corruption in the last 20 years, but you've not seen anything yet, not like we're going to see. Let's take the last 8 years for example...

Did Obama's daughters sit in on meetings with world leaders like Ivanka Trump has? Nope.
Did Obama appoint close family members to positions of power on his staff? Nope.
Did Obama pimp his business holdings out to world leaders the way Trump already has with his hotels? Nope.
Did Obama install an endless succession of billionaires and Goldman Sachs executives into his cabinet positions? Nope.

Seriously, whatever corruption has gone on on the last 20 years is going to look like child's play compared with what's to come.

Re:Bonus Army

[HornWumpus]

Bill Clinton did many of the things your list. Only #3 is an exception. Because Bill never held an honest job in his life and had no holdings.

Re:Bonus Army

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Bill Clinton did many of the things your list. Only #3 is an exception. Because Bill never held an honest job in his life and had no holdings.

Well if we're going to travel back in time, perhaps you should study up on George Bush and Dick Cheney, the masters of monetizing the White House. Hell, Cheney started a war and invaded a country to make some cash for Halliburton. And when he wasn't doing that he was drunkenly shooting his friends in the face.

Re:Bonus Army

[HornWumpus]

They did a good job of restarting the sunni/shia wars. Too bad Obama didn't understand that we wanted them stalemated, not Iran winning.

Re:Bonus Army

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

They did a good job of restarting the sunni/shia wars. Too bad Obama didn't understand that we wanted them stalemated, not Iran winning.

Great job of avoiding discussing the corruption that Bush & Cheney excelled at.

But like I said, standby for epic levels of corruption by the Trump Crime Family. You ain't seen nothin' yet. We'll see what the tally is this time next year.

Re:Bonus Army

[HornWumpus]

With a little luck, we'll also get a real investigation into the Clinton corruption.

That's the good thing about power switches. The democrats had their time to look at all you allege. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm just hoping whatever dirt Bill had, that kept him out of real trouble the first time, has expired.

Re:Bonus Army

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I hope they all burn in hell forever, like a quantum candle fed by the limitless energy of the universe.

Re:Bonus Army

[HornWumpus]

My optimistic but plausible hope is that Trump doesn't really care about the R power structure, threats to which have kept anything like Justice off the Clintons.

I'm fine with the Clintons dumping their dirt as well. That is the plan. Along with further counter dumps and at least three dead political dynasties (Bush, Clinton and Kennedy). Hillary wears orange though.

ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists.

[gravewax]

I hate Amazon, But this article is absolute bullshit. They weren't camping behind their because they were destitute and didn't receive a living wage, they did it because it was more cost effective and convenient.

Re:ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists.

[serviscope_minor]

It's always more cost effective to live rent-free on a piece of spare land than it is to own or rent some reasonable accomodation.

Re:ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists.

[Cyberax]

Amazon is not permatemping. Most of warehouse associates are permanent full-time positions with some growth possibilities. Temps are hired for the peak season to handle the excess demand and are generally scaled back after that.

Re:ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists.

[gravewax]

yes it is. I have done exactly what they were doing for around 6 months once. For exactly the same reasons too. saving $70 a week on transport allowed me to pocket that money instead of wasting it on fuel while I was working at an orchard after university. The pay was decent but every dollar counted and I happily took the discomfort and cold of a tent to keep those extra dollars myself.

And how would one do that?

[Sycraft-fu]

Near as I know, there is no such thing as "the workers' salary augmentation fund." So where does one send money? You can't just give it to Amazon, the fact aside that they aren't set up to just take money without offering goods/services in return, they wouldn't funnel it to the warehouse workers. So where does one send money?

Or are you just making a statement to try and make people feel bad, as though they should do something, but providing a bogus solution?

Amazon is ...

[CaptainDork]

... CEOs and shareholders who want instant asymptotic revenue growth.

Morals, ethics, decency, and humanity are for non-profits.

In the US, SCOTUS says Amazon is a person.

They didn't specify what kind.

Really badly written article

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Really badly written article

[Roadstar]

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.

It must be F. I wouldn't want to be sleeping in a tent if if were low 30's in C as I'd be too busy sweating to get any sleep at all. For example here in Finland the official heat threshold is 25 C and warmer countries have the limit a few degrees higher. 30 whatever is still really warm in C. Seems like low 30's in F are around 0 C and decent camping gear should have no problem with that like you mentioned.

Re:Really badly written article

[SuperKendall]

did your job pay £7.35 an hour when you chose to sleep under your desk though?

No but Ive made much less than that before, and slept in my car to be closer to work at the time (worked at a golf course so you had to be there quite early).

I really doubt the reason was any different as the guy said "cheaper and easier" - it's really great to wake up and walk right into work. It means you get more sleep (LOTS more sleep) which I place more value on than almost anything. And it is cheaper, when I was doing it I liked not having to buy as much gas.

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[ghoul]

26.5% of salary as rent and you are complaining? Try living in the Bay area. Here is a sample Budget

$125000 a year for a mid level person with a family.
=$10500 a month Gross
=$9500 a month after Social security and Medicare
=$8800 a month after federal taxes
=$8000 a month after California taxes and SDi
=$7000 a month after Health Insurance premiums for a family of 4
=$6000 a month after 401K (retirement contribution as there are no pensions)
=$6000 a month take home
=$3000 a month after rent (Rent for a crappy 2 Bedroom apt is $3000 and can go all the way upto $6000 in silicon valley)
=$2500 a month after utilities (no the 3000 a month does not include utilities or renters insurance)
=$2000 a month after Car payments,Insurance and Gas
Now family of 4 eating 3 times a day for 30 days a month = 360 meals. Assuming a $5 per person/meal =$1800
=$200 a month after food
With that $200 you have to buy school supplies, car repairs, any other emergency.
Pretty much the only entertainment you can afford is TV and a little eating out once in a while.
No savings for childrens college
No savings for replacing car when it breaks down so next car will also have to be on loan
No savings for saving a downpayment to actually buy a house
No savings for if you lose your job. Plus if you are working on a visa you wont get unemployment even though you pay into Social Security.
No scope for signing up children to extra classes so if your public school is messing up they are screwed as you cant pay for college. Their only hope is scholarships
No scope for getting a divorce if your marriage is not working out as you cannot afford to pay alimony, child support and rent on 2 places.

Do note 50% of take home goes to rent and another 10% to utilities so the basic cost of keeping a roof over your head is 60% of take home.

Has nothing to do with livable wage

[WolfgangVL]

And everything to do with people being a little HARDER than your default little bitch tech worker.

Subtract the family, I would sleep in a tent until I could afford the van for decent pay. Double if I was unemployed before I was hired on.

Businesses hiring temp workers for low wage would do well to offer campgrounds.

Starving artists.

[Ostracus]

Struggling writers found sleeping In tents behind Random House HQ

So, think anyone will notice the difference?

Re:All hail our corporate overlords

[currently_awake]

Having company housing would make more sense. Small apartments are cheap to build and run and they could charge just under the going (full size) rates.

Re:All hail our corporate overlords

[currently_awake]

If there is a shortage of affordable apartments, it's probably city hall to blame. They control(limit) the supply. If nothing else they could allow basement suites or build low rent apartments for the poor.

Cold Nights?

[iCEBaLM]

Despite Scotland's "bitterly cold winter nights" -- with lows in the 30s

As a Canadian, that's cute.

Re: "Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little

[sonamchauhan]

Half of 'a lot' is still 'a lot'. But 'incentive to move' is one thing, its the 'capacity to move' thats vaporising. As orgs get larger and larger, the base of the pyramid gets wider. If you were born on the wrong side of the tracks, this means fewer bridges to the prosperous side of town. Making the glitzy side glitzier does nothing except cement dissatisfaction.

Similar in the US

[RubberDogBone]

There were already similar stories in the US where Amazon workers lived in camper RVs and travelled from warehouse to warehouse as work was needed. So it does happen here.

Beyond that, I used to work in an office park with small number of fulfillment warehouses. During a health kick phase of my life, I used to spend an hour a day walking the office park in loops. It was reasonably safe and let me de-stress from work. It was during these walks when I happened to look into the adjacent woods you normally could not see from within the office park or the road and realized there were numerous tents set up, some carefully camouflaged.

This wasn't even Amazon but a much smaller fulfillment operation, mainly for Brother products. And it was 8 years ago.

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[RubberDogBone]

Have you considered moving? $125K for a job doesn't sound THAT high, and surely you can make that in other cities where the cost of living is either lower or you could get a mansion for that much cost.

Hell, you could even take an income hit and still end up with more left over at the end of the month.

Also noting, $125K a year is not very much to raise a family. If both parents work, I would expect closer to $200K even in my area, where it is a LOT cheaper to live that SF.

Re:Obvious solution

[RubberDogBone]

1) Eliminate minimum wage and allow the market to set the rate through competition. Minimum wage sets a nationwide standard of how little a person in a position like this is worth.

MANY employers feel employees are a burden they wish they could do without and feel like paying them even minimums is too much. They'd LOVE to pay zero, maybe toss them a sandwich for pay. If the law allowed it, they would do it! Nevermind if people can survive off that. There are always tons of applicants for every job so they are disposable people.

Re:Obvious solution

[serviscope_minor]

Remember, no one actually forced these workers to accept a salary of minimum wage

Yeah no one's forcing the workers to not starve to death on the streets. It's their choice.

Nothing funny on the entire Amazon?

[shanen]

Just a meta-comment on a couple of points.

Searched for funny comments. Not quite nothing, but the few that were moderated funny were barely.

Searched for "evil", but only referenced in a sig.

Searched the insightful comments. Not.

Searched for references to any of the books I've read about Amazon. Nothing.

Several hundred comments. The article is probably about to expire. Wanted to find some part of the discussion that was worth participating in. Failed.

Oh well. Capsule summary. I stopped doing business with Amazon many years ago because I felt they were abusing my privacy and my personal information. (Also no visible references to those two terms as of this writing.) Just went through a 16-month episode of Amazon spamming that was only stopped (if it has been stopped) by appeal to jeff@ himself. Yet in conclusion, I don't really blame Amazon for becoming evil. That's just the rules of the business game these decades. If a company fails to become sufficiently evil, then it gets destroyed like roadkill. (I think NetScape, Sun, Palm, and Nokia are examples of such destruction.)

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[smooth wombat]

Thank you. I wasn't sure about the insurance part. I thought the employer was the one who paid that, and I completely missed the pension portion.

Adding those in makes it even worse.

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[amacide]

$125K for a job doesn't sound THAT high.

Maybe not... yet I'm certain there's billions of people who would disagree with you..........

Warehouse housing available, fire code optional

[guruevi]

This is not some 3rd world country, they make a livable wage or at least have the option of doing so, if not, the government will give it to them. Some people choose to live in a warehouse that has no stairways, fire escape or sprinklers. Some live in cars and tents, even in the middle of winter, it is very rare that across someone's life someone would be forced to do so in these countries, there are enough social nets and backups and aid available. I'm not going to feel sorry if they burn or freeze to death unless the government ordered them in there.

People in the US and EU/UK alike have the opportunity to have a minimum wage which affords you a small house and usually even your own transportation, there are enough work places begging for low cost labor.

You should read "I was a Warehouse Wage Slave"

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read "I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave".

Really tells you what it is!

With regard to the discussion of Walmart vs Amazon vs Whatever: Funny story there. I go to Walmart for a toy, it's $10. Same toy at Target is $15. Same exact toy, right down to the barcode, is $20 at Toys R Us. So you'd think if I spent more money, the employees would be better paid, and I'd get better service. That is not the case! Employees are treated equally poorly, everyone makes the minimum wage, google Target and see how toxic a work environment that place is, and for paying more money I'm treated worse! Try it yourself! Returns at Toys R Us took 2 stores, dealing with half a dozen rather rude people, taking to the manager at both stores, government issued photo ID, the original credit card, quoting their return policy to them, which I had to bring with me, etc. I was particularly enamored of their technique for printing their return policy behind their service desk where only employees could go in a flyspeck font that required better than 20/20 vision to read, and then pointing at it. I came damn close to filing a claim in small claims court, all for a $20 game case that they said I could return and turned out to be the wrong size. Spent more on gas & time returning it that it was worth, but damn they pissed me off.

Contrast all that with Walmart where I'm in and out in 10 seconds. There's nothing to it. No ID, no nothing. Even lacking a receipt it's not a problem.

I've seen a number of companies, including Toys R Us & OfficeMax playing the free shipping game. They offer this great deal. It's $49, free shipping if the order is over $50, so you add in some junk. Then the original great deal is canceled and you're stuck with the junk you bought to get the free shipping, which is often no longer free. Returns? See above. It's bait and switch. It ought to be illegal! But nothing ever seems to happen. At least OfficeMax didn't charge me for shipping and accepted the return gracefully at a local store. Toys R Us? Never again!

Food, I had a local grocery store chain that charged me double unless I had their "loyalty" card. I kept forgetting it, so I photocopied the bar code. That was fine for years. Then one day, nope, photocopy is no good anymore, they sent me out for the original from my car; Me quite visibly sick (I had gone there for meds), with three kids in tow, the oldest of which was in kindergarten, the youngest of which was almost a year old, out into their unplowed parking lot with more than 4 inches of snow on the ground for the original loyalty card. You know, even WITH the loyalty card, I was still paying $5 for turkey hot dogs at the grocery store vs $2 at Walmart. (It was worse without the card.)

I'm the one paying my hardearned money here, and it ain't that easy to earn in the computer biz once you're over 40. How much crap do you expect me to put up with to make some rich bastard richer so I can feel good about a different group of people being exploited!

It's not like I can pick a company that treats their workers better when they're all so shitty!

Nice straw man

[rsilvergun]

ya got there. Be a shame if a stray bit 'o truth caught it fire and burned it down...

This has nothing to do with what Amazon allows or doesn't allow. They're not paying their employees enough to afford an apartment. Simple as that. Nobody lives in a tent by choice. You didn't either. If you were better paid you'd have bought an apartment. Just because you don't feel like you were taken advantage of doesn't mean you weren't.

Oh, and these are warehouse workers. They make a hell of a lot less than you did working for Silicon Valley. They're not going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with their mighty Amazon warehouse wages. Unless somebody comes along and helps them they'll spend the rest of their lives there. And they'll be joined by more workers. We'll have tent cities in America. Let that sink in.

Great Lakes Paperclip Company

[eliphalet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's the funny thing, any sleeping bag works

[SuperKendall]

That is amusing but here's the thing - even a crappy $14 sleeping bag from Amazon is rated "32-60 degrees F", and the article said it was "in the 30's" so several degrees warmer than the lowest rating. That's why I don't think "bitter cold" is the right term because even a light sleeping bag easily keeps you warm at 30+F.

Factual Accuracy?

[ElizabethGreene]

I live in the southeastern US. The Amazon warehouse 6 miles from my home starting pay is 160% of the minimum wage, and family members who work there have rapidly reached 200% of the minimum. Why is there such a discrepancy here?

TENTS?!

[Stubbyfingers]

Obviously Amazon is paying them too much.

They get tents! Wow! They're supposed to dutifully freeze or starve to death after the Christmas Rush like good Donald Trump Voting Americans want them to.

Where I come from, "bitterly cold" means

[PJ6]

you could get frostbite in less than 30 minutes.

That's like 10F with storm-force winds, or around -15F in calm weather.

Frostbite isn't even possible over 28F, what kind of weirdo calls 30F "bitterly cold"?

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[kaatochacha]

Sounds pretty good to me...

The cost

[myid]

The Courier article states,

“We pay competitive wages — all permanent and temporary Amazon associates start on £7.35 an hour or above regardless of age and £11 an hour and above for overtime.”

1 British pound = $1.27. So the pay rates are $9.33 straight time, and $13.97 overtime.

If over 40 hours/week is considered overtime,
then 60 hours of work there is 40 hours straight time + 20 hours overtime,
and the pay is (40 * $9.33) + (20 * $13.97) = $373.20 + $279.40 = $652.60.

If "The fares the company charge for transport swallow up a lot of the weekly wage" then the shuttle service must be expensive. I wonder how far away from work the employees live. Maybe the employees who don't own a car can commute with employees who do own one, or take public transportation.

Re:All hail our corporate overlords

[kaatochacha]

there's a really nice company town in California, I can't remember exactly where, near a dam. Small little cabins in the middle of nowhere in the forest. Of course, they're not forced to buy food at the company exchange, but the whole place is subsidized by the electric company.

Re:Obvious solution

[LostMyBeaver]

This is absolutely true. And to be fair, in many jobs, the employees are a necessary evil. I would imagine in warehousing, Amazon is looking forward to automating away more and more of the jobs as they appear to be working very hard to do.

The problem is, there are social welfare systems in place in most western countries that make it more profitable to stay at home then to pay less than the current minimum wages. If the cost of working itself (transportation, lunch, etc...) exceeds the wages, there's no point going instead of just scraping buy.

The result is, employers have to offer more to get access to the necessary evil. When minimum wage exists, they already know what to pay them. I live in a country with no minimum wage. I haven't seen a native homeless person in years... and I look sometimes. And a dual income family from McDonalds can justify a good standard of living.

Re: It says they get paid minimum wage

[tehcyder]

50% of take home goes to rent

Sounds like the good old Invisible Hand isn't working too well there.