[uselesstech]

If that were the case, you would think that Amazon would address the issues raised my employees instead of firing them.

By firing them, they discourage others from coming forward so it’s not really possible to get a good picture of the situation.

[toasterlovin]

Perhaps there's more to the story and we on the outside are in a really poor position to actually know what's going on?

[x86_64Ubuntu]

So we are supposed to sit here and act like Amazon doesn't have a notorious rep in the street for how it treats it's employees, even it's software devs? And we are supposed to act like the US in general doesn't have a strong anti-labor tilt since Reagan in the 80s?

You are begging the reader to throw out any knowledge of the company and the country it's in so that they can arrive to a conclusion of "We don't have all the facts!!!!". That's not going to be very effective.

[toasterlovin]

A default position against Amazon ignores some important considerations, in my opinion:

1. News outlets have a huge incentive to report on anti-Amazon facts, but little to no incentive to report on pro-Amazon facts. "Megacorp is imperfect, but mostly okay" is not a headline that generates clicks.

2. Amazon has a huge incentive to ensure that they comply with the law. Every labor lawyer in the country wants to take them to court and extract a settlement. And there are plenty of politicians that would love to make their career by bringing Amazon to heel.

[uoaei]

> News outlets have a huge incentive to report on anti-Amazon facts

You are aware that Bezos owns one of the world's most influential news organizations, right?

Also, no, they don't. There's more money in sponsored puff pieces about how Amazon is tackling this or that recent controversy.

[klyrs]

I dunno about you but my "default position" on Amazon fled circa y2k. Since then I've met numerous amazon employees and heard their stories, I've observed amazon/bezos's behavior in the public sphere, etc. Now my opinion on amazon is not "default" but "informed."

Your implication that the media is an anti-amazon conspiracy is absurd. The truth about bad actors is not kind to them. That doesn't turn truthtelling into a conspiracy. I seem to remember some positive reporting on Amazon recently, when they promised higher wages and more PPE for warehouse employees -- how does that fit into a conspiracy?

[three_seagrass]

By that logic, wouldn't Vice President Tim Bray then be positioned to know more of that hypothetically hidden story?

[jhwang5]

He worked at AWS, not retail

[three_seagrass]

Seems like he is privy to more than just AWS as a vice president, no? FTA:

>At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people.

[uoaei]

We don't have all the context but it's safe to say we have about 80% of it.

End this solipsistic tripe. Or else drive down to your nearest fulfillment center and start interviewing folks.

[toasterlovin]

I have contact with the warehousing industry. Most workers are neither making $15/hr nor receiving any sort of benefits.

[three_seagrass]

Yep, it's the Streisand effect that Tim Bray talks about in the article.

[Aunche]

How many activists are really get fired? It sounds like there are hundreds of protestors, but only a few people got fired. Should protesting making you immune to being fired?