4 ms·

I worked for an Amazon fulfilment centre in Scotland, I don't want to say too much on the matter, as it'd be quite negative. It's suffice to say, this does not

• threatofrain 10y ago
  Doesn't that imply that Scotland's inadequate legal and social structures leave them to <hope> that Amazon behaves in a morally generous way? Let's say that Amazon starts paying their workers more. Should the workers of Scotland then go to sleep, comfortable underneath the blanket of Amazon's incidental moral generosity? Shouldn't the workers of Scotland, if they have the ear of their fellow countrymen, move to change the legal and social structure in which Amazon is only one of many members? What about the company that behaves cruely but isn't big enough to reach the news like Amazon does? This is why I don't have faith in moral narratives.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    I think you intended this comment as snark, but the irony of it is that Scotland is today part of the UK, but was almost --- and will likely be within the next few years, as a result of Brexit --- an independent country precisely because its citizens don't agree with the policies set in England on its behalf. Scotland is quite a bit more liberal than the rest of the UK; it does indeed see more of its future in the social democracies of northern Europe.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • laingc 10y ago
      I don't think it's unnecessarily pedantic to ask people to refrain from using the word "liberal" in the American sense when referring to countries in which the original sense of the word is retained. When it comes to regulation of the labour market, Scotland is decidedly less liberal than England.
      • tptacek 10y ago
        It's not my impression that this is the case. http://www.snp.org/pb_employment http://www.snp.org/pb_employment
        • laingc 10y ago
          So, we're currently talking at cross purposes, and I'm not convinced that I'm really adding much to this discussion by furthering it. However, to clear up any confusion between us, if your point is that Scotland favours a more heavily regulated labour market then you are both correct and in agreement with me. My point was simply that this is an illiberal position. Liberal only means "economically statist" in America. Everywhere else in the world it still means classically liberal - i.e. in favour of free markets. Again, I don't think I'm making this discussion any better by pointing this out, so I'm going to leave it there.
        • pjc50 10y ago
          Parent means "liberal" in the JS Mill / Adam Smith (whose statue is in the middle of Edinburgh) sense, rather than whatever it means these days in the US context.
    • lkrubner 10y ago
      laingc is making the reasonable point that in most of the world the word "liberal" means "brutally laissez faire". If you are talking about Scotland, then why not use the word "liberal" as it is understood in Scotland? As an example, a Scot would never say "The government increased the minimum wage today, that was very liberal of them." It's my hope that people in the USA will eventually go back to using the word "liberal" in the classic sense. But then, I keep hoping people in the USA will adopt the metric system, and I am always disappointed.
    • threatofrain 10y ago
      No I don't mean for my comment to deliver emotional impact or to be carried through vehicles of sarcasm or irony. And whether Scotland becomes independent, my point remains -- you can ask why Amazon pays minimum wage, or you can ask why minimum wage is so low. Depending on Amazon to be moral is as inadequate a solution as hoping for noblesse oblige. It's more interesting to discuss the <mechanics> of why Amazon class entities will pay higher wages. Or people can morally shame <one> Amazon event, just like people who disagreed with Peter Thiel's influence in the sex tape case instinctually shame <one> Peter Thiel event. Whether you're asking for Amazon or Peter Thiel to "do the right thing", you're asking for noblesse oblige. This kind of moral shaming does not scale, it depends on flash outrage, and companies that play the long game in media will beat this kind of ad-hoc moral shaming. I also wanted to discuss not merely government structure, but also social structure, to imply that multiple parties need to fail for classes of workers to be exploited. The net of your society is the reason why Amazon is permitted to exploit an individual, and that includes churches, advocacy organizations, unions, etc. I thought that discussion of both hard and soft structures is the better way to go, or we can hope that outrage continues to shows up at the right time and the right place.
      • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        No, we can ask why any profitable large corporation thinks its ok to pay starvation wages to their workers. Its not right; they have the money to pay more; they don't. I'm asking why.
        • threatofrain 10y ago
          Is it right for you to have drinking water delivered through modern technologies and systems? Is that your moral right? Should we discuss whether you have the moral right to water, or should we discuss the formal plans to erect an infrastructure of water? The latter doesn't require you to do any serious moral labor (deliberation and consensus work). You need only want. Do we both want something? Then we already have a basis for discussion. The question of whether you want workers to be paid more is far easier to answer than the question of whether moral consensus on workers wages can be achieved in your lifespan. Also, how many moral frameworks for achieving moral consensus are you aware of? There are certainly frameworks for achieving empirical consensus on policy effectiveness.