6 ms·

Amazon issues rare public response to Bernie Sanders

31 points by spking 8y ago

cliffordthedog 8y ago
oooh, he's got them scared. I guess this is because of his proposal to tax companies 100% of an welfare benefits their workers get? Love that idea BTW. > While Senator Sanders plays politics god forbid a US senator plays politics. This from the company that launched a massive and blatant astroturfing campaign last week. > In addition to highly competitive wages and a climate controlled, safe workplace Bet a signed dollar they stuck climate controlled in because of the old stories about them getting ambulances to wait outside instead of installing AC. I'll believe the employees. Lets hear what they have to say, anonymously and candidly.
RobLach 8y ago
Heh, I’m sure an official guided tour by Amazon of a fulfillment center will be as accurate and reassuring as an official guided tour of a supermarket by the North Korean travel ministry.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> Instead, Senator Sanders continues to spread misleading statements about pay and benefits. Amazon is proud to have created over 130,000 new jobs last year alone. In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. We encourage anyone to compare our pay and benefits to other retailers. It's not $15/hour if you have to include non-hourly wage compensation. It's below $15/hour. And that only applies to full time associates. Alas, Amazon will put up more than a fight than Disney did [1]. Good practice for the next corporate targets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-minimum-wage-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-min... (Walt Disney World Workers Reach Deal for $15 Minimum Wage by 2021)
- mmt 8y ago
  > that only applies to full time associates. This is what immediately caught my eye when reading Amazon's response. I was under the impression that their FCs are primarily staffed by contractors. If "associate" is just corporatespeak for employee, then that assertion (most of Amazon's rebuttal, really) could be remarkably insignificant, even if technically accurate.
viburnum 8y ago
Bernie is wrong, it's not up to employers to provide a guaranteed decent standard of living, that job can only be done by society.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  Disagree entirely. If a company is paying so little that the government has to step in and give them extra money just so they can pay the rent and eat, then that effectively means my tax dollars are subsidizing their wage. This attitude allows Amazon to pay less than a living wage. The winner of SNAP isn't the person receiving SNAP, it's the person's employer which is allowed to pay their employees less. My tax dollars aren't subsidizing the employee, they're subsidizing Amazon.
  - chibg10 8y ago
    This is misguided. Your tax dollars aren't subsidizing Amazon -- they're subsidizing everyone who pays Amazon's wages or lower. If the market value of labor has fallen below the threshold needed to live an acceptable (as judged by society) lifestyle, the burden of making up the difference should fall on society -- not arbitrarily on the companies which happen to do business in industries whose jobs require essentially no skills to perform. Hypothetically speaking, if Google automated away 50M tedious and repetitive "white collar" jobs and those 50M workers are now competing for warehouse jobs, why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage while Google pays nothing for putting 50M workers out on the street? The burden of caring for society's poor must fall on society. As it was society's technological innovation and policy decisions (i.e. globalization of labor markets) that has led to the destruction of unskilled labor's market value.
    - snarfybarfy 8y ago
wcarron 8y ago
> Bottom line: the taxpayers of this country should not have to subsidize employees at a company owned by Mr. Bezos who is worth $155 billion. That is absurd," Sanders said in the statement. Agreed. This isn't an Amazon only problem, but they are certainly egregious perpetrators of trying to play cities and states off each other for tax breaks and other benefits at taxpayer expense. Let's also not forget the whole "peeing in bottles out of fear" fiasco: https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-warehouse-workers-in-uk-peed-in-bottles-over-fears-of-being-punished-for-taking-a-break-amzn-id8258070.html https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-...
- bko 8y ago
  I won't comment on Amazon shopping around for tax breaks, but I would take issue with idea that welfare payments "subsidize" Amazon. The whole idea that public assistance subsidizes employers is based on the false assumption that people only require to get paid what they "need" and therefore accept lower wages because they don't need as much due to government aid. I think a more plausible explanation is that employers pay employees based on productivity and supply of employees with that skill set. If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. And if there is an oversupply of employees with those skill levels, then they can choose from the pool based on the market rate. This is pretty standard economic theory. Another way you can think about it is that Amazon is helping states and federal government by paying these employees, otherwise the welfare payments would be higher.
  - beojan 8y ago
    > If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. If a company needs 10 employees, then it will hire 10 employees at whatever cost, or stop operating. If it can only hire those employees at $100 an hour, then it will have to set its prices so that it makes at least $100 / employee-hour. And if it can't, it will operate at a loss or stop operating.
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
siruncledrew 8y ago
Amazon is trying their darnedest to sweep this under the rug before it gets bigger than it already is. They just paid a bunch of people to Tweet nice things about worker conditions, now they issue a rare public response.
smallgovt 8y ago
We should stop vilifying companies that provide unsustainable wages. Providing above market wages erodes your competitive advantage. Systematically eroding your competitive advantage will kill your company. It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism. In so doing, it will level the playing field so companies no longer have to choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'increasing existential risk'. 'Public shaming' should be used an agent for change -- not to satiate some inner desire for justice. In this case, we can't expect these companies to change on their own accord regardless of the shaming. So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I'm okay with killing companies if they're not providing a living wage. This is the polite method (public shaming) to affect change. > So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company. Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    My point is you're not killing the company. These companies are alive and well. You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just not going to work. It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      See my sibling comment where they shamed Disney into paying $15/hour. This action is required until enough representatives are elected to office who can fix public policy. Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer pockets and into Amazon's pocket.
      - 8y ago
joejerryronnie 8y ago
It sounds like Bernie is employing Trumpian twitter tactics to further his agenda - playing to the lowest common denominator, pushing an "us vs them" narrative, etc. I would just hope everyone who has been critical of Trump for these techniques is equally critical of Sanders.
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  It's not the tactics that people are critical of.
splatzone 8y ago
I hope Sanders' survey gets an honest response and Amazon don't try any dirty tricks. This site deserves to be spread about more: https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home
RobLach 8y ago
There’s a clever market force here in forcing a business to cover the costs of a government program if a company’s employees use it; it’ll be in the best interest of the company to then provide just enough wages and internal services to allow their employees to live a healthy life while a less efficient state run program pulls back on its necessity. For example: Amazon could end up paying their employees an extra $3/hour while eliminating the state costing taxpayers $6/hour equivalent of benefits run through layers of bureaucracy. The difference is that instead of the entire tax base holding the bill, it would be the customers of Amazon.
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  > provide just enough wages and internal services to allow their employees to live a healthy life The fact that this is a novel concept is terrifying.

31 points by spking 8y ago

oooh, he's got them scared. I guess this is because of his proposal to tax companies 100% of an welfare benefits their workers get? Love that idea BTW. > While Senator Sanders plays politics god forbid a US senator plays politics. This from the company that launched a massive and blatant astroturfing campaign last week. > In addition to highly competitive wages and a climate controlled, safe workplace Bet a signed dollar they stuck climate controlled in because of the old stories about them getting ambulances to wait outside instead of installing AC. I'll believe the employees. Lets hear what they have to say, anonymously and candidly.

RobLach 8y ago

Heh, I’m sure an official guided tour by Amazon of a fulfillment center will be as accurate and reassuring as an official guided tour of a supermarket by the North Korean travel ministry.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> Instead, Senator Sanders continues to spread misleading statements about pay and benefits. Amazon is proud to have created over 130,000 new jobs last year alone. In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. We encourage anyone to compare our pay and benefits to other retailers. It's not $15/hour if you have to include non-hourly wage compensation. It's below $15/hour. And that only applies to full time associates. Alas, Amazon will put up more than a fight than Disney did [1]. Good practice for the next corporate targets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-minimum-wage-union.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-min... (Walt Disney World Workers Reach Deal for $15 Minimum Wage by 2021)

mmt 8y ago
> that only applies to full time associates. This is what immediately caught my eye when reading Amazon's response. I was under the impression that their FCs are primarily staffed by contractors. If "associate" is just corporatespeak for employee, then that assertion (most of Amazon's rebuttal, really) could be remarkably insignificant, even if technically accurate.

viburnum 8y ago

Bernie is wrong, it's not up to employers to provide a guaranteed decent standard of living, that job can only be done by society.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
Disagree entirely. If a company is paying so little that the government has to step in and give them extra money just so they can pay the rent and eat, then that effectively means my tax dollars are subsidizing their wage. This attitude allows Amazon to pay less than a living wage. The winner of SNAP isn't the person receiving SNAP, it's the person's employer which is allowed to pay their employees less. My tax dollars aren't subsidizing the employee, they're subsidizing Amazon.
- chibg10 8y ago
  This is misguided. Your tax dollars aren't subsidizing Amazon -- they're subsidizing everyone who pays Amazon's wages or lower. If the market value of labor has fallen below the threshold needed to live an acceptable (as judged by society) lifestyle, the burden of making up the difference should fall on society -- not arbitrarily on the companies which happen to do business in industries whose jobs require essentially no skills to perform. Hypothetically speaking, if Google automated away 50M tedious and repetitive "white collar" jobs and those 50M workers are now competing for warehouse jobs, why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage while Google pays nothing for putting 50M workers out on the street? The burden of caring for society's poor must fall on society. As it was society's technological innovation and policy decisions (i.e. globalization of labor markets) that has led to the destruction of unskilled labor's market value.
  - snarfybarfy 8y ago

wcarron 8y ago

> Bottom line: the taxpayers of this country should not have to subsidize employees at a company owned by Mr. Bezos who is worth $155 billion. That is absurd," Sanders said in the statement. Agreed. This isn't an Amazon only problem, but they are certainly egregious perpetrators of trying to play cities and states off each other for tax breaks and other benefits at taxpayer expense. Let's also not forget the whole "peeing in bottles out of fear" fiasco: https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-warehouse-workers-in-uk-peed-in-bottles-over-fears-of-being-punished-for-taking-a-break-amzn-id8258070.html https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-...

bko 8y ago
I won't comment on Amazon shopping around for tax breaks, but I would take issue with idea that welfare payments "subsidize" Amazon. The whole idea that public assistance subsidizes employers is based on the false assumption that people only require to get paid what they "need" and therefore accept lower wages because they don't need as much due to government aid. I think a more plausible explanation is that employers pay employees based on productivity and supply of employees with that skill set. If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. And if there is an oversupply of employees with those skill levels, then they can choose from the pool based on the market rate. This is pretty standard economic theory. Another way you can think about it is that Amazon is helping states and federal government by paying these employees, otherwise the welfare payments would be higher.
- beojan 8y ago
  > If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. If a company needs 10 employees, then it will hire 10 employees at whatever cost, or stop operating. If it can only hire those employees at $100 an hour, then it will have to set its prices so that it makes at least $100 / employee-hour. And if it can't, it will operate at a loss or stop operating.
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago

siruncledrew 8y ago

Amazon is trying their darnedest to sweep this under the rug before it gets bigger than it already is. They just paid a bunch of people to Tweet nice things about worker conditions, now they issue a rare public response.

smallgovt 8y ago

We should stop vilifying companies that provide unsustainable wages. Providing above market wages erodes your competitive advantage. Systematically eroding your competitive advantage will kill your company. It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism. In so doing, it will level the playing field so companies no longer have to choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'increasing existential risk'. 'Public shaming' should be used an agent for change -- not to satiate some inner desire for justice. In this case, we can't expect these companies to change on their own accord regardless of the shaming. So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I'm okay with killing companies if they're not providing a living wage. This is the polite method (public shaming) to affect change. > So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company. Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.
- smallgovt 8y ago
  My point is you're not killing the company. These companies are alive and well. You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just not going to work. It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    See my sibling comment where they shamed Disney into paying $15/hour. This action is required until enough representatives are elected to office who can fix public policy. Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer pockets and into Amazon's pocket.
    - 8y ago

joejerryronnie 8y ago

It sounds like Bernie is employing Trumpian twitter tactics to further his agenda - playing to the lowest common denominator, pushing an "us vs them" narrative, etc. I would just hope everyone who has been critical of Trump for these techniques is equally critical of Sanders.

rmrfrmrf 8y ago
It's not the tactics that people are critical of.

splatzone 8y ago

I hope Sanders' survey gets an honest response and Amazon don't try any dirty tricks. This site deserves to be spread about more: https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home

RobLach 8y ago

There’s a clever market force here in forcing a business to cover the costs of a government program if a company’s employees use it; it’ll be in the best interest of the company to then provide just enough wages and internal services to allow their employees to live a healthy life while a less efficient state run program pulls back on its necessity. For example: Amazon could end up paying their employees an extra $3/hour while eliminating the state costing taxpayers $6/hour equivalent of benefits run through layers of bureaucracy. The difference is that instead of the entire tax base holding the bill, it would be the customers of Amazon.

rmrfrmrf 8y ago
> provide just enough wages and internal services to allow their employees to live a healthy life The fact that this is a novel concept is terrifying.