4 ms·

> "You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody would work for us." The more you unpack this statement, the worse it

> "You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you? If that were true, nobody would work for us." The more you unpack this statement, the worse it is. 1) It's a lie. 2) It's tells you 'you're dumb if you believe [the truth].' 3) The problem they're lying about is a really awful one. 4) They seem to not even know what it's like to do this role (but that doesn't prevent them from confidently making things up). 5) It shows a worldview that's super, well, privileged. Whoever wrote that probably couldn't imagine not having the option to just walk away from a job. 6) Whoever wrote that apparently doesn't believe that anyone doesn't have the option to just walk away from a job. They seem so incredibly disconnected from this part of their workforce, that I couldn't imagine them making good calls about what these workers should be doing.

blibble 6y ago
it's someone that's bought into their corporate bullshit > Our mission is to be Earth’s most customer-centric company. Amazon is guided by four principles: customer obsession rather than competitor focus, passion for invention, commitment to operational excellence, and long-term thinking. I know of several people that were about to start working for Amazon and they had already started spouting this crap
- mam2 6y ago
  Customer centric is different from employee centric. The statement is not wrong per se. If you want to make a proper attack, accuse them of modern slavery.
  - bckr 6y ago
    That's... No, don't do that. Slaves could be rounded up and brought back to the plantation by force, have their family members taken away from them, were subject to extreme violence... Super bad take. Super, super bad take.
    - giomasce 6y ago
      That is classical slavery. GP mentioned modern slavery, which is somewhat different.
      - bckr 6y ago
        Okay, I still don't agree with that. There are two groups that I would argue should be labeled "modern slavery victims"/"slaves". These are the illegal human trafficking victims and the legally (referring to national, not international, law) incarcerated work force. Off the top of my head, the latter includes the inmates of the American prison industrial complex and the Uighur prisoners in China. The applicability of the term "modern slaves" to these groups, and the clear difference in the extent of exploitation, between these groups and the Amazon workers, convinces me we must not apply the term "slavery" to the latters' employment.
    - iamBevan 6y ago
      Actually it's quite accurate. It appears that you have an extremely poor understanding of the history of slavery - limited the US only. It's universally understood that slavery was happening over 10,000 years before the US was even discovered. The term "slave" even predates the discovery of the US by hundreds of years. Slavery has manifested itself in many ways throughout history, I'm sure one could make an argument that this is some kind of modern day voluntary slavery.
      - bckr 6y ago
        I question the validity of the phrase "voluntary slavery". I would also argue that the context (USA-based company labor dispute) is enough to anchor the term "slavery" to the very recent and very extreme United States enslavement of Africans. Using the term "chattel slavery" may be a serviceable method for communicating that you are not talking about "that slavery".
    - mam2 6y ago
      Slavery is a general term which means you are forced to work for someone without being paid. One can argue the warrhouse workers would happily work anywhere else than amazon. They work here because they have no choice and are underpaid.. hence the "modern slavery". No strong force but an economic system that leads to the same result
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  I did a pre interview many years ago and it ended with a recommendation to read their values to which a link was provided. I had to nope out of there immediately after reading those. They had nothing to do with the company I always knew from the outside.
tomjen3 6y ago
It is completely ef up, but I also think that for a lot of people, peeing in a bottle is just not that big a deal. Manual labor has always been dirty, sweaty, etc. Somebody is emptying your stinking summer garbage can. My granddad worked at a feed company for much of his life and they were nearly always covered in sweat and dust (those giant siloes have to be emptied and cleaned by somebody). I can tell you why he did it, it was the money. Oh he liked his work mates well enough, but it was the money. The money that helped him pay of his house. The money that helped feed his wife and children. I bet that given the choice between peeing in a bottle and getting a raise, a big chunk of the workers will choose the latter. That is what working a manual job means.

blibble 6y ago

it's someone that's bought into their corporate bullshit > Our mission is to be Earth’s most customer-centric company. Amazon is guided by four principles: customer obsession rather than competitor focus, passion for invention, commitment to operational excellence, and long-term thinking. I know of several people that were about to start working for Amazon and they had already started spouting this crap

mam2 6y ago
Customer centric is different from employee centric. The statement is not wrong per se. If you want to make a proper attack, accuse them of modern slavery.
- bckr 6y ago
  That's... No, don't do that. Slaves could be rounded up and brought back to the plantation by force, have their family members taken away from them, were subject to extreme violence... Super bad take. Super, super bad take.
  - giomasce 6y ago
    That is classical slavery. GP mentioned modern slavery, which is somewhat different.
    - bckr 6y ago
      Okay, I still don't agree with that. There are two groups that I would argue should be labeled "modern slavery victims"/"slaves". These are the illegal human trafficking victims and the legally (referring to national, not international, law) incarcerated work force. Off the top of my head, the latter includes the inmates of the American prison industrial complex and the Uighur prisoners in China. The applicability of the term "modern slaves" to these groups, and the clear difference in the extent of exploitation, between these groups and the Amazon workers, convinces me we must not apply the term "slavery" to the latters' employment.
  - iamBevan 6y ago
    Actually it's quite accurate. It appears that you have an extremely poor understanding of the history of slavery - limited the US only. It's universally understood that slavery was happening over 10,000 years before the US was even discovered. The term "slave" even predates the discovery of the US by hundreds of years. Slavery has manifested itself in many ways throughout history, I'm sure one could make an argument that this is some kind of modern day voluntary slavery.
    - bckr 6y ago
      I question the validity of the phrase "voluntary slavery". I would also argue that the context (USA-based company labor dispute) is enough to anchor the term "slavery" to the very recent and very extreme United States enslavement of Africans. Using the term "chattel slavery" may be a serviceable method for communicating that you are not talking about "that slavery".
  - mam2 6y ago
    Slavery is a general term which means you are forced to work for someone without being paid. One can argue the warrhouse workers would happily work anywhere else than amazon. They work here because they have no choice and are underpaid.. hence the "modern slavery". No strong force but an economic system that leads to the same result
rorykoehler 6y ago
I did a pre interview many years ago and it ended with a recommendation to read their values to which a link was provided. I had to nope out of there immediately after reading those. They had nothing to do with the company I always knew from the outside.

tomjen3 6y ago

It is completely ef up, but I also think that for a lot of people, peeing in a bottle is just not that big a deal. Manual labor has always been dirty, sweaty, etc. Somebody is emptying your stinking summer garbage can. My granddad worked at a feed company for much of his life and they were nearly always covered in sweat and dust (those giant siloes have to be emptied and cleaned by somebody). I can tell you why he did it, it was the money. Oh he liked his work mates well enough, but it was the money. The money that helped him pay of his house. The money that helped feed his wife and children. I bet that given the choice between peeing in a bottle and getting a raise, a big chunk of the workers will choose the latter. That is what working a manual job means.