3 ms·
Most comments on my post are supportive, for instance this one: "You seem to be saying that as a defense of Amazon's treatment of warehouse workers. It's not.
by msutherl 14y ago
Most comments on my post are supportive, for instance this one:
"You seem to be saying that as a defense of Amazon's treatment of warehouse workers. It's not. Read the Mother Jones article linked above [...] the unseen and unregulated treatment of the hidden workers who make our amazing lives possible is a huge, unsolved problem in the world."
But I'm getting down-voted. Do people seriously think that supporting mass mistreatment of workers is o.k.? I'm sorry, but automating factory floors is not inexpensive enough to happen on a mass scale yet, which means that consumer pressure for faster shipping = inhumane working conditions for the people who pack the boxes. This is a legitimate dilemma and I meant only to point out that out.
Yes, it's better than the alternative for the people working, since they're working there after all. But that doesn't make it o.k.
- nooneelse 14y agoYesterday I ordered a used book from Amazon, and remembering the static shocks in that Mother Jones article (btw, wearing a metal thimble to touch the shelves with seems like it would fix those shocks), I was faced with a moral dilemma. But how was I to solve it. Pick one of the higher priced used book options? How do I know they aren't using the same distribution warehouse and just pocketing the difference. Without a "doesn't treat workers like crap" seal of approval, I don't see what I could have done. I'd love to subscribe to a white-list/black-list of sellers on Amazon for various ethical measures but it isn't there.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]