[HN Gopher] Amazon started a Twitter war because Jeff Bezos was ...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon started a Twitter war because Jeff Bezos was pissed
Author : yoelo
Score : 70 points
Date : 2021-03-28 21:38 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vox.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vox.com)
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Edit: I missed it, not the article.
|
| The article missed AOC's tweet where Amazon themselves noted that
| they found bags with feces and urine in delivery cars [1,2]
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792
|
| [2] https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-
| bottl...
| rincebrain wrote:
| No, the article explicitly mentions "Amazon's pushback on the
| congressman's comment about workers peeing in bottles also
| ignited a new news cycle after The Intercept revealed internal
| Amazon communications acknowledging that contractors who
| deliver Amazon packages sometimes defecate in bags and urinate
| in bottles." (with the latter half being a link to that same
| The Intercept article)
| chrischen wrote:
| One of the explanations for this is that due to covid most
| public restaurants/bathrooms were closed, forcing some drivers
| to resort to alternative means... At the very least I don't
| think it's fair to jump to any conclusion about Amazon forcing
| people to pee in bottles.
| lend000 wrote:
| It seems it succeeded, by frustrating Warren and making it appear
| that she is significantly motivated by stifling dissenting
| voices, a possible abuse of the First Amendment [0].
|
| I know there are lot of people here who identify with Warren's
| politics (myself included, to some degree), but petty
| personalities like hers aren't the ones we want in power. Thought
| there would be more awareness of that after the last presidential
| term.
|
| [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-
| twit...
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Indeed, if politicans are going to adopt the practice of
| governance by snotty tweets they can expect business and
| constituents to do the same as they have been doing. I do wish
| everyone would stop though.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| "There was terror inside the executive ranks of Amazon..."
|
| Raise your hand if you believe Amazon execs felt 'terror' in this
| circumstance.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Vox is showing their left/progressive bias by framing Amazon's
| response as "snarky", basically providing a journalistic shield
| for authoritarian legislators. Consider that Senator Elizabeth
| Warren threatened to break Amazon (a private corporation) up
| (https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/137552910193152...)
| for having the temerity to speak against her (for speaking
| against the government, which is comprised of legislators like
| her). Personally I do think these giant tech
| monopolies/oligopolies should face antitrust scrutiny, but not
| for their exercise of their right to free speech.
|
| I also wonder how else would corporations respond to misleading
| populist narratives? Amazon provided a minimum wage of $15/hour
| with benefits without legislative pressure (although some like to
| claim their pressure caused it). They did so for completely
| unskilled labor that is not compensated this way by other
| companies that operate warehouses. Even so, they receive critique
| from these legislators that seemingly don't understand how
| businesses work, how they create value, and how that adds up to a
| functional economy. That deserves a response - and I don't think
| corporations should have to remain silent or speak with undue
| deference while these legislators whip up populist outrage. Their
| direct and firmly toned response wastes no words and serves to
| bring these legislators back to Earth.
| kerng wrote:
| This made Amazon look quite childish honestly.
|
| I hope that union thing works out so there will be more checks
| and balances in place going forward. Those bottle peeing stories
| and all that surveillance is quite horrible...
|
| I also heard lower levels don't have access to the company
| directory anymore. So they basically got cut off from career and
| socializing opportunities also inside the company.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > This made Amazon look quite childish honestly.
|
| Don't you think it makes Warren look childish? She said she
| wants to break up big tech companies so that they aren't able
| to challenge her. I think that's an absolutely appalling thing
| for a lawmaker to say. Warren should be defending their right
| to challenger her, not attacking it, and she should be
| empowering institutions to challenge her, not attacking those
| that are. I can't understand how anyone is defending this
| craziness. It's chilling.
| HomeDeLaPot wrote:
| One way to interpret Warren's tweet is "she doesn't believe
| that private corporations should have the ability to stand up
| to politicians." Another way is "she realizes that Amazon has
| so much political influence that it can tweet anything it
| wants at elected representatives without any consequences."
| So which is it? Is Amazon a private American corporation on
| equal footing with the government, simply exercising free
| speech, and evil Warren wants to stifle them? Or is Amazon an
| evil giant corporation making a PR power play because it has
| so much underhanded influence in politics and public opinion
| that it is guaranteed to make this end badly for Warren or
| anyone else who opposes them, and Warren is just looking to
| put them in check?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If I have to choose to defend someone, it's not Amazon and
| Bezos. He and chosen management had a choice on what sort of
| company and culture to build. Choose poorly and then be
| surprised when government and the public come after you?
| Relentlessly tactless and tone deaf.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Institutions should have the right to challenge lawmakers
| without thread of retribution for doing so, even if you
| don't like what they have to say.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Agreed, but I also agree with Warren that Amazon should
| be broken up. Warren's stance pales in comparison to the
| machine of suffering that is Amazon fulfillment/retail.
| Nuance and pragmatism.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Does she want to break them up for for the benefit of the
| people she represents, or does she want to break them up
| because they're 'snotty' to her? She's explicitly said
| it's because of the latter. I hope it's because of the
| former, but I have to trust her own words are lies to
| believe that!
| busterarm wrote:
| Warren isn't exactly mainstream government.
|
| She can't even get her "progressive" credentials consistent
| as she rarely misses an opportunity to be the hawk. She
| sure loves those foreign wars.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| They aren't making a whole lot of new conservatives in
| America. Centrist Democrats are either aging out or
| getting pushed out. Change takes time. Gotta defend
| against people like Bezos in the meantime. "Hold the
| line" against obscene wealth ($187B? and still throwing a
| childish fit about your workers trying to have better
| working conditions? Really?) grinding labor down sort of
| thing.
| busterarm wrote:
| None of that makes Warren above criticism.
|
| And if you think America isn't minting a lot of new
| conservatives, I think you've been sleeping the last 6
| years. Conservatives just had the biggest voter turnout
| that they've had since Ronald Reagan.
|
| And despite our Gen X/Millenial social circles which are
| heavily left, Zoomers are much more conservative than us.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You were attacking and criticizing Warren, which doesn't
| concern me and has little value regardless unless you
| vote in her state.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Legislators shouldn't be afraid of challengers.
|
| That said, it's reasonable to fear corporations with so many
| resources they capture regulators and can bankroll
| astroturfed challengers. I'd like both a balanced,
| accountable government and healthy, competitive markets
| please.
| elil17 wrote:
| Why should big tech companies be able to challenge
| democratically elected representatives?
|
| Shouldn't political participation be primarily in the hands
| of people, not special interests?
|
| I get that the question of whether corporations should have a
| role in politics is up for debate, but I think most of the
| people who elected Warren believe that there's no place for
| big money in politics.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Why should big tech companies be able to challenge
| democratically elected representatives?
|
| Every person and every (legal) institution should be able
| to (verbally and in writing) challenge a democratically
| elected representative.
|
| I can't understand why that even needs stating?
|
| She's literally _threatening legislative retribution_ for
| being "snotty" to her. That's appalling, surely?
| elil17 wrote:
| If Warren said that to a person I think it would
| absolutely be appalling and I get that in the current US
| legal system corporations have a right to free speech. I
| just don't think that's an intrinsic moral right the way
| it is for people. I think it's a valid, reasonable view
| that Amazon should not be able to influence politics in
| any way.
| busterarm wrote:
| Elizabeth Warren comes off looking worse. Probably the most
| tonedeaf, opportunistic do-little in American politics.
|
| I still remember in the middle of the GME story how CNBC
| brought her on as the "great financial industry critic" to tow
| the industry line. Quite hilarious.
|
| Warren and Sanders are the very definition of controlled
| opposition. If they're your biggest critics, you're probably
| doing something right.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| By your argument, Amazon's aggressive stance towards Sanders
| and Alabama worker's unionization is an indication that they
| are doing something right.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > bottle
|
| Then you'll need to avoid jobs like long haul trucker,
| construction crane operator, Air Force flight crew, or
| astronaut :-/
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| For the latter two, peeing in a bottle/etc. is dictated by
| physical constraints. For the former two, they are dictated
| by late-stage capitalism. That's why Amazon drivers are
| protesting and astronauts are not.
| busterarm wrote:
| wut?
|
| Even before the industry was heavily regulated and hours
| limited, long-haul truckers chose to pee in bottles for
| efficiency. Faster, safer and made them more money.
|
| Also do you have any idea how long it takes to get in and
| out of a construction crane? And how dangerous? It's
| absolutely a physical constraint. Operators have to climb
| and it's about 15 minutes each way. They have to take
| breaks so they don't get sweaty. You absolutely do NOT want
| to do that when you're holding in piss.
| edoceo wrote:
| How is it safer to try to wizz while driving a huge
| machine at speed? Are truckers peeing ad driving at the
| same time?
| busterarm wrote:
| https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/
|
| https://www.amazon.com/trucker-urinal/s?k=trucker+urinal
|
| Also most roads are straight and modern trucks are
| incredibly stable. Plus cruise control exists. Peeing
| while driving is really easy, especially in an elevated
| chair seat like they use. I've done it a few times.
| [deleted]
| WalterBright wrote:
| > dictated by late-stage capitalism
|
| Ironic considering bothering to use a potty is a very, very
| modern sensibility.
| elil17 wrote:
| All of which pay way more than $15/hour (median $27/hour for
| the crane operator, $21/hour for the trucker). There's
| nothing wrong with difficult working conditions - some jobs
| require it.
|
| But when you see a job where the conditions are really
| horrible (for no reason, I might add - it's not like a
| warehouse worker taking a bathroom break puts an expensive
| piece of equipment on pause like a crane operator would) but
| the pay is incredibly low, that seems like a sign that the
| employer is using exploitative practices.
| eptcyka wrote:
| For a community like HN, where a significant part of people
| do work that can be mostly done from bed, I'd just like to
| make clear that higher pay would still not make it OK to
| not have an unlimited amount of bathroom breaks for jobs
| where there are no real physical limitations that would
| necessitate such limitations.
| omosubi wrote:
| I'm curious to see how this plays out. The security ticket seems
| to have the most reasonable opinion - I can't see a scenario
| where this plays well for amazon but they're a trillion dollar
| company and I'm not
|
| Any former warehouse workers here want to comment? (I'm guessing
| this will be astroturfed but might as well give it a shot)
| bob33212 wrote:
| My brother was a warehouse worker. It paid more than other jobs
| he has had but it also required him to work most of the time he
| was on the clock relative to other jobs. He quit because of the
| work load, not because he was expected to pee in bottles.
|
| Having interviewed for dev jobs at Amazon I think the reality
| is in the middle. Is Amazon a fun place to work? NO. Does
| Amazon try to abuse its employees? NO.
| randompwd wrote:
| It also looks like Amazon bought likes for just those 2 tweets.
| All other recent tweets(both before and after) by that a/c get
| 20/30, nearly always less than 100 likes. And suddenly, these 2
| tweets got ~4.8k and 9.6k?
|
| Also tied in with the fact that those tweets weren't by the
| regular social media team but through a webapp by unknown.
|
| Doesn't add up.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I kind of empathize with Bezos, there's a certain tone of
| entitlement to this entire saga. Amazon doesn't own anybody a
| job, if working conditions are shit (but assuming it's legal),
| you should quit.
|
| If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for
| it.
|
| If I went to work everyday, complained loudly about how much the
| job sucks, I wouldn't have a job anymore and I'd understand. To
| think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still be
| entitled to a job is lunacy.
| codeduck wrote:
| Something being legal does not make it right or just.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I would argue the "justice" system is the best determinant of
| what's "just" by definition.
| [deleted]
| bavent wrote:
| But ideas of what is "just" change and the justice system
| is often slow to react. Sometimes things that are
| technically unjust (banning gay marriage) are allowed.
| Slavery was once legal. Justice system at the time said so.
| Also, as an anecdote, speaking as someone who has
| participated in the justice system quite a bit, for me it
| was very rarely the best determinant of what was "just" on
| the small scale of my life. I would hesitate to assume on
| the larger scale of society as a whole it is any more
| accurate.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| The problem is that the "justice system" is the only
| universally agreed upon system. The alternative is
| everybody upholds their own justice and we have anarchy.
|
| If you want to change the justice system, go ahead. But
| there's a difference between changing labour laws and
| going after one specific company.
| michaelpb wrote:
| I would argue that your argument from tautology is
| stunningly silly and you should get out more lol
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I find your ad-hominem attack stunningly silly, and your
| use of stock logical cliches even more so.
| danaliv wrote:
| I can call my car a "flying system" all day long. Doesn't
| make it an airplane.
| mimikatz wrote:
| Sure, but it isn't just legal it's better (in some ways) than
| most things in the same class. Amazon tracks you and makes
| you work harder, but compensates you better and doesn't fuck
| around with hours as much as other jobs in the same fields.
| It does seem unfair to target them specifically.
|
| For example the piss bottles. It is a thing for truckers and
| delivery workers to piss in bottles. UPS people, FedEx
| people, Truckers more than the others will talk about it
| anonymously. But everyone acts like Amazon isn't acting
| within the unspoken norms of society.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Then why should we have any worker protection laws. Shouldn't
| everyone just be greatful.
|
| There's a massive power imbalance between individuals and
| corporations. In a way they are modern royalty, controlling a
| large amount of the world
| asjldkfin wrote:
| But Amazon didn't break any worker protection laws, they're
| within bounds.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| They're tiptoeing the line. So, yes, you're right; They
| haven't broken the law, but when they have to stand right
| on that line to get what they want, it's clear they want to
| go past it.
| tayo42 wrote:
| So we should change the rules? Accepting laws because
| that's the way it is to be blunt silly. Why do we have
| child labor laws? Those families and children should have
| just been greatful? Or maybe things can be better and the
| law isn't perfect
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Sure, change the rules. If you can get everybody to agree
| to it. But until then, what's legal is legal; and Amazon
| is within the bounds of the law.
| cambalache wrote:
| Same as mine operators employing kids in 19th century
| England, or current Chinese companies with their fucked
| 9-9-6 system.
|
| Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell You About
| Capitalism should be mandatory reading for any person
| commenting online about the modern economic system.
| edoceo wrote:
| Here's Wiki and Goodreads to save y'all a few seconds
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Te
| ll_...
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8913542-23-things-
| they-d...
| [deleted]
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| > To think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still
| be entitled to a job is lunacy.
|
| Well I would certainly never want to work for an organization
| that would fire someone, especially a good coworker, for this.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I wouldn't either; that's why I don't. Just like how these
| people, if they don't want to work for Amazon, shouldn't.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Pervasive trend in America:
|
| erode peoples' standard of living, erode the laws protecting
| them from abusive working environments, force them into a
| position where they only have the option of working for one
| company, and then blame them for trying to ask for better
| conditions.
|
| If you went into your job every day and criticized the job with
| a coworker, you would in fact not lose your job (or have the
| option for a nice settlement), because American labor law
| specifically protects workers' rights to talk about their
| working conditions?
| asjldkfin wrote:
| That's a gross exaggeration; Amazon is not even close to
| being the only company you can work for.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Yet options are dwindling here where I am. As a teen there
| was a shopping mall packed with choices. Now the nearby
| mall has so many vacant slots it's a wonder they're still
| open.
| larsiusprime wrote:
| The point is that in many of these communities where retail
| jobs have been absolutely decimated (because of Amazon),
| working for Amazon is often the only game in town
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Move somewhere else. If you can't find a perfered job in
| your hometown, you don't force the local company to make
| a job to your satisfaction, you move to a different part
| of the country.
|
| Why should these people get any other type of
| consideration.
| stevewodil wrote:
| I think it's generally okay to complain about a system that
| forces you to pee in bottles due to lack of restroom breaks.
| People have quit, and they still have every right to complain
| even after quitting
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Sure, but then why are you still working there if its so
| terrible?
| edoceo wrote:
| Try to imagine a situation where this crappy job is the
| best of the available options.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| They're not forcing anyone and most workers don't do that.
| The ones that do are probably just not productive and are
| making up the loss of production by peeing in bottles. That's
| not necessarily an indictment of the company. Their policy,
| from leaked documents, is that workers should not be doing
| this.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| Amazon may not owe them a job, but a government ought to make
| sure that it's citizens are not treated like animals to just
| make a living, no matter where they choose to work.
|
| It's a shame that any country allows conditions like this to
| exist, under the excuse of "the free market will solve this
| problem, just get a job elsewhere"
|
| The balance of power between government, people + companies has
| made this extremely difficult, and the "free market" is just
| optimizing for this imbalance by allowing conditions to get
| this bad in the first place.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| If a politician's solution to "making sure people aren't
| treated like animals" is going after a single company; rather
| than fixing the system, then they've failed as politicians.
| edoceo wrote:
| We're all out here only able to fix one bug at a time.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| You make it sound like any of the conditions are pervasive,
| they employ 876,000 people, if the conditions were as bad as
| the media makes it seem I would imagine there being more
| outcry instead of the media having to blow up specific
| instances of things happening.
|
| Where there's smoke there is fire is the saying, so maybe it
| is that bad but that's not what I understand it to be.
|
| Edit: Also from all the documents we've seen it would appear
| Amazon leaks like a sieve so I would also expect way more
| damning evidence to have appeared by now.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| Whether or not they are pervasive, they should not have
| occurred in the first place. What kind of culture allowed
| this to happen even once? Why hasn't there been a statement
| or commitment from Amazon on fixing this, rather than
| doubling down on "it doesn't happen" ?
|
| This specific Amazon incident is just one of may incidents
| across many major employers where workers end up suffering.
| Regulations should exist that prevent this from even
| happening, but political will doesn't seem to exist, sadly.
|
| Blowing up this incident helps refocus the attention on
| trying to fix this nationwide, rather than this specific
| incident at amazon.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful
| for it.
|
| As we drift back into company towns here in the Midwest US I do
| hope change will come before company scrip.
| elil17 wrote:
| For those criticizing Warren's tweet: remember that the idea that
| the first amendment applies to companies is a legal doctrine that
| was created in the 20th century, not something inherent to the
| constitution. Saying that it's not Amazon's place to participate
| in politics is a view that I think most of her constituents would
| share.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The title implies a much more interesting story in British
| English!
| ameen wrote:
| For my fellow Americans, pissed in British English means
| "drunk" - which makes it even more hilarious.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-28 23:01 UTC)