Edit: I missed it, not the article.<p>The article missed AOC's tweet where Amazon themselves noted that they found bags with feces and urine in delivery cars [1,2]<p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792</a><p>[2] <a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/" rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...</a>
This made Amazon look quite childish honestly.<p>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...<p>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.
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<p>Any former warehouse workers here want to comment? (I'm guessing this will be astroturfed but might as well give it a shot)
I wonder who writes the tweets and how much review there is. I would be freaked out if I was responsible for insulting a senator on behalf of a trillion dollar company.
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.<p>If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for it.<p>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.
"There was terror inside the executive ranks of Amazon..."<p>Raise your hand if you believe Amazon execs felt 'terror' in this circumstance.
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 (<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375529101931520007" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/137552910193152...</a>) 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.<p>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.
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?<p>Also tied in with the fact that those tweets weren't by the regular social media team but through a webapp by unknown.<p>Doesn't add up.
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 (edit: specifically in a couple of Supreme Court cases in 1975 and 1976), 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.
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].<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twitter-taxes-unionization-alabama-union-bezos-2021-3" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twit...</a>