Amazon UK Unpacked: Sad Conditions at the Rugeley Warehouse

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Seriously, what "bad" conditions? Maybe I've just been stuck in dead-end jobs working for ass-hats all my life, because I'm simply not seeing the "bad" conditions people keep referring to here.

It's pretty much the same as any other large warehousing operation - just with fewer managerial types wandering the floors to make sure the drones are keeping busy and not taking unauthorized breaks.

[HansTWN]

Something many Europeans tend to forget is that companies exist for the benefit of customers and not just for their employees and that work means exactly that: "work". It is nice to have interesting and low pressure jobs --- but a warehouse or production line is not the kind of place to look for such a job.

When you go to work for a company, at the end of the day the money you help them make must be a lot more than what they pay you. If you work your behind off and make $2000,- a month but your work produces only $1500.- in revenue then they must let you go. In the final analysis what matters is not the amount of effort a worker puts in or the stress he or she is under, it is how much profit that job generates that decides the level of pay.

[piperclassique]

Something many Europeans tend to forget is that companies exist for the benefit of customers and not just for their employees and that work means exactly that: "work". It is nice to have interesting and low pressure jobs --- but a warehouse or production line is not the kind of place to look for such a job.

Nah, companies exist for shareholders. Customers are to provide profits. Workers are needed to service customers by making and shipping goods, or there won't be profits

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by medard

Spot the difference:

Housing Works Bookstore, New York, NY

Spoiler:

Amazon, Rugeley, UK

Spoiler:

Oh, I think I know that one. The first is a bookstore the second isn't.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Abtacha

Oh, I think I know that one. The first is a bookstore the second isn't.

Exactly -- my point wasn't that factories are evil (though I tend to think they incline that way). It was that, in choosing Amazon over indie places and even chains, the consumer is choosing conditions in a particularly loathsome factory for many workers instead of those of a book store for a great number, and perhaps that choice is worth talking about.

The idea is not to single Amazon out as evil (though the number of people who reacted as if someone had -- cross-sectioned with the number who have posted in the past four years their belief that Apple is evil -- is instructive: People make excuses for whichever companies they've decided to accept and condemn as immoral the ones they dislike).

The idea was to raise the question of worker treatment in concentrated factories generally and to contrast it with treatment in less stripped-down versions of the goods and services industry, in which the work is distributed more evenly between factories and stores. The idea was to find ways to support those companies which treat their workers best.

If the desire for better worker treatment became a customer preference, Amazon could respond to it or ignore it -- the choice would be theirs. But the process itself -- of supporting companies which offer the best experience for workers -- is one that can have a positive impact in any age. Look at the factory reforms brought about in the Victorian period by Dickens and others.

No doubt people were flinging ad homimen phrases like "hand-wringing" and "whining" back then as well when others like me objected to terrible working conditions for the lower classes. But the salient point is neither the attitude of the person who points out dismal working conditions nor one's own feelings of loyalty or annoyance toward the franchise which promotes them.

The point is whether the social responsibility of the prevailing culture is to maintain civilized conditions for workers at every level.

Your definition of civilized conditions might well be different from mine. But if I, personally, have a choice between supporting a number of book stores which allow for the inner lives and deeper sense of meaning of their workers (which for me is the definition of civilized) or a dystopian factory that makes even veteran coal miners cringe, then I'll opt to support the book stores. I'll also have a look at warehouse-based web companies to see whether anything can be done to ensure better conditions without an untenable loss of profit -- and whether any of our present companies are choosing to do the better thing and making it work.

Costco has been mentioned several times on this thread as a company that promotes better conditions. Is there something about Costco's business which allows them to treat their workers better than Amazon, or is Amazon simply focusing on profits beyond the level of mere success in order to maximize them to the detriment of the humanity of its workers?

People behave as if this is an unreasonable question to ask, but it's one that has been asked in other times and other countries. Occasionally, the consensus has been that the workers' lives are more important than that extra amount of profit. That's the conclusion I've come to as well.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The point is whether the social responsibility of the prevailing culture is to maintain civilized conditions for workers at every level.

So how best to proceed with a discussion when it seems that one must first concede that Amazon (or similar company) isn't maintaining "civilized conditions" for its workers in order to take part?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The point is whether the social responsibility of the prevailing culture is to maintain civilized conditions for workers at every level.

Since Amazon exists, and since it seems to do quite well, the social responsibility of the prevailing culture seems to be such that it either thinks the conditions at Amazon are civilised enough, or it doesn't care.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Exactly -- my point wasn't that factories are evil (though I tend to think they incline that way). It was that, in choosing Amazon over indie places and even chains, the consumer is choosing conditions in a particularly loathsome factory for many workers instead of those of a book store for a great number, and perhaps that choice is worth talking about.

Uh, seriously, you are comparing a print book POINT-OF-SALE retail site to a *general purpose* merchandise distribution *warehouse*?

Some might suggest that is a grape to watermelon comparison.

How about comparing the printer's distribution warehouse or perhaps a Diamond Book Distributors warehouse to Amazon's?

Or maybe the working conditions and the payscale at LAB126 to your typical indie bookstore?

Or maybe a detroit auto plant?

The jobs are completely different so why compare the two?

Otherwise you might as well compare a trash collector to a waiter and decry how unhygenic an environment the trash collector faces.

If we're to have a serious discussion we want actual comparables, no?
For a true one to one, how about Overstock.com vs Amazon? Or walmart or target? Then we might learn what the standard work environment is for that *particular* job...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TGS

Since Amazon exists, and since it seems to do quite well, the social responsibility of the prevailing culture seems to be such that it either thinks the conditions at Amazon are civilised enough, or it doesn't care.

See:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...profit-margins
Amazon's Jeff Bezos Doesn't Care About Profit Margins

And:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b....html?page=all
Amazon posts Q4 profit, but a net loss for the year

The stock market has a good deal of patience for growing tech companies, but eventually Bezos will have to deliver substantial profits or face loss of his company. When he gets to that point, failure to build a loyal workforce will make success less likely.

As for the prevailing culture, I suppose most people who read these press stories still patronize Amazon. But if the stories keep coming, it will hurt Amazon. There are a lot of people, in the US, who shop at Target because WalMart gets more negative publicity.

Just from a business standpoint, it might well help Amazon to get a deserved reputation as a good employer of the Costco/Wegman's/Overstock.com type. My guess is that Bezos is a decent human being who would be glad to see Amazon on Best Employer lists. Good management is quite hard to pull off.

[ProfCrash]

The difference between Walmart and Amazon is that Amazon has not been hit with gender discrimination lawsuits, overtime lawsuits, active union prevention, and the other crap Walmart is hit for.

Hiring temps and being insanely strict is bothersome but not on Walmart levels. Even the sub optimal warehouse conditions are fixable and it does not appear to have reoccured.

I think the minimum wage should be raised. I think everyone should have paid sick leave. I am not going to stop shopping some place because they are not abiding by laws that have not been passed.

[Rizla]

It is important to remember that on top of their poor employment practices, Amazon only paid $3.2m of tax on $7.2bn of profit over 3 years in the UK. That's a tax-rate so small I have trouble working it out. Is it lower than 0.01%? Why does the UK government allow this company to operate?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It is important to remember that on top of their poor employment practices, Amazon only paid $3.2m of tax on $7.2bn of profit over 3 years in the UK. That's a tax-rate so small I have trouble working it out. Is it lower than 0.01%? Why does the UK government allow this company to operate?

Amazon may have made $7Bn profit selling to people in the UK, but Amazon UK did not make $7Bn of profit.
Whenever you buy from the Amazon UK website, you are making a sales contract with Amazon EU. Amazon EU then pay Amazon UK (roughly at cost) to actually fulfil the order. All of the profit stays with Amazon EU, and is taxed at Luxembourg rates rather than UK rates.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Amazon may have made $7Bn profit selling to people in the UK, but Amazon UK did not make $7Bn of profit.
Whenever you buy from the Amazon UK website, you are making a sales contract with Amazon EU. Amazon EU then pay Amazon UK (roughly at cost) to actually fulfil the order. All of the profit stays with Amazon EU, and is taxed at Luxembourg rates rather than UK rates.

So Amazon use a (presumably legal) loophole to avoid paying tax in the country in which they actually make the profit. Hardly a shining example of rectitude.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

So Amazon use a (presumably legal) loophole to avoid paying tax in the country in which they actually make the profit. Hardly a shining example of rectitude.

Well, do you ever look to reduce your taxes by legal means through deductions? Isn't that just as "bad"? Why should they pay more than they have to and cheat their share holders? That they are paying so little is really an issue between Luxembourg and the UK.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Amazon may have made $7Bn profit selling to people in the UK, but Amazon UK did not make $7Bn of profit.
Whenever you buy from the Amazon UK website, you are making a sales contract with Amazon EU. Amazon EU then pay Amazon UK (roughly at cost) to actually fulfil the order. All of the profit stays with Amazon EU, and is taxed at Luxembourg rates rather than UK rates.

Exactly the same in France. Taxes are for Luxembourg, only a small part for France.