All companies are natural predators and anyone who's worked in a large business will have encountered individual corporate sociopaths, relentlessly worming their way up to the top by abusing and exploiting everyone they can to get there. 

But with Amazon the whole business culture is based around corporate sociopathy. Problem is the product is just what customers want so the only effective ways to change businesses like this are through robust employment protection laws - in the UK these are reasonably strong, but not all national governments want to do this - or by inflicting reputational damage. Social media can be very effective here, by exposing company bad behaviours to the world's gaze. As Corporal Jones says in the classic BBC sitcom Dad's Army "They don't like it up 'em!"

All companies are natural predators and anyone who's worked in a large business will have encountered individual corporate sociopaths, relentlessly worming their way up to the top by abusing and exploiting everyone they can to get there. 

 

But with Amazon the whole business culture is based around corporate sociopathy. Problem is the product is just what customers want so the only effective ways to change businesses like this are through robust employment protection laws - in the UK these are reasonably strong, but not all national governments want to do this - or by inflicting reputational damage. Social media can be very effective here, by exposing company bad behaviours to the world's gaze. As Corporal Jones says in the classic BBC sitcom Dad's Army "They don't like it up 'em!"

Google and Facebook at least have kool aid, parties, and break rooms to indoctrinate their cult-----employees

Amazon's low margin squeeze them til they're dead business model gives nothing to their employees.

If I were to fully respond the entire article, I will end up writing a book about what's wrong with the world today, so I shall be concise.

Major points of this response that readers should keep in mind:

1) the return of sensationalism in journalism

2) the Internet effect

3) miscommunication is the primary reason for conflict

4) cultural difference between east and west coast

5) the most malicious act is often well-intended

6) ulterior motive of the article

I went on and read the original article by NY Times.  While reading it constantly reminded me that in online journalism, the editor-in-chief often seems to be absent (or they only get paid and do nothing).  Nobody seems to be doing fact-checking, and the objectivity of the article often borderlines on being tabloid-like.  Complex subject matter such as the corporate culture was seemingly written without consultation of industry experts (which if there was ever an EIC, it would his/her role to discuss this over with the writers).

If I were to fully respond the entire article, I will end up writing a book about what's wrong with the world today, so I shall be concise.

 

Major points of this response that readers should keep in mind:

1) the return of sensationalism in journalism

2) the Internet effect

3) miscommunication is the primary reason for conflict

4) cultural difference between east and west coast

5) the most malicious act is often well-intended

6) ulterior motive of the article

 

I went on and read the original article by NY Times.  While reading it constantly reminded me that in online journalism, the editor-in-chief often seems to be absent (or they only get paid and do nothing).  Nobody seems to be doing fact-checking, and the objectivity of the article often borderlines on being tabloid-like.  Complex subject matter such as the corporate culture was seemingly written without consultation of industry experts (which if there was ever an EIC, it would his/her role to discuss this over with the writers).

But it's not just internet journalism. Here in the UK, The Daily Telegraph has carried several reports about mistreatment of Amazon workers and the BBC flagship current affairs Panorama used covert recording to gather video evidence of normal working conditions that were oppressive and unlawful. So I think the evidence is pretty clear that Amazon expects a chunk of its profits to be generated by treating its workers like shit and paying minimum wage, which is not a living wage so taxpayers effectively subsidize Amazon's profits through government welfare payments so those guys can actually live - correction, subsist. That's the business model of Amazon.

Without judging Amazon:

Bad working conditions exist because employees accept them and customers turn a blind eye while searching for the lowest possible price.

The need for a job often precludes individuals from leaving, particularly in the lower ranks. I have no pity for an executive who gets counseled out when he or she was a witness to the corporate culture in the past and chose not to speak up. (Franklin Niemoller's famous quote comes to mind.)

Customers flock to Walmart for their low proces yet the company has a history of bad employment practices (seems to be changing due to media pressure) and in it's search for cheap goods drives companies to manufacture in China and then drives local business out when they open in smaller communities.

I refuse to spend a dime with Walmart because of this. At Amazon, they only thing I've ever bought are some music or book downloads. My puny dollar may not mean much but as a group, consumers has the ultimate power.

Beyond the jokes, I will get serious and add one point that should not be forgotten:

On the flip side, Amazon is also a public marketplace for independent producers and writers. Some GA authors have published through amazon as well, so while their operations may not be what we prefer for employers; they do deliver an invaluable service. Not spending money at Amazon does not merely hurt Amazon's bottom line, it hurts individuals reliant on Amazon as their marketplace.

There's a lot of angles to the consumerism and it is not always black and white.

But it's not just internet journalism. Here in the UK, The Daily Telegraph has carried several reports about mistreatment of Amazon workers and the BBC flagship current affairs Panorama used covert recording to gather video evidence of normal working conditions that were oppressive and unlawful. So I think the evidence is pretty clear that Amazon expects a chunk of its profits to be generated by treating its workers like shit and paying minimum wage, which is not a living wage so taxpayers effectively subsidize Amazon's profits through government welfare payments so those guys can actually live - correction, subsist. That's the business model of Amazon.

 

I am not condoning Amazon's behavior nor any employer's.  If they violate local jurisdiction, then they're illegal.  I am wondering about the tactics of the articles that twist and bend words out of proportion so it suits its purpose.

Eighty-hour week is totally out of wack, but 12-hour work day is common place in here for years.  It has to do with whether if your labor code is exempt or non-exempt.  Most front end managers, who are the enforcers of the labor laws don't even know the differences.  So even if the upper management sets the best policies, if it's not properly enforced, it's useless.  Those unfortunate people who are under such bad manager (I had such managers before) may accuse the entire company to hold responsible.  This is something to be communicated between upper and lower management and punitive action must be done to the violating manager.  The reason those people who hold company rather than the violating manager to be responsible is because a lot of time, the violating manager would fire the employee before they can escalate to the top management.  It happens rather often and that's the gritty reality happens in life for years, if not decades, but these journalists only recently discovered.

Obviously there are other issues I can speak about, but I shall spare from bore you guys.  Just live your life happily.  If you met an employer like this, remember, you DO have a choice of not working for them.  The downturn economy makes the decision harder, not to mention you might never get another job offer again, but enough is enough.

Without judging Amazon:

 

Bad working conditions exist because employees accept them and customers turn a blind eye while searching for the lowest possible price.

 

The need for a job often precludes individuals from leaving, particularly in the lower ranks. I have no pity for an executive who gets counseled out when he or she was a witness to the corporate culture in the past and chose not to speak up. (Franklin Niemoller's famous quote comes to mind.)

 

Customers flock to Walmart for their low proces yet the company has a history of bad employment practices (seems to be changing due to media pressure) and in it's search for cheap goods drives companies to manufacture in China and then drives local business out when they open in smaller communities.

 

I refuse to spend a dime with Walmart because of this. At Amazon, they only thing I've ever bought are some music or book downloads. My puny dollar may not mean much but as a group, consumers has the ultimate power.

Yes, Amazon has turned into Walmart of the Internet for years now (so NY Times has been way behind and made me chuckle for its naivete).  It killed quite a bit of smaller businesses (as well as large book shops like Borders and even B&N is struggling), but it's hard not to buy products via Amazon and minion businesses which learned to coexists with Amazon to survive in today's economic climate.  People buy from them because either the price is much better, or because local shops don't carry them.  Books are turning digital, so Kindle force is unstoppable, much like MP3 has turned the tide on how music is delivered.  It's inevitable.  But social responsibility depends on the individual company's enforcement or consumer's shift of lifestyle.  I own nothing Nike, and refrain from Walmart, but they don't die this easily.  Boycotting oil consumption day didn't work, and companies are still outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labor.  Yes, our individual power is very little, but that's why us weird SF Bay Area people buy local brands.  Inject money back into the local economy that's how people can get a job to buy something that's good for the economy rather than buy the cheapest, which helps to kill more jobs (and drives management to give even worse working condition).

Yes, Amazon has turned into Walmart of the Internet for years now (so NY Times has been way behind and made me chuckle for its naivete).  It killed quite a bit of smaller businesses (as well as large book shops like Borders and even B&N is struggling), but it's hard not to buy products via Amazon and minion businesses which learned to coexists with Amazon to survive in today's economic climate.  People buy from them because either the price is much better, or because local shops don't carry them.  Books are turning digital, so Kindle force is unstoppable, much like MP3 has turned the tide on how music is delivered.  It's inevitable.  But social responsibility depends on the individual company's enforcement or consumer's shift of lifestyle.  I own nothing Nike, and refrain from Walmart, but they don't die this easily.  Boycotting oil consumption day didn't work, and companies are still outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labor.  Yes, our individual power is very little, but that's why us weird SF Bay Area people buy local brands.  Inject money back into the local economy that's how people can get a job to buy something that's good for the economy rather than buy the cheapest, which helps to kill more jobs (and drives management to give even worse working condition).

OMG! I'm a San Franciscan (????) without knowing it!

New Balance and PF Flyers manufacture sneakers in the USA

American Giant manufactures great casual wear in the San Francisco area

I patronize all three brands

I wouldn't believe the hype.  I know a large number of "Amazonians" professionally and their experience varies wildly from the experience reported in the NY Times.  I would also postulate that the NY Times fell short of their usual journalistic standards in terms of balance, bias review and allowing an appropriate response.

One guy from Amazon wrote a rebuttal that you can find linked here.  This is not a senior manager there by any means, but I find his response compelling.

You are always going to have disgruntled employees of any business.