BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?

Subject: RE: BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 10:16 AM

I too make a somewhat feeble effort to live ethically. But being on a limited income, I do have to buy cheaply if possible. It's true that if things at a store or warehouse are much cheaper, the reason is probably because of exploitation. Just look at Matalan, Primark and other cut-price outlets, and of course products from China. They're based on very young, possibly child labour, low wages, long hours and unacceptable working conditions. I'm guilty of benefiting from this, as I love a bargain. I suppose I'll still buy from Amazon, but I'm not proud of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 10:09 AM

I just sent a three point e-mail to their feedback line, before the programme aired. It would have been a four point jab.
Predictably they answered 1, which was to point-out that their pop-up invocation to download their add-on just to download a tune did in fact have a "download directly" link in smaller type.
I have been very wary of their sales since the UK tax debacle and because they now host global sellers and the indication of that is equally obscure. I can't always wait 6 weeks.

And if Amazon are the biggest target, hit them first. The lesser rats will be more attentive and ready for their onslaught.

Hit their pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 09:48 AM

Difficult. Trying to live ethically is fraught with frustration. I too didn't think Panaroma put its case well, and reminded me of some of the more desperate stories on Watchdog where you end up siding with the company in the spotlight....

I suppose Amazon was chosen on the basis of maximum impact, as more people watching will have used Amazon than most other warehouse companies, and they do it all in house. Most of their competitors share resource, making a programme like that harder to keep simple.

Up till recently, I have had the view that very large companies cannot really afford the bad PR, so tend to be better employers. John Lewis and years ago, Marks &Sparks being two examples, so I could buy with them with confidence. (Once Th*tcher blatantly promoted M&S though, I was able to make a point of avoiding the place. Pity as their socks used to be the best for the price...)

Now, there is a degree of arrogance in large companies where they feel untouchable by bad press, mainly because there is so much media coverage of so many stories, any story is drowned in the sea of media.

Companies were held to account more when there was just BBC, ITV and the tabloids, which were either a help or a hindrance, depending on the day of the week.

I'm not saying the choice or invention of newsfeeds is bad, just that tomorrow's chip paper has now become the next minute's chip paper.

On balance, I work on the idea that if I wish to buy something I buy it. I recently bought a new car, and although the list price is still as high as it has ever been for a premium brand, (BMW) the discounts available are far higher than they used to be. Good? Or is it that this car is now made in Eastern Europe, with lower pay and working conditions?

If I let my conscience tell me off all the time, I'd forget why I worked my nuts off for years to enjoy life now in the first place. There was a time when Mrs Musket banked with the Co op for ethical reasons, but that was before the crystal Methodist.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 08:09 AM

Deffo agree on the main point, that the whole industry needs tackling, rather than just one target chosen for a kicking by the biased operatives of Panorama (par for the course).

Those conditions seem beyond slavery on the face of it, but I wonder if their turnover in staff reflects dissatisfaction to the extent the program implied.

Subject: BS: Amazon. Guilty as Charged?
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 05:54 AM

Apologies if the following sounds like I'm playing devil's advocate, but I'm trying to resolve a few issues which have arisen in my onw mind. Anyway;

Last night the BBC's Panorama programme showed an expose of Amazon, called 'The Truth Behind the Click; How well does online retailer Amazon treat the workers who retrieve our orders?'

My feeling, on watching the programme, was that Panorama didn't make its case all that well. Also, while Amazon seems hell bent on turning its workers into zombies, its treatment of those workers appears only marginally worse than that of most other catalogue warehouse firms. I can say that with some confidence, having once worked as a warehouseman for a well known high street catalogue retailer.

What do other people think? If slavery type working conditions are endemic throughout the catalogue industry, shouldn't we be attacking that entire industry, instead of making a scapegoat out of its leading member?

Also, does anyone know whether Amazon workers are unionised?

Finally, does anyone know whether these conditions also apply to the Book Depository, or any enterprises which Amazon own?

Well, not quite finally, I should add that I haven't ordered anything direct from Amazon since I first heard about their treatment of their employees.