In the UK we got changes in law that will let companies like Amazon bypass unions and employment law altogether. It's coming in April. It's crazy and chilling when you think that neither Labour nor unions did anything to stop this. Check: https://norightsemployee.uk/faq
I think it's the use of the exclamation points that gets me.
Will NREs attract union attention? No!
Will NREs save me money? Yes!
Can NREs improve my share price? Yes!
Do I have to invite NREs to Christmas Parties and other Company Social Events? No!
Are you sure? It's normal to take stuff you're actually doing, and muddy the waters with faux joking about it to soften people up. IR35 appears to be a real thing. Maybe what you mean is that the 'No-Rights Employee' website is made to appear like it advocates for the concept, while actually being made to criticise it.
This is the context in which Liz Warren is making her comments. It's literally her job to know what Amazon's doing with labor laws and work conditions as they relate to being an American citizen.
When she talks about snotty tweets (quickly spun by enemies into a claim that the ONLY thing she observes or cares about is the sass) what she's decrying is the observation that they will abuse workers, rig the whole system to destroy worker protections of any sort, AND then sass you for objecting in any way to it, even when it is literally your job to be the framework of rules and laws that contextualizes their behavior.
Amazon's scorched-earth strategy is consistent with what they inherently are, but that's also their big weakness. Warren is right that they expect to dismantle all laws and rules that stop them treating Americans like enslaved workers in obscure Asian countries, and THEN they expect to sass you about it on Twitter if you don't like that.
They expect to act as Gods, because they can afford to be. I get how Bezos gets that impression, but he's mistaken that it is in any way a good thing.
At the same time, politicians like Elizabeth Warren are not exactly doing the right thing either. She recently tweeted:
"I didn’t write the loopholes you exploit,
@amazon – your armies of lawyers and lobbyists did. But you bet I’ll fight to make you pay your fair share. And fight your union-busting. And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets."
As much as monopolies bother me in the market ... I'm much more bothered by the monopoly of power represented by government. For a sitting senator to act like she can use the power of the government because someone was "snotty" to her is ridiculous.
The only control on senatorial power is elections ... and elections are driven by emotions and not long term views about what is good for the country. I'm afraid Warren and Sanders populism is now unopposed in the Democratic party ... just as Trumpist populism ruins the GOP.
> I'm much more bothered by the monopoly of power represented by government.
I don’t know what that means - are you proposing that governments not have sovereignty over the states in which they control? Or are you saying that we need to take her tweet in the most literal meaning possible and assume she is intending to use anti-trust as a means to punish Amazon for the sole reason of a middle manager sent a mean tweet?
I think the meaning is that because government has a monopoly on force/power that they need to be far more careful about how they word things. It's the kind of outburst you expect to see from a movie villain: "Don't you plebs know who I am?!"
But perhaps this shows that some politicians are far more willing to communicate with people more candidly.
> For a sitting senator to act like she can use the power of the government because someone was "snotty" to her is ridiculous.
You're cherry-picking her quote, because that isn't all she said. A more charitable reading of said cherry is "companies shouldn't feel they're above the law".
I think Bezos’ instincts are starting to fail him as he has been elevated into a demigod like status. Let’s see if Jassy brings a bit more sense to PR/Regulatory affairs.
People used to be (or still are?) worried about monopolies because after all competition are killed, your sole supplier can determine the terms of the business relationship. Maybe Amazon is doing the Walmart thing of "you hate us, but you'll keep coming back for our low prices/you've got nowhere else to go".
Also since there are now 2 tribes, I wonder if they're thinking they can trash talk Warren and Sanders and at worst they'll always have customers, i.e. the people who demonize these 2 politicians.
Retailing is an extremely low barrier to entry industry, especially online retailing. Predatory Pricing may have worked in the era of railroads, which have an extremely high startup cost, but it does not work work for online retailing. Amazon cannot achieve ~100% permanent market share by lowering the prices and then raising them.
They have an unfair logistics advantage that allows them to crush everyone in cost. Part of that comes from contacts with the USPS that are super low price
The two aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Sure, monopolies often have higher pricing but for something like Amazon where the barrier to entry is just a website, of course they need competitive pricing.
They’re able to offer that competitive pricing because of the enormous economies of scale, bargaining power, etc. that no one else has.
> (...) but for something like Amazon where the barrier to entry is just a website,
This comment is totally alienated from Amazon's business. Amazon is not a website. Amazon is a retail company, and their barrier to entry is their logistics infrastructure. You don't buy stuff from Amazon because you can click a button. You buy from Amazon because it can ship your order right to your front door in a matter of hours or days, and do it without any added cost, and even allows you to return everything for free no questions asked.
Anyone can put up an website in a week, but no one can put up a high throughout low latency logistics network that allows for a turnaround time between click and doorstep as low as a few hours.
In fact, Amazon's website is notoriously horrible in classification and search. I'd argue that Amazon dominates in spite of its website in general, and search and detail pages in particular.
I don't quite think the criticism amazon is receiving for their PR response is really valid. The initial criticism may very well be, but what are they supposed to do? I think people and more so politicians are used to companies sulking and apologizing for any criticism they receive because they really really want your money, and so people are used to just throwing criticism and accusations around, and this is really just people getting upset that they're not taking it lying down. I think people and companies need to start unapologetically defending themselves when they feel the attacks are unwarranted rather than rolling over every time someone with political power raises it like a club. I might not agree with amazon and I might agree with the initial criticism they're responding to, and I'm no amazon fanboy, but their response is something I'd like to see more of, we would have a healthier political process and public discourse if more people and organizations defended themselves publicly more often.
I think the response by the senator is particularly telling:
>/.../ And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.
Shouldn't everyone be able to respond to 'attacks' on them on Twitter regardless who the attacker is? It's not like Amazon went out to heckle the senator out of the blue.
Yup. Imagine voting for someone (or being someone) that is elected to office and threatens to use power from that office in such a petty way. "Don't talk back subject, I own you." And I'm supposed to pretend these are good people because they virtue signal every chance they get?
> Amazon has an entire program where employees at so-called fulfillment centers (which is to say, warehouses) can sign up to defend the company online. What do the employees get out of it? One day of paid vacation and a $50 Amazon gift card, according to reports from 2019
This is disgusting. Bribing warehouse employees to give rosy descriptions of the company. The link from 2019 is even worse. Tracking them by affiliate id, to see what they said.
The purpose of joining a union is to gain better wages, working conditions, and protection from mistreatment by supervisors. Then no one has to give you specific perks to entice you into saying that you like your job. You'll just say it's a good job when asked.
> I don't quite think the criticism amazon is receiving for their PR response is really valid. The initial criticism may very well be, but what are they supposed to do?
For starters?
Not lie, or manipulate their employees to actively undermine their best interests.
38 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 86.0 ms ] threadI think it's the use of the exclamation points that gets me.
Will NREs attract union attention? No! Will NREs save me money? Yes! Can NREs improve my share price? Yes! Do I have to invite NREs to Christmas Parties and other Company Social Events? No!
When she talks about snotty tweets (quickly spun by enemies into a claim that the ONLY thing she observes or cares about is the sass) what she's decrying is the observation that they will abuse workers, rig the whole system to destroy worker protections of any sort, AND then sass you for objecting in any way to it, even when it is literally your job to be the framework of rules and laws that contextualizes their behavior.
Amazon's scorched-earth strategy is consistent with what they inherently are, but that's also their big weakness. Warren is right that they expect to dismantle all laws and rules that stop them treating Americans like enslaved workers in obscure Asian countries, and THEN they expect to sass you about it on Twitter if you don't like that.
They expect to act as Gods, because they can afford to be. I get how Bezos gets that impression, but he's mistaken that it is in any way a good thing.
"I didn’t write the loopholes you exploit, @amazon – your armies of lawyers and lobbyists did. But you bet I’ll fight to make you pay your fair share. And fight your union-busting. And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets."
As much as monopolies bother me in the market ... I'm much more bothered by the monopoly of power represented by government. For a sitting senator to act like she can use the power of the government because someone was "snotty" to her is ridiculous.
The only control on senatorial power is elections ... and elections are driven by emotions and not long term views about what is good for the country. I'm afraid Warren and Sanders populism is now unopposed in the Democratic party ... just as Trumpist populism ruins the GOP.
I'm bearish on America now.
I don’t know what that means - are you proposing that governments not have sovereignty over the states in which they control? Or are you saying that we need to take her tweet in the most literal meaning possible and assume she is intending to use anti-trust as a means to punish Amazon for the sole reason of a middle manager sent a mean tweet?
But perhaps this shows that some politicians are far more willing to communicate with people more candidly.
Both of these senators ran in the presidential primary and not only were they opposed, they were defeated.
Too good for the first?
You're cherry-picking her quote, because that isn't all she said. A more charitable reading of said cherry is "companies shouldn't feel they're above the law".
Also since there are now 2 tribes, I wonder if they're thinking they can trash talk Warren and Sanders and at worst they'll always have customers, i.e. the people who demonize these 2 politicians.
They’re able to offer that competitive pricing because of the enormous economies of scale, bargaining power, etc. that no one else has.
This comment is totally alienated from Amazon's business. Amazon is not a website. Amazon is a retail company, and their barrier to entry is their logistics infrastructure. You don't buy stuff from Amazon because you can click a button. You buy from Amazon because it can ship your order right to your front door in a matter of hours or days, and do it without any added cost, and even allows you to return everything for free no questions asked.
Anyone can put up an website in a week, but no one can put up a high throughout low latency logistics network that allows for a turnaround time between click and doorstep as low as a few hours.
In fact, Amazon's website is notoriously horrible in classification and search. I'd argue that Amazon dominates in spite of its website in general, and search and detail pages in particular.
>/.../ And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.
Shouldn't everyone be able to respond to 'attacks' on them on Twitter regardless who the attacker is? It's not like Amazon went out to heckle the senator out of the blue.
That's called the first amendment.
This is disgusting. Bribing warehouse employees to give rosy descriptions of the company. The link from 2019 is even worse. Tracking them by affiliate id, to see what they said.
There's a difference.
For starters?
Not lie, or manipulate their employees to actively undermine their best interests.
Is it too much to ask?