A really clear case of corruption both at Amazon and within the state labor departments. The fines are so small I’m not sure why Amazon didn’t just reject corruption like this and do things right. Really just speaks to a company culture completely lacking any morals.
Why would small fines mean they should behave correctly? Small fines make it easy to justify as "cost of doing business". It's the large onerous fines which incentivize them to do it the less-profitable and more-moral way, because the fines cost more than doing it right.
Hate to be cliche, but reminds me of the opening scene in Fight Club where Edward Norton's character describes how insurance adjusters(?) determine if a recall is cheaper than the lawsuits from dead/injured people, they do it, otherwise... they don't.
Why would Amazon behave less profitably? Simply because we perceive it to be more moral?
Corporations reliably do not care about morality more than they do about their bottom line. If you want to push them into behaving ethically, you need tools that work. Finger-wagging doesn't work. Hurting the bottom line might.
I tend to look at it from the perspective of "what can we do" more than "what is right". While moral values certainly set the direction we should head in, having strong values achieves no good in the world without practical action.
>Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?
"Why?" aside, there are a few mechanisms behind your question-begging.
Capital itself is amoral. Money doesn't want anything, is not constrained or affected by ethics or morality, and can be used for kittens and torture in exactly the same ways and in the same form.
Companies are created by people, so they can have principles under which the company is guided (by people), and people in turn have ethics (good or bad). Either through weakness or avarice, despite any personal feelings, all public benefit takes a back seat to profits. This is the morality of most capitalist companies: whatever it takes.
It's a cop-out in favor of capital. "Welp, the company doesn't allow me to act according to my ethics because [something about the primacy of shareholders]," say those with power in the company. Any criticism of the morality of capitalist companies is ridiculed as reducing profits, often called "leaving money on the table" and seen nearly-universally in Western societies as a fireable offense for any businessperson hewing to the idea. It's a reason to reduce a person's control over any part of the capital flows that comprise day to day business and finance.
It's a morality of bigotry in favor of capital, and part of "growing up" is learning how to be a "team player" and suppressing one's own preferences in order to perpetuate this bigotry. Comes now Amazon into the picture...
>Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?
Both are continuums, with profits being accurately quantified, and ethics being quite vague, subject to culture and people and history - it's no surprise not every actor comes to the same actions given the same situation.
"Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics"
I say this as a capitalist, but the answer is capitalism.
Our greed-based system incentivizes hoarding and profit above all else, with the logic being, an unrepentant search for profit will, as a side effect, produce the best living conditions and wealthiest people.
It is what it is, but it's a form of "scrub logic" or "loser logic" to run a business in a capitalist system which puts morals above profits. Generally, you will never be successful on a large scale, and all large actors will dominate you easily. There are very, very few exceptions.
Say you’re the guy working at Amazon over this issue and some corrupted state agency starts trying to give you advice on how to limit your responsibilities, shift blame onto the worker, smear the worker, etc.
The question is at that point what do you do? And to boot the amount of money being saved by this will be peanuts.
I would say something to the effect of “stop I don’t want a part in that please follow the correct process and investigate properly.” That’s what should happen when faced with incidents like this.
Because Amazon is not some fell-from-space killer blob, but a collection of human beings, who all should have moral senses?
The notion that we can design a perfect legal system that will always coerce prosocial behavior from sociopaths is absurd. One of the founding assumptions of a democracy is that most people, being humans, will behave humanely. In some circumstances, they need guidance and modest incentives, which is why we have things like building codes, health codes, and workplace safety standards. In rarer circumstances, some people are so awful that we need criminal sanctions to remove bad apples from the ability to cause harm.
We should not expect people to give up their moral sense just because they are cashing a paycheck. And we must not excuse leaders for being monsters just because they get a bigger slice of the pie.
I don't understand, are you mocking me or do we have a bonafide and well respected PhD of Philosophy with a track record in this comment thread?
If the former, I'm super disappointed but not surprised. It is no secret that anyone who remotely questions the criticism of Amazon is downvoted on this forum.
And I say that as someone who avoids spending a dollar out of protest against that company. I really find their practices terrible.
Amazon deserves some blame but the real corruption is on the government agency’s side. Their job is to execute their jobs following rules. Stuff like this shouldn’t be even possible in a well run country.
The worst thing that happened was that Amazon killed one of their employees. Covering that up and not punishing them for it was bad, but let's keep some sense of perspective here.
Lots of folks on HN are in management. I'll assume that none of them have killed any employees recently... Was that because the proper government agencies have regularly informed them of their duty not to kill employees? Or was it rather that many of us are human beings and don't want to regularly kill people just to save few dollars on e.g. sufficient training programs?
> The worst thing that happened was that Amazon killed one of their employees. Covering that up and not punishing them for it was bad, but let's keep some sense of perspective here.
I would argue the actual cover up is much worse, as if it were successful it would allow behavior to continue unimpeded.
That was my point. A government agency should never ever cover up things. Once you allow that then government doesn’t work properly anymore. Same for corrupt cops and other government employees.
Except isn't this exactly what companies like Amazon want? They lobby for lessened regulations and bribe their way into government offices so that when they get exposed doing something bad the blame gets shifted to the government for not doing their job.
The underlying problem is the perceived benefits vs <s> just a small adjustment of facts </s>. Been going on since humans started businesses.
This is why whistleblowers deserve protection above and beyond normal lawsuit situations, because there's almost always a big incumbent on the other end of the deal who still wants the story squashed.
More calls for transparency, more calls for public offices to be held accountable, will always be needed to push back against the tide of influence from all the money floating around.
Good for Stallone for quitting and reporting, and I hope this gets way broader coverage along with every other story like this.
Suffice it to say Amazon does not care about employees, neither at the warehouses nor at their corporate headquarters.
When I was there a guy jumped off a building because they wouldn't let him switch off a toxic team. They also similarly tried to prevent me from switching teams when I was there.
A week ago I was at one of the Amazon retail stores and an employee there agreed that Amazon cares nothing for their employees. Obviously one should take this with a grain of salt as this is just a random statement from a random retail employee, but this is generally what I hear from Amazon workers both current and ex.
The general word on the street in Seattle is "Amazon sucks" to the extent I've heard Amazon employees referred to as Amholes.
> The general word on the street in Seattle is "Amazon sucks"
Just about every dev that it's in the region knows this. It's why their recruiters constantly spam talent in the region. Insane turnover, and you have a very short shelf life due to burnout. It's also why their compensation is mostly in stock. They know you won't last to collect your RSUs.
>It's also why their compensation is mostly in stock. They know you won't last to collect your RSUs.
Not only that, the stock doesn't follow a typical vesting period like "4 years, with a one year cliff" but instead is HEAVILY weighted to later years, so that at the end of year one you barely get any of it percentage-wise.
This is extremely misleading. A typical package looks something like:
year 1: $150k cash + $100k bonus + $10k stock
year 2: $150k cash + $80k bonus + $30k stock
year 3+4: $150k cash + $110k stock
The bonuses vest linear, daily, so there's no clawback if you leave during the first two years.
Realistically, it means that you only get into stock comp if you've stayed for a few years and have decided that it's where you want to stay. Otherwise, you just get a nice big pile of cash each month.
The engineer in me respects that Amazon built an engineering org that can handle that rate of attrition and still be relatively reliable and release new products.
On the contrary, the amount of wasted time and effort from attrition is mind-boggling. If the level of engineering discipline were higher, it might not be so bad.
> When I was there a guy jumped off a building because they wouldn't let him switch off a toxic team
I mean, they would have let him leave the company, right? It seems unreasonable to blame Amazon for this guy’s tragic decision, since any reasonable person would have taken a more reasonable exit.
This seems a little cold to me. The fact that there’s an environment at amazon that leads someone to kill themself by jumping off a building doesn’t lead me to think “oh a more reasonable person would’ve left the company.” There’s plenty of other things wrong about the article. This true story was not one of them.
I didn't read the article. But to think that a more reasonable person would have left the company is exactly you should think. If someone jumps off a building due to not being able to join their team of choice then there's a lot...a lot, more going on than job issues. They needed help that they unfortunately never received.
I don't understand why people in these situations don't quit or internal transfer. Everyone else on the team left except for him but he thought things would get better? He should have left long before the bad performance review.
I find it interesting the whistle blower claims the governor attended a meeting where pressure was applied to back off the investigation. The Governor claims he never attended a meeting. Wouldn't this be an easy item to fact check by getting records of meeting attendees?
> The Governor claims he never attended a meeting. Wouldn't this be an easy item to fact check by getting records of meeting attendees?
That meeting was probably never on the official schedule. There are numerous ways to arrange such things off the books. The Gov's office can certainly provide the schedule which will give him plausible deniability, after which it's he said she said, unless another witness comes forward.
(If the above strikes you as too underhanded and sleazy, well, the whole affair is such. The lure of Amazon HQ2 was in play, remember.)
You could think of this as a simple "he said she said", but what possible benefit does the whistleblower stand to gain from making this story up? Whereas the governor has a very obvious incentive to deny the whole thing happened.
I'd like to believe that this was a culture failure isolated to a single fulfillment center, but that seems like a convenient way to absolve Amazon of guilt.
At the end of the day, it's Amazon's responsibility to enforce a safety culture in each and every fulfillment center, and failing to do so is inexcusable.
This is sad. I used to work in a warehouse and we were mandated to have training in proper forklift use. There is no excuse for Amazon not conducting proper training.
The Indiana officials who tried to cover this up should have their ass put in a sling.
How about Federal level OSHA refusing to get involved.
That is seriously messed up. He even had the audio of the IOSHA coverup and that was not enough for OSHA?
Forklift training is one thing. Forklift maintenance is not something you could easily teach. It is learned by years of on the job experience.
Something that Amazon was not willing to pay for with Forklift Maintenance Mechanics.
Disgusting show from all parties involved.
There should be a FBI investigation and the Governors phone location data used. I bet the whistle-blower is right.
especially when Indiana mandates the training as you need the Indiana cert to drive one.
I'm from Indiana, years ago we had the Indiana License Branch Director be diagnosed with narcolepsy and still had a driving license..no joke this state has no logic
<quote>
Amazon’s corporate offices in Seattle gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to Indiana’s governor. It was years before Holcomb would next face reelection, and Amazon hasn’t donated to him before or since.
</quote>
They probably care more about bad publicity than fines, especially since they're already under public scrutiny for their treatment of warehouse workers.
Maybe it is about the state showing what it could do for Amazon in the future, should they build their HQ there? Or maybe it is more about saving the image of the company then the actual fine?
That whole "new HQ" operation was a brilliant hoax. I hope the people who pulled that off see at least some of their options vest before they get laid off.
This article feels a little fishy to me. The title says an "investigation says" "Indiana manipulated a report," but there's no evidence to suggest this besides one person's claims and it doesn't seem there was any official investigation into whether the report was manipulated. Also, all the figures appear to be an order of magnitude off... All this fuss over only $28,000? And a single $1,000 donation? That's a drop in the pond. I wouldn't be surprised if there was indeed a lot of corruption in bidding for Amazon's HQ, but something doesn't add up here for me.
