
Amazon workers sleeping in tents - mbgaxyz
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/325800/exclusive-amazon-workers-sleeping-in-tents-near-dunfermline-site/
======
skookum
Given all the handwringing on HN in the last month about fake/biased news,
it's ironic to see so many comments latching onto this story with "well duh,
we always knew Amazon was a terrible employer, and here's more proof!"

I'm not going to try to defend Amazon - it certainly has many employment
issues both in the FCs and at HQ. But this story specifically is virtually
content-free. Most of it's content is to be found in the first sentence: "At
least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail
giant’s base just off the M90 in Dunfermline in recent days" and then later it
emerges that they managed to find one occupied tent whose occupant was using
the tent to avoid commuting from his home. The rest of the article strings
together innuendo and rehashes talking points to try to build the desired
narrative and mental picture of a tent city full of freezing, starving Amazon
FC workers.

A truthful headline would have been "An Amazon worker sleeps in a tent near
Dunfermline site to avoid long commute", but then that would neither have
sparked the same moral outrage nor garnered the same number of clicks.

~~~
edderly
> He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper
> than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had
> disappeared by Friday afternoon.

Perth and the Dunfermline site are roughly 30 miles apart, on public transport
the trip would take roughly 2 hours.

Sounds like a great idea castigate an employer in a semi-rural area with piss
poor public transportation.

~~~
CydeWeys
Honestly, you're never going to have good public transportation in rural
areas. There simply isn't the density to support it. It's a given that
efficient transportation in such areas happens via car, which is a huge
problem if you're working a job at a place like an Amazon warehouse that
doesn't pay enough money to be able to easily afford a car.

Some potential future network of public transportation provided via self-
driving cars excepted.

~~~
gsnedders
There's hourly buses from Perth to Dunfermline and very infrequent direct
trains: the real problem isn't the ruralness of it, it's getting out to the
industrial estate on the edge of town where Amazon's site is located that
makes it take so long.

~~~
CydeWeys
Ruralness is the exact problem, though. That's why the buses are only hourly
and trains are infrequent: Not enough population density to justify the
increased expense of running more. I live in Manhattan, and trains and buses
are waaaay more frequent.

~~~
gsnedders
Right, but at the same time there's still a very large difference between a
token, once-a-day service and an hourly service: an hourly service is
sufficient for many to use it for commuting (and while I haven't ever been on
the X55, the majority of other buses in the area which have hourly services
are heavily used by commuters and I've seen them have to turn passengers away
upon occasion).

------
throwaway420
I don't like this article because it seems like a purely emotional appeal.

To be sure, there's a lot of people who have said that Amazon is a shitty
place to work: not just in entry level jobs, but even as a well-educated 6
figure software engineer. I would not choose to work for Amazon unless I was
desperate, period. It seems too corporate and too micromanaged a place to work
and the few good things about working there that I've heard like small teams
don't outweigh all of the negatives.

That being said, Amazon isn't a government entity that is responsible for your
housing and they have no right to tell you where to sleep at night.

Look at this section of the article in particular.

> One worker, who did not wish to be named, was reluctant to speak to The
> Courier but did describe the firm as a “poor employer” and criticised
> working practices at the Fife site. He added that he had opted to stay in a
> tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth,
> although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon.

This is a guy took the best job that was available to him (even though it's
far away from his house) who is doing this by choice for a period of time as
he believes that this decision benefits him the most. I don't see anything
wrong with this. I feel bad for him if his stuff got stolen because of the
extra media attention there: the reporter was probably intending to do
something nice for them and it might end up backfiring.

But really, what can Amazon do about this? For that one example, that's a guy
that already has a home but chooses not use it out of convenience. If they
offered seasonal workers some extra resources and facilities (say use of the
parking lot to sleep in safer at night) to make their lives easier, they'd
instantly be accused of exploiting workers and there would be images of tent
cities on the news every night trying to make them look bad.

~~~
s_kilk
> But really, what can Amazon do about this?

They could pay their workers a living wage and not treat them like dogs.

~~~
briandear
Supply and demand.

~~~
gaur
The Silicon Valley empathy vacuum strikes again.

------
zatkin
Let me describe my experience with the application process. I did not accept
the job.

I applied to be an Amazon Fulfillment Specialist (or whatever they're called)
back when I was without a job in Silicon Valley a few months ago.

I applied online and got the job offer without any interview at all
whatsoever. They asked me to attend a 'training session' in a conference room
at a nearby hotel. When the doors opened, there were tables lined up on the
perimeter of the conference room with a small projector in the middle that
illuminated the Amazon logo on the screen. In one corner, people started
lining up to get their photo taken and were also given a piece of paper with
their name and other information like a candidate number. After you had your
photo taken, you had to take a seat at one of the tables which had a swab
stick for a drug test as well as some other paperwork for the drug test (like
a consent form). The presenter was a real prick because when people asked him
questions he would be very assertive and act as if people were wasting his
time trying to get through the slideshow, which described their work ethics
and talked more about the job. At some point we got to the drug test part
which involved the presenter slowly going step by step through the process and
checking to make sure we were all in sync. Once we were done, we put the drug
test into some kind of bag and were free to go.

Overall, the process was horrendous and really showed that Amazon just wants
anyone and everyone to become part of their fulfillment center. It doesn't
surprise me that people would sleep outside of the fulfillment center given
how smooth sailing the hiring process is, if it's anything like what I went
through. It's meant to be open and 'friendly' to anyone without any recent
drug usage.

~~~
philovivero
> process was horrendous and really showed that Amazon just wants anyone and
> everyone to become part of their fulfillment center

It sounds like you're saying this is a bad thing. Here we are with a hiring
process that really lives up to the ideals we've been preaching for the past
50 years. Equality. Actual, real equality. Women, Blacks, Ethnic Undesirables,
Special Needs... It doesn't matter who you are, you can get the job.

And it's "horrendous."

For what it's worth, I actually agree with you, but it does seem telling that
this process that clearly lives up to the requirements all the underprivileged
of our society demanded, we call it horrendous.

Are you suggesting that a meritocracy is better?

------
dvdcxn
I worked for an Amazon fulfilment centre in Scotland, I don't want to say too
much on the matter, as it'd be quite negative. It's suffice to say, this does
not surprise me in the slightest.

~~~
threatofrain
Doesn't that imply that Scotland's inadequate legal and social structures
leave them to <hope> that Amazon behaves in a morally generous way? Let's say
that Amazon starts paying their workers more. Should the workers of Scotland
then go to sleep, comfortable underneath the blanket of Amazon's incidental
moral generosity?

Shouldn't the workers of Scotland, if they have the ear of their fellow
countrymen, move to change the legal and social structure in which Amazon is
only one of many members? What about the company that behaves cruely but isn't
big enough to reach the news like Amazon does?

This is why I don't have faith in moral narratives.

~~~
tptacek
I think you intended this comment as snark, but the irony of it is that
Scotland is today part of the UK, but was almost --- and will likely be within
the next few years, as a result of Brexit --- an independent country
_precisely_ because its citizens don't agree with the policies set in England
on its behalf.

Scotland is quite a bit more liberal than the rest of the UK; it does indeed
see more of its future in the social democracies of northern Europe.

~~~
threatofrain
No I don't mean for my comment to deliver emotional impact or to be carried
through vehicles of sarcasm or irony.

And whether Scotland becomes independent, my point remains -- you can ask why
Amazon pays minimum wage, or you can ask why minimum wage is so low.

Depending on Amazon to be moral is as inadequate a solution as hoping for
noblesse oblige. It's more interesting to discuss the <mechanics> of why
Amazon class entities will pay higher wages.

Or people can morally shame <one> Amazon event, just like people who disagreed
with Peter Thiel's influence in the sex tape case instinctually shame <one>
Peter Thiel event. Whether you're asking for Amazon or Peter Thiel to "do the
right thing", you're asking for noblesse oblige.

This kind of moral shaming does not scale, it depends on flash outrage, and
companies that play the long game in media will beat this kind of ad-hoc moral
shaming.

I also wanted to discuss not merely government structure, but also social
structure, to imply that multiple parties need to fail for classes of workers
to be exploited. The net of your society is the reason why Amazon is permitted
to exploit an individual, and that includes churches, advocacy organizations,
unions, etc.

I thought that discussion of both hard and soft structures is the better way
to go, or we can hope that outrage continues to shows up at the right time and
the right place.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
No, we can ask why any profitable large corporation thinks its ok to pay
starvation wages to their workers. Its not right; they have the money to pay
more; they don't. I'm asking why.

~~~
threatofrain
Is it right for you to have drinking water delivered through modern
technologies and systems? Is that your moral right?

Should we discuss whether you have the moral right to water, or should we
discuss the formal plans to erect an infrastructure of water?

The latter doesn't require you to do any serious moral labor (deliberation and
consensus work). You need only want. Do we both want something? Then we
already have a basis for discussion. The question of whether you want workers
to be paid more is far easier to answer than the question of whether moral
consensus on workers wages can be achieved in your lifespan.

 _Also, how many moral frameworks for achieving moral consensus are you aware
of?_ There are certainly frameworks for achieving empirical consensus on
policy effectiveness.

------
iopuy
Someone very close to me works at a newly constructed Amazon fulfilment
center. She was told she would be a "sortation expert" and when she arrived
was told her job had changed and she would now be the person loading trucks
with packages that weigh up to 49 pounds... Not ideal considering she weighs
110 pounds bit whatever, she has agreed to the job. The shady stuff is how
they schedule workers. Only 4 hours a day "so your muscles are fresh"
according to a supervisor. They also mysteriously had no work to do on
Thanksgiving so everyone was sent home (so they didn't have to pay time and a
half we later learned). But the next couple days after they we absolutely
slammed. Also they reward employees that are forced to stay late with $5 swag
gift cards for the Amazon store, not Amazon. It's seasonal and temporary so
it's not a huge deal but I couldn't imaginr working for a company like that
permanently.

~~~
userbinator
I suspect the "up to 49 pounds" is some sort of legal limit on the amount of
weight a healthy adult is expected to be able to carry.

~~~
cperciva
It is. (Or rather, 50 lbs is; I'm guessing someone rounded down here.)

You probably see this most often when traveling: Normal checked suitcases must
be at most 50lbs. (Typically up to 70lbs is allowed if you pay an extra fee,
but the bag then needs a "HEAVY" sticker, which alerts ground crew to handle
it carefully to avoid injuries.)

------
nathantotten
Say what you will about the conditions at places like Foxconn in China, but at
least they provide food and shelter.

I wonder if there is an opportunity for western companies to build factories
on a smaller scale to Foxconn where employees live on campus. Wages could be
low, but with basic services provided it could be a chance for low wage
earners to save up some money. The costs might be too high for it to work on
that scale though.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> I wonder if there is an opportunity for western companies to build factories
> on a smaller scale to Foxconn where employees live on campus. Wages could be
> low, but with basic services provided it could be a chance for low wage
> earners to save up some money. The costs might be too high for it to work on
> that scale though.

How quickly we forget history.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip)

~~~
Klathmon
I was gonna say, didn't this lead to exploitation and almost slave-labor
before?

I mean with some strong regulation things might be different, but with the
political landscape as it is I don't think it would work out.

~~~
the-dude
The Netherlands has several 'Company neighbourhoods', I was raised in one.
They were typically built before the second world war and they were actually
meant to 'enable the working class'. Build quality was good and had quite some
space for the time. Layout of the neighbourhood was not dense but left spaces
open for nature and play.

Facilities included schools, sports accomodation etc. PSV, a dutch premier
league football team is a project of Phillips the former electronics giant.
PSV -> Phillips Sport Vereniging.

And Phillips built neighbourhoods, schools and public swimming pools too.

Ah well ... sigh ( I was not raised in a Phillips neighbourhood btw ).

------
djsumdog
Amazon is the new Wal-Mart. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart around 2008 I
think. I stopped shopping at Amazon after returning to the states. The real
price of low prices is too high.

~~~
themckman
Where and how do you shop now?

------
koolba
Why are these people working for Amazon if it's so bad and what would they be
doing if it were not for Amazon? It's not like they're conscripting workers in
the dead of the night and shackling them to the warehouse. I'm not saying
there shouldn't be labor rules, work week hours, etc, but if they're not
breaking any laws what's the big deal?

Every few months we see articles about programmers working at
$SILICON_VALLEY_BIG_CORP that lives in a van outside the office or sleeps
under his desk at night. The worker is usually a combination of frugal and
nutty. What's the difference between that and this?

~~~
throwaway729
From the article:

 _> He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper
than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had
disappeared by Friday afternoon._

~~~
gsnedders
For those with no idea about the geography of this part of the world: it's
about a 30 minute drive down the motorway, and from memory congestion only
gets particularly bad further south on it at rush hour, so even at rush hour
it won't be that much longer.

Of course, the big difference with the programmer under the desk is the
programmer is unlikely to be earning minimum wage. Anyone 25 and over, working
60 hours a week at minimum wage, is earning £432/week. If we assume they're
working those hours or on vacation all year, their take home pay is £355/week.
If we assume fuel costs of ~£4.50 each way, then if they're working five days
a week that's ~13% of their income, or if six days ~15%.

------
lostlogin
>I focus very heavily, especially in peak times, on associate experience.

Why do they call their workers that? I also can't imagine how much I'd hate
working for minimum wage in a warehouse for an alleged 60 hours a week with a
DJ playing. It doesn't sound all that fun.

------
ukoki
This is hardly Amazon's problem: If the minimum wage is not liveable, MSPs
such as the one criticising Amazon in the article should work to increase it.

~~~
CydeWeys
It's absolutely partly Amazon's problem. They're highly profitable, and they
could choose to pay a living wage (other companies do), but they do not. I
don't understand this impulse to absolve companies of all responsibility save
from things they are legally mandated to do.

~~~
a3n
The only reason most companies pay a living wage is because they have to, to
attract enough employees. Amazon pays as little as it does because it can.
Almost the entire employment age population is qualified to work in a
warehouse (I've done it). There is almost no competition for employees at that
level, they're everywhere.

People who can code and run huge network operations are relatively rare, so
they're paid a lot; it's competition for scarce employees. It has nothing to
do with responsibility. If Google could pay minimum wage it would.

Not defending Amazon, just pointing out that they're paying the least they
have to, just like Google is paying the least they have to.

------
Tempest1981
How is this different than Brandon living out of a truck in a Google parking
lot? (Ignoring the separate issue of whether Amazon is a good/bad place to
work.)

[http://www.geekwire.com/2015/this-google-employee-lives-
in-a...](http://www.geekwire.com/2015/this-google-employee-lives-in-a-truck-
in-the-companys-parking-lot-to-save-money-on-rent/)

~~~
ronocod
I would imagine a software engineer at Google is earning a lot more than £7.35
an hour, and could easily move into a better place to live if they wanted to.

~~~
lucaspiller
If you are earning £7.35 an hour, assuming 37.5 hours a week, that is
£1,076.11 per month after taxes. Zoopla has quite a few properties to rent in
Dumfirmline for under £500 per month [0] - it isn't SF prices.

I'd take a guess and say that the people doing this are seasonal workers who
live further away. It's not worth relocating for a few months, and commuting
for 2 hours per day isn't nice (from Edinburgh during rush hour it could
easily take over an hour to get to Amazon's warehouse), so this is their
choice.

[0] [http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-
rent/property/dunfermline/?price_...](http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-
rent/property/dunfermline/?price_frequency=per_month&price_max=500&q=Dunfermline%2C%20Fife&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home)

------
zackmorris
I just bought $250 worth of about a dozen Christmas presents from Amazon.
Assuming $20 per item, I'd like to know how much goes to wages (I'm guessing
less than $1). If it may not significantly raise prices to double wages, I'd
like to know why companies are so reluctant to do so. It seems illogical when
customers would generally pay more to know they aren't ripping someone off.

Short of that, I recommend that we stop pointing the finger at these large
multinational corporations. They are incentivized at every level to skirt the
law as close as possible to maximize profits. Historically the only thing that
ever changed that was pressure from the demand side (unions, consumer
protection programs, lawsuits, legislation, etc etc).

Off the top of my head, a fairly straightforward way to effect change might be
to get every worker signed up in a time-wage union. Pick a target wage for
every employee and have them go home at the end of the day a few hours early
by however much their wage is short. Women earning 75% of men would leave at
3:00 instead of 5:00. For every firing, send one or more employees who have a
lot of savings or are thinking of changing jobs home with them as leverage.

The core of the issue is that currently labor is undervalued against capital
which is self-evidently incorrect since time is priceless but we can always
print more money. I would even argue that as we approach full automation,
labor has been devalued to such a degree that it no longer makes sense to
measure it against the inherent worth of a person's life. The inevitable
conclusion is that at some point labor will not have enough value to support a
minimum quality of life and we’ll move to a non-labor form of compensation. We
already do it in various forms for the bottom half of earners and it’s only a
matter of time before that fraction becomes the majority.

~~~
prostoalex
> I'd like to know how much goes to wage

Amazon annual revenue: $107 bil

R&D annual expense (where engineering compensation is typically stuffed):
$12.5 bil

General expense (everybody else's compensation): $20 bil

------
Buge
Why is it bad that they're sleeping in tents? I've heard homeless people say
that it's extremely hard to find a job while homeless. If Amazon is willing to
give homeless people a chance at a job, that's a good thing.

There are people working for Google living in their cars/campers/motorhomes.
There are posts about how people intentionally choose to live in tents and
enjoy it.

[http://mashable.com/2013/06/11/homeless-entrepreneur-
thomas-...](http://mashable.com/2013/06/11/homeless-entrepreneur-thomas-
backlund)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1a8sjz/hi_i_am_a_guy_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1a8sjz/hi_i_am_a_guy_who_lived_in_a_tree_on_public_land/)

------
olalonde
Alternative title: "Amazon gives jobs to local homeless population". But
seriously, I fail to see how this is on-topic on HN other than Amazon being a
tech company.

~~~
theptip
Haha, was just about to post this. From what I hear, it's very hard to get a
job if you're homeless, so this is a good thing. Imagine the outrage if the
opposite narrative were being reported; "Amazon refuses to employ homeless
people".

There's no suggestion that they are paying below the minimum wage, so I think
singling out Amazon is quite disingenuous, regardless of how in vogue it is to
bash the quality of their work environment.

If there is a story here, it is that there aren't enough homeless shelters in
Fife right now, or that the minimum wage is too low; this has nothing to do
with Amazon.

------
pjc50
Now is the winter of our discount tents.

(sorry)

------
pascalxus
We need to do more to make low cost housing legal. By allowing more low cost
alternatives, builders could create low cost housing or rentable units, so
people wouldn't have to camp in tents. This is a problem nationwide, too many
regulations are stifling housing innovation.

~~~
ctdonath
Here we have the consequence of trying to solve poverty by making it illegal.
Having raised the standard of living so high, on the notion of ending bad
conditions by simply prohibiting them, we now have to reverse regulations so
people can live as they can at their level.

~~~
pascalxus
Regulating away "bad conditions" doesn't get rid of the cost for it. It merely
eliminates your choice in the matter, forcing everyone to upgrade. It's like,
if you outlaw all car designs that don't have leather seats - all the sudden,
everyone gets leather seats in their car, but they're still paying extra for
it, whether they like or not. that's what regulation does in the housing
markets, but much more extreme.

------
UK-AL
Minimum wage in that part of the country could easily get an apartment share.

------
20years
This is not Amazon's fault. This instead is the choice of the worker. He is
choosing to work for Amazon and is choosing to sleep in a tent because he does
not want to make the long commute back to his house. All his choices, not
Amazon's.

Edit: to clarify, I am not advocating that Amazon is a stellar employer. My
opinion of how they treat their workers and handle the interviewing process is
actually very poor. I however do not see the decisions this particular worker
is making is Amazon's fault.

------
kome
I have a friend that works at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Tracy,
California: she works 60h a week.

Amazon should be made accountable.

------
matz1
Government failure to provide cheap housing ?

~~~
MichaelApproved
It's not the governments job to provide welfare to companies by subsidizing
the labor force. Government should provide infrastructure and safety nets. The
employer should provide sufficient payment for the employee to use the
resources without needing special government subsidies.

If a full-time employee needs government subsidies then the company is not
paying enough.

~~~
matz1
To me, Its the goverment job to provide welfare to its citizen, this include
cheap or free housing, regardless what the job situation is.

------
adolph
One tent seen and two others reported. Is this fake news?

------
blablabla123
WTF...

------
jdiez17
It's hard to take this article seriously when all the evidence they have is a
30 second video with a dramatic shot of two tents.

~~~
blablabla123
It's hard to take Amazon seriously given this series of revelations. Probably
not everything is true but we all know they have low ethical standards...

~~~
toomuchtodo
What I know of Amazon, and why I no longer shop there.

1\. They treat their engineers terribly.

2\. They treat their fulfillment center employees terribly.

Either Bezos is tone deaf, or just doesn't care. Either way, voting with my
wallet.

~~~
Falling3
I've had it in the back of my mind for months that I need to get away from
Amazon for the reasons you've listed. How have your shopping habits changed
since ditching Amazon? Did you go back to more conventional stores or are
there any online marketplaces that you've found to fill some (obviously
nowhere near all) of the Amazon-sized hole?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Instead of window shopping in stores and buying on Amazon, I now window shop
on Amazon (all prospective purchases go into the shopping cart to monitor
prices), and then I bundle my purchases every 2-3 weeks at brick and mortar
stores. ALL of our baby purchases (diapers, wipes, etc) have been switched to
Target.com. I don't even really miss Prime (my packages were already not
sticking to within 1-2 day delivery deadlines, so not much loss there). I also
don't impulse shop as much, and plan my purchases out, which is nothing but
beneficial to my wallet.

It's not perfect, but if principles were easy everyone would do it.

~~~
hahajk
Is Target.com any better? My understanding is that almost every major online
store outsources its fulfillment centers, and Amazon's are basically par for
the course.

------
throwaway420
Is it just me, or has this post dropped from the front page suspiciously
quickly? In just 2 hours it went from #1 to the second page I think. I'm
trying to notice these things more and more because we're seeing this "fake
news" meme being pushed a lot recently and there have been accusations of bias
on HN by the admins before.

Supposedly, as part of the ranking algorithm at HN, there's a "flame war"
detection feature that drops controversial items off of the front page quickly
unless they're explicitly allowed to exist there.

Having this feature in place is great for the admins as it gives them
plausible deniability in terms of bias when items get ranked lower quickly,
but not so good for users if it's inconsistently applied and the topics they
see are for all intents and purposes controlled and guided towards certain
viewpoints.

You can see my previous post in this thread: I'm not even a fan of this
article! I'm even saying this as somebody who (I think fairly reasonably)
defended and criticized Amazon in my response. I don't fear anything from this
article however and things can be gained by talking about this issue.

~~~
sctb
This post got a lot of user flags (it currently appears as [flagged]) and was
also penalized by the software flamewar detector. It wasn't touched by
moderators.

~~~
throwaway420
That it wasn't touched by mods was exactly my point. This feature that's
ostensibly a "flame war detector" is effectively admins exercising editorial
control over content if overriding it is inconsistently applied.

~~~
sctb
I'm not sure I see this as distinct from the standard moderation penalties
that we do actively apply regularly. And when users ask in those cases we say
we've done so
([https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20penalty&sort=byPopulari...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20penalty&sort=byPopularity&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)).

Another way of putting this is that plausible deniability isn't valuable to
us. We're clear on what this site is for, and we're open about how moderation
practices are intended to support that. Though we can't be perfect, we do
actively strive to avoid bias that would take us away from the goals of the
site and of the community.

