> “Amazon is one of the most valuable companies in the world, worth $1.3tn and its founder, Jeff Bezos, is one of the richest men in the world worth nearly $150bn,” Sanders wrote in the letter. “Amazon should be one of the safest places in America to work, not one of the most dangerous.”
That it’s unacceptable for a rich company to have poor working conditions does not imply it is acceptable for a failing company to have poor working conditions.
While that is true, the original quote suggests that because Amazon is rich they should be able to offer one of the safest workplaces. That does imply that if you are not rich then there is less expectation on you to offer a safe workplace.
I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety. It's not a very strong idea but it's somewhat persuasive.
I'm guessing just saying "Having unsafe working conditions is unacceptable" would lead to the question "A lot of companies have unsafe working conditions, why investigate just Amazon?"
> I think the idea is that more money and resources should lead to more investments in workplace safety.
Thing is, they have made more investments.
It should come as no surprise that trucking is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. All of the shipping companies with available injury data show up equally dangerous. Sanders hasn't revealed anything shocking. It is well understood that driving is just plain dangerous.
We can clearly see heavy investment in things like self-driving technology has been made at Amazon; something which could improve workplace conditions – maybe even eliminate the workplace entirely, removing all possible danger to the ultimate degree. They have invested unsuccessfully, perhaps, but that is the nature of investment. Investment does not guarantee yield. Many (most?) investments will fail.
I'm guessing Sanders thinks the audience believes in magic?
> I'm not sure what wealth has to do with workplace safety.
Ironically, there's actually a good chance that the high stock price is partially influenced by increased profits from a lack of strict safety processes.
Not likely. Amazon posted very little profit in the first quarter, yet the stock price is higher than the time when they were seeing record profits.
The most likely reason for their high stock price is due to their investments in the future and stockholders believing that those investments will prove to be worthwhile.
Investments that include things that will help with workplace safety, like vehicle autonomy, if they prove worthwhile. After all, putting workers out on the dangerous roads to deliver goods is a large part of why Amazon is a dangerous place to work. But there is no guarantee of success here.
In the in air of "If only Amazon invested in safety, they could be one of the safest workplaces in America!", the mistake Sanders seems to be making, perhaps on purpose, is suggesting that making an investment will always produce results. In the real world, investments often fail.
How comparable are the competitors, though? The article notes that it is warehouse and delivery workers. Many warehouses won't be managing their own transportation fleet.
Amazon does appear to be comparable to FedEx, UPS, etc. Fact of the matter is that driving is just plain dangerous. Trucking is indeed considered one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and I'm sure that surprises nobody.
So Sanders isn't exactly wrong to say so, but the presentation seems a little misleading or disingenuous. What should Amazon do with that wealth to make the roads safer, exactly? Transportation is under purview of the government.
I'm not convinced the danger of driving is a factor in these numbers. The language around the numbers is saying stuff like "inside warehouses". The "delivery workers" language was used in one paragraph[0] in the above article and The Guardian article linked in this post doesn't use either of the words "delivery" or "driver" a single time.
[0] “Warehouse and delivery workers have routinely spoken out against the company, arguing its “customer obsession” and focus on speedy delivery have created an unsafe working environment. They’ve claimed the pace of work doesn’t allow for adequate breaks and bathroom time.”
From the full report referenced in the earlier article:
When reporting data to the ITA for 2021, Amazon re-classified 393 facilities it had previously reported as operating in the General Warehouse and Storage NAICS Code (493110) as operating in the Couriers and Express Delivery Service NAICS Code (492110). Because there was no discernable change in the work processes at these facilities and because this reclassification would make year-over-year comparisons of Amazon’s safety performance challenging, for the purposes of this analysis, all Amazon warehouse and logistics operations that were classified in previous years as in the General Warehouse and Storage industry (NAICS 493110) were included in the 2021 analysis of Amazon’s overall injury rates.
The trouble with the real world is that things don't fit nicely into perfectly square boxes. While it may be easy to imagine an ideal warehouse, the actual operation of a warehouse out there in the wild where things are far from ideal could look quite different, including having deliveries performed as part of its operation. As you can see, Amazon has found it itself teetering on a fence of what some of their operations even are in many cases.
After all, if deliveries are not part of their warehousing operations, why would they reclassify some of their warehouses to delivery services when there was no discernible change in operation?
Noted private-eye "Sam Spade" Sanders is on the case. Chances it results in anything beyond funding for his political groups and some clicks for his media friends...nil.
I wish these investigations were more serious than press releases and dog-and-pony shows with executives. They're so weak, that their witnesses constantly lie to them.
That's a very good point.