If you shop at Amazon read this

Amazon could relocate to SE Asia and use you fly boys to give them a cheap bulk cargo service to the UK. Probably the costs would be about the same. The customer would see perhaps an extra day in the delivery time.

Conditions are so bad the tempory workers are queuing up for permanent jobs there.

Never mind that thoughtful Mr Brown will be along soon to create plenty more cushy public sector jobs with the proceeds of nationalising the Royal Mail pension fund.

Willy.

Willy,

If you're unskilled and jobs are in short supply you take whatever puts food on the table but that doesn't make it right.

Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't legislate to prevent abusive employment practices?

Jonathan

Jonathan,

No. I believe there is a need for some simple, clear legislation wrt employment rights (and indeed many other areas). It's clear (to me at least) that we don't have that and I'll not hold my breath in anticipation of this (or potential impending) governments delivering it.

Until we solve a lot of other social ills in areas such as education and welfare (IMHO often caused by overly idealistic and/or poorly drafted legislation) further complex legislation is at best going to make it harder for these under-educated workers to understand and assert their rights and at worst will, as Derek suggested, drive their jobs abroad.

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:

Never mind that thoughtful Mr Brown will be along soon to create plenty more cushy public sector jobs with the proceeds of nationalising the Royal Mail pension fund.

Willy.

My understanding is that the 'cushy' jobs being brought in at Royal Mail are for the private consultants who will be looking at ways to find cost savings.

The number of cushy jobs in the public sector I can assure you are in a minority where over a quarter of employees earn less than £16,000 p.a and many of those are on as little as £12,000. Nearly a half are on less than the average wage. The wage offer was 2.45% back in April 2008.

Steeve

Steeve,

Wasn't suggesting that the cushy jobs would be created in Royal Mail, rather that by assuming the Royal Mail Pension Scheme liability (£3.5-7Bn) the Exchequer would gain access in the short term to the assets of that scheme, some £22Bn. That would come in rather useful to create more public sector jobs, along the lines of the 600,000 created by Mr Brown since came to power. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

I don't deny that a lot jobs in the public sector jobs are low paid however the average salary in the public sector is greater than that in the private sector so someone in there is doing ok. Also a matter of fact that public sector workers take more time off sick than private sector equivalents, can often retire earlier and a substantially greater number of them are on final salary pension schemes (now that short term money grasping legislation of successive governments have all but destroyed those in the private sector).

Regards,

Willy.

My wife worked at the Marston gate location for a while and you wouldn't believe what goes on there. They bus in temps from as far away as Birmingham, so many different cultures and nationalities work there. Also in the large warehouse there are no-go areas especially at night where goes knows what goes on.
They actually can random strip search employees as they leave the building at the end of shifts. Clocking on and off is ruthless and they don't care who gets allocated to what duty hence small framed men and women stacking large boxes.

They have quite a few americans employed there as senior managers and the General Manager Alan Lyle is unbelievably ignorant - god knows how they get away with it?

It does sound pretty grim. I read somewhere that Primark, Tescos and Asda source their clothes in countries where employees get 17p per hour and face far worse conditions that anything Amazon can muster. Cheap prices, good working conditions and fair shares of profits cannot be made to match - or perhaps they can.

Nigel

During my spell of emplyment instability, now more than half a year behind me, I had some fairly grim agency placements. I was never sacked of course, though the conditions were in some case far from fair-play, and in one case I was laid off with 24 hours notice, in spite of a promise of a week's notice ...

But I would prefer to see the jobs stay in UK for services provided in UK - whether the employers are kind and fair or not.

If the jobs are out-sourced, do you really think the employers will be any kinder? No, but there is a good chance we will hear less about it even if conditions are [and most likely the would be] far worse.

I can definately say that I would rather work for a dreadful employer than not work.

Of course if there is a choice of service provider, and one is a good employer and the other not, then perhaps one might be being kind to use the better employer, but the world is a long way from being a fair place, and using the services of unscrupulous employers is not something that is avoidable in the main, buying any service or consumer goods.

Be careful not to boycott a company and end up causing them to go the way of Woolies. It will help their workers not o0ne jot.

However if you want to avoid financing shareholder income, then avoid spending money.

That is the way the system is organised nowadays.

ATB from George

Dear George - very sensible comments

Whilst I want everybody to have a decent job and get decent pay the worst thing would be for them to lose their jobs.

I used to buy my records from the Freak Emporium , but they went out of business because they couldn't price match Amazon. The service was great and the staff were in the job because of their enthusiasm for music. However, they could make enough money because consumers went for the cheapest - afraid that is just the way people are: sometimes, of course, consumers have to shop around because of limited funds.

It is very complex - still I hope people at Amazon keep their jobs and the working practices improve then everybody will feel better.

ATB Rotf

You know this situation rightly or wrongly is part of the ebb and flow relationship between employers and employees. It was not too long ago where in the late 90's until the end of 2000 that employees had the upper hand with employers and demanded more pay, benefits, etc.. and would just go an interview to get a better wage and go back to their employer and get even more to stay.

The balance has shifted due to economic forces and I can assure you that employers will leverage this to get the most they can for their money and to restrain costs at this time. Unfortunately we've had one extreme or another for a while and not a real equilibrium situation. The balance will eventually start to shift more towards center as economic activity improves.

I don't agree with some comments above about needing strong unionization to overcome this as unions tend to cause more problems than create benefit at this point in time. Not to mention that the only ones who really benefit from unions are the union executives who reap almost all of the benfits. However, when employees were acting wantonly and irresponsibly and essentially holding employers hostage for wages and benefits since unemployment was so low, I didn't hear anyone calling workers out for their behavior.

Jonathan,

I think, if I remember, if you go to the BBC's posting of that article that there is a response from Amazon in there and it does seem that the reporter took some liberties with how that original article was spun.

Roy.

You mean the subject of an investigation didn't agree with the findings.

Most unusual.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Donaldson:
Jonathan,

I think, if I remember, if you go to the BBC's posting of that article that there is a response from Amazon in there and it does seem that the reporter took some liberties with how that original article was spun.

Roy.

For example, the article spun the fact that workers only had a 15min and 20min break during the shift as a bad thing. Turns out that the workers had voted for shorter breaks so they could go home 1/2 hour earlier each day.

Piss poor journalism. Should maybe have a chat with Colin Stagg about how damaging that can be.

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:
Piss poor journalism. Should maybe have a chat with Colin Stagg about how damaging that can be.

Willy.

Willy,
I wouldn't dream of entering a discussion on U.K's Unions, or Financials, or Politics - but in general I say that about capitalism I do agree with Jonathan - though I might as well substitute >unionisation< for >sensible socialism<, and that I prefer having ten newspapers nine of which say rubbish than having just one who only says what the Premier wants, as would be the case and the wish of our premier...

Max

unfortunately, we've got ten out of ten printing rubbish...

As anyone who's had anything to do with the media can confirm, they are fundamentally incapable of reporting in a purely objective manner without putting their own spin on the subject in question.

Please tell me how anyone writing about anything for anyone can be objective? Some form of bias however small must creep in.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Please tell me how anyone writing about anything for anyone can be objective? Some form of bias however small must creep in.

Yes, I agree with that, but deliberately misstating the facts to arrive at the conclusion you wanted to sensationalize when you walked into the plant is another story altogether. Unfortunately this is what most journalists are doing.

Dear Gary,

It seems that sensationalised reporting sells better than more objective and sober journalism.

The conclusiuon I draw is that we, as a whole, get the journalism we diserve, which is unfortunately a bad thing if one hopes that reporting might lead to a better informed public as a whole.

It is a downward spiral ...

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Please tell me how anyone writing about anything for anyone can be objective? Some form of bias however small must creep in.

Possible using scientific methodology but bloody boring...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Gary,

It seems that sensationalised reporting sells better than more objective and sober journalism.

The conclusiuon I draw is that we, as a whole, get the journalism we diserve, which is unfortunately a bad thing if one hopes that reporting might lead to a better informed public as a whole.

It is a downward spiral ...

ATB from George

Well the original purpose of the press was to inform the public and safeguard our freedoms and to be the watchdog for democracy. However,with the explosion of TV, the internet, video games etc... most people never read a book, newspaper or anything and do not have the ability to think for themselves. The media has taken this and run with it and now most people just believe the garbage they see as the truth without questioning anything. It is sad.

Dear Gary,

It is certainly sad, but worse than that I suspect actually points the way back to medeaval tyranny even more surely than any other method tried in the 20th Century.

Finally Capital has its way based on general apathy and laziness - as surely as little apples this is a one way process ...

Not a happy thought for what should be a joyful season.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Gary,

It is certainly sad, but worse than that I suspect actually points the way back to medeaval tyranny even more surely than any other method tried in the 20th Century.

Finally Capital has its way based on general apathy and laziness - as surely as little apples this is a one way process ...

Not a happy thought for what should be a joyful season.

ATB from George

Yes George I agree and this is one of the many reasons for the societal changes we have seen developing in the US over the past 15 years or so. The difference is that this "tyranny" ie brainwashing isn't seen or recognized by most.

Ten years ago we would buy clothes abroad when this was "Rip-off Britain" and had to pay twice or three times the price.

Now we get the same stuff at more or less the same price as everyone else and suddenly we get bombarded about human rights, minimum wages, sweat shops and we shouldn't buy anything cheap because someone is getting exploited.

I'm fed up of the UK having to be the moral standard bearer of the world. Just give us a short shot at not being ripped-off for once. Just a few years will do, and then I'll lay down and be trodden on like a good little UK citizen all over again. A couple of years isn't too much to ask, is it? Workers in this country are protected very well on the whole, better than most countries. I suspect this is a very one-sided bit of journalism - i.e. bullshit. Just let me get some cheap CD's for once, eh? Without breaking my balls for it.