Staunton Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Apparently Amazon also make staff wear tracking tags so that their bosses can check up on them. If staff are found to breach any of the company rules, such as talking to colleagues, they can be dismissed on a '3 strikes and you're out basis.' Are Amazon's executives tagged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Which didn't say anything about zero hours contracts. Give them enough reasons and they will leave is what you posted above in a thread about zero hours contracts. You may not have actually said it but in the context of the this thread I'm wondering what on earth you could have meant. Can you state whether you believe the withdrawl of zero hours contracts would cause companies to leave. And if 'yes' which companies do you think would go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I would like to suggest that there are large private enterprises operating here in the UK who reward their executives with huge salaries and bonuses simultaneously with structuring an employment policy that leaves their front-line staff dependent on state funded subsidies (that means the taxpayer picking up a hefty bill). What you are suggesting [in bold] is the bloody obvious. It's always been like that. But that isn't what we were discussing. The second part - the policy is the same as it has been since benefits became so complicating. Even if someone is on 16 hour contract they will still get government help. I originally asked what the split would be to be acceptable, since 90/10 isn't. Only andy and Anna have answered that. What you write he seems to imply that you want not only rid of zero hour, but also contracts with enough hours to overtake what is the minimum before no benefits are paid (i.e no government subsidy). Do you have any idea what that would do to the job market? You might as well close down many small businesses, and increase the price of everything simultaneously, not to mention leave thousands if not hundreds of 000s out of work. The system is well organised - sweatshops in free enterprise zones in China, Indonesia or Thailand, exploiting cheap labour and enjoying tax breaks in these countries; financial arrangements administered through the Cayman Islands, Jersey and Switzerland to avoid UK Revenue and Customs; high pollution low-cost unregulated container shipping; big profits for City executives. The only difficulty seems to be the means of getting the product to the end customer – hence the creation of the low-wage, flexible workforce, the zero-hour contract, the insecure seasonal employment, the recruitment of migrant workers. Again, so you want the split to be 0/100 then? ---------- Post added 03-08-2013 at 21:51 ---------- Are Amazon's executives tagged? Why would they need to be? Don't you usually debate sensibly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Give them enough reasons and they will leave is what you posted above in a thread about zero hours contracts. You may not have actually said it but in the context of the this thread I'm wondering what on earth you could have meant. Can you state whether you believe the withdrawl of zero hours contracts would cause companies to leave. And if 'yes' which companies do you think would go? This is the post I gave that response to. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956395&postcount=130 There are many reason why a company might want to relocate somewhere else, one of which would be to remain competitive in a global market and another would be to maximise profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 This is the post I gave that response to. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956395&postcount=130 There are many reason why a company might want to relocate somewhere else, one of which would be to remain competitive in a global market and another would be to maximise profits. Cut the poppycock, the only reason is to maximise profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Cut the poppycock, the only reason is to maximise profit. And to do that they have to remain competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 And to do that they have to remain competitive. It is possible that the desperate search for the short term profit can and does hurt both the long term future of the company and the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 Don't you usually debate sensibly? Amazon announced UK sales of £4.3 Billion in the financial year 2012 - 13 but paid only £2.4 Million in tax, slightly less than the £2.5m that the government awarded to Amazon in grants during the same period. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549434 Meanwhile Wikipedia states that 'On 2nd August 2013 the Daily Mail ran an expose outing Amazon UK for employee GPS 'tagging' and subjecting them to harsh working conditions, describing employees as 'human robots', the newspaper said that Amazon employed 'controversial' zero hour contracts as a tool to reprimand staff. A Channel 4 documentary broadcast on the 1st August 2013 employed secret camera's within Amazon UK's Rugeley warehouse documenting worker abuses and made similar claim to the Daily Mail calling the working practices 'horrendous and exhausting'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com http://ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382800/Tagged-bosses-zero-hour-Amazon-workers-Employees-guaranteed-income.html http://www.channel4.com/news/anger-at-amazon-working-conditions So much for Amazon executives. Are these the kind of people we should trust? Is it sensible to ask such a question as this when you appear to condone the tagging of ordinary workers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 It is possible that the desperate search for the short term profit can and does hurt both the long term future of the company and the economy. Well, f*** em then. Simple. If people don't shop with them, they won't last. Amazon announced UK sales of £4.3 Billion in the financial year 2012 - 13 but paid only £2.4 Million in tax, slightly less than the £2.5m that the government awarded to Amazon in grants during the same period. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549434 Meanwhile Wikipedia states that 'On 2nd August 2013 the Daily Mail ran an expose outing Amazon UK for employee GPS 'tagging' and subjecting them to harsh working conditions, describing employees as 'human robots', the newspaper said that Amazon employed 'controversial' zero hour contracts as a tool to reprimand staff. A Channel 4 documentary broadcast on the 1st August 2013 employed secret camera's within Amazon UK's Rugeley warehouse documenting worker abuses and made similar claim to the Daily Mail calling the working practices 'horrendous and exhausting'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com http://ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382800/Tagged-bosses-zero-hour-Amazon-workers-Employees-guaranteed-income.html http://www.channel4.com/news/anger-at-amazon-working-conditions So much for Amazon executives. Are these the kind of people we should trust? What has this post got to do with what I asked? I know how much they have in turnover, and how much they pay in taxes. I said this earlier when I said that - 'I think the reason is because despite the information that IS there, and well known by everyone how this company operates, people still choose to shop there. Probably because they supply a service that people want.' Is it sensible to ask such a question as this when you appear to condone the tagging of ordinary workers? Stop side-stepping. I said that your post about executives having tags wasn't sensible. It was no different to Anna's post earlier that said 'next they'll put metal things around their necks'. I answered the post about this in #104 Almost every job I've ever done, there has been some sort of supervisor watching over us. It's just a modern way of doing it in a very large building. It looks like an easy place to skive. - Can you answer my original point since you quoted the post where I answered someone who quoted it. (post 73) What percentage of zero contracts do you find acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 What percentage of zero contracts do you find acceptable? I'm sure that you would like to limit debate to some minor quibble, but that is to miss an essential point - that big business is making huge profits whilst simultaneously cheating the treasury by use of tax havens and ordinary people through their exploitative employment policies. As I have pointed out many times here on sheffieldforum, neoliberalism seeks to implement a few basic policies – the destruction of the state, the privatisation of any services that might yield profit, deregulation and tax avoidance. The zero hour contract is an integral component of that deregulation aspect of the neoliberal agenda, an agenda that is being realised here in the UK. It is my opinion that the zero hour contract should be legislated out of existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.