Amazon & Panorama

RFW

I noticed several people on Facebook and Twitter saying they'll never use Amazon again after the BBC Panorama programme. Given the amount of marketplace sellers on there paying taxes and working hard for their families that could cause problems for a lot of people. The marketplace sellers (unless they use Fulfilled by Amazon) will not be using Amazon's warehousing and their picking and packing practices. Often the marketplace sellers will be one person with a box room and some envelopes ferrying themselves back and forth to the post office.

It wasn't too long ago Amazon could do no wrong, how quickly things can change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598

If you do use Amazon and are reconsidering, can I suggest that you spare a thought for the marketplace sellers who may have pumped all their spare cash into Christmas stock.

To marketplace sellers on Amazon, Ebay and anyone who relies on third parties to run their businesses, have your own website or other options in place.

soolin

Well said RFW

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RFW wrote: »

I noticed several people on Facebook and Twitter saying they'll never use Amazon again after the BBC Panorama programme.

People say all kinds of rubbish online as there's no one in front of them to answer back, most will still be sticking to where ever they always shop or where ever is cheapest. They've already done the tax thing with "I'll never shop on Amazon again" but we're nice and busier on there and have been since June.

Good news is the Amazon drop-shippers on eBay might pick up a few extra negatives from buyers who really don't want to deal with Amazon.

RFW

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

People say all kinds of rubbish online as there's no one in front of them to answer back, most will still be sticking to where ever they always shop or where ever is cheapest. They've already done the tax thing with "I'll never shop on Amazon again" but we're nice and busier on there and have been since June.

Good news is the Amazon drop-shippers on eBay might pick up a few extra negatives from buyers who really don't want to deal with Amazon.

I don't doubt that people will say one thing and do another. I also haven't noticed any drop in Amazon sales. That said they are now a very tarnished brand. One more negative story could be the one that tips them over the edge. Especially if, as is likely, the press keep chipping away at them.
Some companies weather bad publicity, some don't. I've currently got little option to continue selling on Amazon this side of Christmas but long term I don't want my company linked with one that is seen to have dubious tax policies and poor working conditions.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RFW wrote: »

I don't doubt that people will say one thing and do another. I also haven't noticed any drop in Amazon sales. That said they are now a very tarnished brand. One more negative story could be the one that tips them over the edge. Especially if, as is likely, the press keep chipping away at them.
Some companies weather bad publicity, some don't. I've currently got little option to continue selling on Amazon this side of Christmas but long term I don't want my company linked with one that is seen to have dubious tax policies and poor working conditions.

To be honest a company that big is very unlikely to fall, particularly with their service and prices.

I remember people outside the Gap store in our local high street protesting about sweatshops years ago, Gap are still there and the only major thing that's damaged their sales is the Primark store down the road. The people shopping there couldn't give a toss about abused workers in far away countries, only what's on the price tag.

Another story will come and people will be outraged about something else instead.

In terms of ethics, I have a mortgage to pay and family to feed, I couldn't careless about ethics whilst a corrupt system forces me to hand over most of my wage to legalised gangsters (whether that be banks, insurance, government), in a crooked world the honest man is a mug. Once I've paid my mortgage I'll have time for ethics.

soolin

Primark is a good example, there was an attempt to darken their repuation via facebook virals concentrating on them paying workers 30p a day in China or India.

Yet if I go in there I can guarantee queues so long they would make Marks and Spencer weep- and rarely any one with a single item, most people seem to buy bag loads.

RFW

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

To be honest a company that big is very unlikely to fall, particularly with their service and prices.

I remember people outside the Gap store in our local high street protesting about sweatshops years ago, Gap are still there and the only major thing that's damaged their sales is the Primark store down the road. The people shopping there couldn't give a toss about abused workers in far away countries, only what's on the price tag.

Another story will come and people will be outraged about something else instead.

In terms of ethics, I have a mortgage to pay and family to feed, I couldn't careless about ethics whilst a corrupt system forces me to hand over most of my wage to legalised gangsters (whether that be banks, insurance, government), in a crooked world the honest man is a mug. Once I've paid my mortgage I'll have time for ethics.

I don't disagree with any of that. There are some precedents for big companies unable to recover from bad publicity. Ratners was one. Yahoo auctions could be considered another. Try and sell a copy of The Sun in Liverpool.

The Primark stories have always irritated me, especially when they pass on their cheap goods to the public and some other companies use the same factories and sell their goods as high end branded items.

I think I've said on here before that the tax issues are a bit crazy. Starbucks are likely to pay more per store in tax, VAT, council tax and national insurance than a privately owned coffee shop. Boycotting Amazon is not a great idea for the staff anyway, who I'm assuming would prefer to keep their jobs.

KxMx

soolin wrote: »

Primark is a good example, there was an attempt to darken their repuation via facebook virals concentrating on them paying workers 30p a day in China or India.

Those annoy me, they never give context, of course 30p per day looks like slave labour compared to UK wages. Give me an average and/or good wage for that country and I can make an informed judgement!

I was pretty shocked about the practises in Amazon warehouses. Why not give the pickers a target of x number of items per shift, instead of a handheld gun counting down seconds. Maybe if they did that employees would pick faster given they wouldn't have to spend so much time and stress looking at the gun.

Panorama should always be viewed with an open mind and caution, because they have one angle and they push it. But I was still pretty shocked last night.

campdave

RFW wrote: »

I think I've said on here before that the tax issues are a bit crazy. Starbucks are likely to pay more per store in tax, VAT, council tax and national insurance than a privately owned coffee shop. .

I'm not really sure this is true, but prepared to be corrected. Otherwise what do they pay their tax experts for? Costa are UK based and pay more tax than Starbucks.

If Starbucks were removed and replaced with "proper" local shops then it's likely a) tax revenues from these shops would be higher b) employees may be paid higher than minimum wage c) money would not be off shored and spend locally, generating business for other business.

A chain with several hundred stores should be paying a shedload of tax.

As ever, it's the whole picture - it's not just the store, it's the loss to the economy of the other local stores that go out of business when a chain moves in.

GlynD

I won't change my shopping habits at all as a result of the Panorama expose. I've ordered twice off Amazon today.

Why?

Because they offer me the service and products I want.

If they're doing something wrong then they'll fix it. Simples.

You can wheel out a barrow load of stories like this about them and my opinion, like most other people in the UK, will not change. Amazon will not fall.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RFW wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that. There are some precedents for big companies unable to recover from bad publicity. Ratners was one. Yahoo auctions could be considered another. Try and sell a copy of The Sun in Liverpool.

The Primark stories have always irritated me, especially when they pass on their cheap goods to the public and some other companies use the same factories and sell their goods as high end branded items.

I think I've said on here before that the tax issues are a bit crazy. Starbucks are likely to pay more per store in tax, VAT, council tax and national insurance than a privately owned coffee shop. Boycotting Amazon is not a great idea for the staff anyway, who I'm assuming would prefer to keep their jobs.

In terms of tax it only goes to world banks (the people pulling the strings to enslave us in to the system based on debt and interest) and big companies. Anyone thinking they'll pay less tax or get a better services for things where there's no profit to be had if these guys pay more are simply naive.

What I do care about is the ability to make it independently and the more level the playing field between us and them will help save the likes of us being robots in their warehouses.

KxMx wrote: »

Those annoy me, they never give context, of course 30p per day looks like slave labour compared to UK wages. Give me an average and/or good wage for that country and I can make an informed judgement!

Whilst I agree that 30p a day goes a lot further than what it would here, having watched a fair few programs on these things (the ones where they sent UK people out to do the jobs were good), it seems these people are stuck in a life of repetitive misery, working in poor conditions, going "home" to poor conditions and there is no way out. They won't be 45 and living in a mock Georgian house, driving a 30K sports car thinking they've made it, they'll be stuck in their dead end rotten lives until they die. (To be honest both are stuck in the same s!ht, but at least we have some luxuries to bribe us into submission).

And people say, "well at least they've got a job it would be worse if they didn't", yes that's true but it doesn't excuse it, it doesn't make a bad situation better just because it could be worse.

These people are exploited so westerners can spend cash, the end result being the few hold the majority of wealth and power.

It's no different with Amazon, nothing wrong with hard work but their system turns the person into a robot, no doubt intentionally to ensure maximum efficiency at minimal cost. Of course change the scenery and you have plenty of robots wandering around the supermarkets pushing a trolley, I guess the guy in the warehouse is at least (currently) aware of the abuse he suffers.

KxMx wrote: »

I was pretty shocked about the practises in Amazon warehouses. Why not give the pickers a target of x number of items per shift, instead of a handheld gun counting down seconds. Maybe if they did that employees would pick faster given they wouldn't have to spend so much time and stress looking at the gun.

Panorama should always be viewed with an open mind and caution, because they have one angle and they push it. But I was still pretty shocked last night.

I don't think it's shocking, it's where we are heading and in 20 or 30, maybe 50 years time this will be the norm, slowly, slowly the new generations will go straight in to it knowing nothing else and just accepting what they get.