Amazon trying to cover their ass?
Updated Wednesday, September 4, 2024 5:10 p.m. EST - Amazon reached out to deny the reports of a crack down on singing along with the radio in trucks and provided this PR video clip as evidence. A PR spokesperson told Jalopnik: “This post is completely inaccurate. Amazon has never issued guidance or communications to Delivery Service Partners that prohibits singing in the vehicle.”
So if they say they didnt, then why does the post title say they did?
The source of this claim was from an employee right? Is it accurate?
“PR spokesperson said he company is great and would never do something ghoulish. Why aren’t we believing them?”
I get that skepticism is good and healthy. But at what point does a person or organization lose the benefit of the doubt? I’m more liable to believe some story about Amazon abusing its employees than I would be to assume they’re innocent.
They denied the peeing in bottles thing too. And denying their warehouse employees bathroom breaks. Turns out they weren’t “denying” the, bathroom breaks, but building a structure that basically eliminates employees’ time to do so. The rule probably isn’t “no singing in the car.” It’s probably “we are monitoring you to make sure you aren’t talking on the phone or performing other work while we pay you. Bonus side effect: employees can’t sing along to music. Look at what he spokesperson said. “We have never Prohibited singing in vehicles.” Subtext: we never explicitly said that. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Sounds like a healthy opportunity to say we dont know, or maybe not comment/post at all.
Pulling “gotchya” moments out of thin air to spite big money just makes us stupid.
“I dont have time to investigate amazon myself so im just going to pull out my scorecard and mark one for the proletariats.”
Who does that serve? What does that do? Besides make us desensitized to more substantiated wrongdoings?
Who does it serve? It serves the workers when articles like this come out and an outcry prompts an investigation or more interest in the story so further reporting is done to find the truth. I’d say spreading rumors about vampiric, abusive companies is a-ok in my book. They still have a stranglehold on shopping. If we have to play dirty to take them down a few pegs, so be it.
But this is also kinda besides the point. Because I don’t even think that’s what’s happening here. A reporter got info saying one thing, and the person whose job it is to protect the company from their own misdeeds and to professionally cast doubt in favor of their bottom line says exactly what they’re paid to say. So I’m more inclined to believe the person who found evidence enough to post a story, rather than the person whose job it is to protect and lie for the company. Yeah, it’s a person who claims to have worked there and quit, but this is the first report. I think it says way more about the veracity that the company had to send out their PR team to start denying a worker’s story online.
They’re literally the spin team. They deny true reporting in order to protect the company’s image—they just say it in specific ways to obscure the truth. Their presence almost means the exact opposite of the words coming out of their mouth. If they weren’t doing this, they wouldn’t just send out some stern words saying “we would never!” They would give info to show they’re monitoring for X and Y, and that wouldn’t cover singing in the car.
You actively discredit yourself and create an alternate reality. You confuse people about the real issues because we dont know if outrage is fabricated/perpetuated.
If people or corporations create false narratives we should seek the truth. You are just trying to make yourself feel better.
Say wha-
Are you just shilling for corpos or something? What exactly are you talking about.
That’s exactly what this is. Trying to seek the truth while they spin false narratives. And you’re siding with the people who are literally just professional false narrators. Sowing doubt about unflattering stories is literally a PR person’s main job. And you’re saying “well, they denied it! Why is this a story?” It just makes no sense. Unfortunately, right now it’s just the word of an employee vs the word of the PR person. Which is exactly—I might add—the way the no bathroom breaks thing started. You’re just deciding to give the corp the benefit of the doubt. I’m choosing to believe the believable story about them being awful (as the company has proven to be over and over and over.)
How exactly does my just happening to believe the employee over the PR person “confuse people about the real issues” and “actively discredit” myself and “create a false reality.” Like, for real, it seems like you’re spinning PR right now. But you’re just bad at it.
I dont believe either and havent formed an opinion because there isnt enough information. Seeking truth is the opposite of assuming. Assuming the corporation is lying reinforces your personal belief. You are diluting yourself. Deal with reality and its complexity.
You say it’s assuming based on personal belief. I say it’s applying the innate human ability to recognize patterns.
I could make the argument that you’re carrying water for Amazon by ever thinking they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I believe the worker. That’s it. You don’t. You’re calling it irresponsible basically, and to some degree I get that. But the benefit of the doubt is a benefit they’ve squandered too many times. It’s less responsible to apply an illogical rule after it’s proven false.
But no matter what fuck them. If I find out later the story was false—which happens plenty with more verified stories from larger outlets—my opinion of them won’t change for the better. It hasn’t changed for the worse believing it. It’s just to be expected at this point. You can call that irresponsible , I say it’s just believing what we’ve been shown over and over and over. And not just from Amazon, but from the increasingly invasive late stage surveillance capitalist world we live in and nearly all of its corporate representatives.
Pattern recognition is quite a fancy way to describe assuming.
If i thought amazon deserved the benefit of doubt then i would probably be siding with them, but as i said, i dont have an opinion on the matter at this time.
You are looking for shortcuts for critical thinking, and congrats, you’ve found one. As long as you dont care about the quality of the foundation of your beliefs then you are in the clear.
If you hate amazon regardless of this story, you are entitled to that. I want to understand reality, and am willing to suspend my opinions in the absence of information to maximize my understanding of whats actually going on in the world. But yeah, its certainly simpler to do it your way.
Its weird to me how much people tell me what i believe when i havent given them any legitimate reason to. I point out missing information for the conclusions being drawn in the comments and everyone else uses their genius shortcut logic to deduce who i am. Now, i do know who i am, and i know commenters are pretty consistently wrong when they extrapolate my opinions to praising something because im not memeing my worldview like a manchild. Life is so much more than that.
At some point being a shit company to employees (and contractors) will affect consumers’ perceptions of you. I would say people not siding with Amazon by default is their own doing even if normally you would give the benefit of the doubt.
It would also not surprise me if they come back with some B.S. later like “it turns out it was the subcontractor monitoring workers, but totally not Amazon. Ignore the Amazon logo on the side of the truck”.