On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:03:36PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 12/16/2008 9:25:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > Ah. So you're saying that it's perfectly fine for you to choose to base > your response on just one unconfirmed and unsubstantiated news report > because it fits in nicely with your pre-conceived ideas, rather than > investing any time and effort attempting to find out the true facts? > > Not a role model I'd have chosen, personally, but that's up to you. > > ============== > Okay, that's not true. I googled and found the news story all over the Net. One story. Repeated in several places, but only one story.
> Here it appears in the Washington Post. And evidentially a Time sof London > reporter went under cover to the UK warehouse. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR200812160083 > 0.html Again, just a repeat of the same story. > I like Amazon, and I don't like seeing this. But not liking seeing it > doesn't mean I will close my eyes to it and go into denial. > > It is possible worker abuse is a problem at only one UK warehouse. But that > is still not good. Read the story more carefully. A lot of the reported "worker abuse" is, in fact, just spin on normal practice to make it sound more sensational. As I said in an earlier posting, what's wrong about workers having to make their own way to the workplace (or, if they so choose, pay to use a shuttle)? But the way it's presented in this story you would think that this is cruel and unusual treatment. I'm not saying there isn't anything here - I'm just saying that the story as reported is sensationalism, not journalism, and I'd like to see a more honest appraisal of the situation before I start picketing Amazon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
