Amazon, Jeff-Bots and Shadows

Bezos_2005For a supposed visionary, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos management style seems depressingly old school.

Bezos  in the past 19 years  has revolutionized shopping through the internet retail giant, Amazon.com,  and recently  paid $250 million for one of the nation’s top newspapers, The Washington Post.

However, a new book by Brad Stone,  the author of The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon, describes Bezos as an autocratic manager who surrounds himself with yes men and is  convinced that he is always the smartest guy in the room.

Stone writes that Bezos, 48, is “extremely difficult to work for … he is capable of the same kind of outbursts as Apple’s late founder, Steve Jobs, who could terrify any employee who stepped into an elevator with him. Bezos is a micromanager with a limitless spring of new ideas, and he reacts harshly to efforts that don’t meet his rigorous standards.”

Moreover, Stone writes that Bezos is surrounded by a coterie of “Jeff-Bots” who have “institutionalized the way Jeff thinks”  and mimic his behavior and sayings.  Bezos is accompanied everywhere he goes by an employee who is called Bezos’ “shadow” and does whatever is needed.

Bezos’ famous laugh  is described in sinister terms by workers, who call it a “heart-stabbing sound that slices through conversation and rocks its targets back on  their heels. More than a few of his colleagues suggest that on some level this is intentional – that Bezos wields his laugh like a weapon.”

Stone also writes that Amazon bullied large publishers as the company grew larger, demanding  steeper discounts, longer periods to pay and better shipping.  Amazon’s relationship with small publishers was called the Gazelle Project after Mr. Bezos said Amazon “should approach these small publishers the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle.”

Poor Working Conditions

Bezos also has very traditional views about the rights of workers.

In the past year,  some of Amazon’s 9,000 workers in Germany have walked off the job several times, most recently in September, in a dispute over pay. They are now threatening to disrupt Amazon’s Christmas sales.

Amazon’s dispute with its German staff focuses on how the company’s workers should be classified. German workers want Amazon to pay them in line with workers in higher -paid retail and catalog-order industries, but Amazon insists that employees at its distribution warehouses are properly classified as lower-paid “logistical” employees.

According to The New York Times, Amazon got into a “skirmish” with unionized German workers after a German TV broadcast of a documentary that  “implied that Amazon used neo-Nazi thugs to keep workers in line.”

Amazon also has been called on the carpet for deplorable conditions in some of its U.S. warehouses. None of Amazon’s 90,000 U.S. workers are union members

A high-profile investigation by the Morning Call revealed that Amazon distribution warehouse workers toiled in brutal heat and were required to work at a dizzying pace. Furthermore, Amazon is involved in more unemployment compensation appeal hearings than almost any other Pennsylvania employer – hundreds per year – even surpassing Walmart.

Amazon was sued in Nevada for allegedly miserly working conditions at two Amazon distribution warehouses there. An appeals court panel ruled last April that the Fair Labor Standard Act requires workers to be compensated for the time spent undergoing the security clearance at the end of their shift

Amazon cleared $61 billion in sales in 2012.

Amazon’s Free Lunch

AmazonA recent federal court decision offers a glimpse into the miserly working conditions of hourly workers at two national distribution centers for Amazon.com in Nevada.

Two workers, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, filed a class action lawsuit in 2010 arguing that they should be paid for the 25 minutes it takes them to depart the Amazon distribution warehouse at the end of their shift. They said workers must stand in line for a security clearance that requires them to remove their wallets,  keys and belts and walk through a metal detector.  

Busk and Castro are former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., which provides warehouse space and staffing to Amazon.com in Fernley and Las Vegas.  

The workers also argued they should be paid for their 30-minute lunch break because they had to pass through a security clearance when they left the factory floor and it took ten minutes to get to and from the cafeteria.  Also, they said, supervisors frequently “reminded” them during the lunch period to “finish their meal period quickly so that they would clock back in on time.”  

An appeals court panel ruled on April 12 that the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) requires workers to be compensated for the time spent undergoing the security clearance at the end of their shift but does not require compensation for time deducted from their 30-minute lunch break.

In Busk, et al v. Integrity Staffing Solution ,a three-judge panel for  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the time the spent on the security clearance at the end of the day was necessary to employees’ primary work as warehouse employees filling orders placed through Amazon.com. Also, the panel wrote,  “Integrity allegedly requires the screening to prevent employee theft, a concern that stems from the nature of the employees’ work (specifically, their access to merchandise).”

 However, the appeals court panel ruled the workers’ lunch-break time was not compensable under the FLSA because it was not integral and indispensable to the workers’ principal activity of filling orders placed through Amazon.com.  

The panel contended that any time spent by workers going through the security clearance during the lunch break was “de minimus” or too inconsequential to require compensation.   The panel noted that employees claimed they were required to pass through the security check only on their way to the cafeteria and “not on the return trip. The relatively minimal time expended on the clearance in this context differs from the 25-minute delay alleged for employees passing through security at day’s end.”

Finally, the panel writes, “That supervisors may have ‘interrupted’ Busk and Castro …  does not make their lunch periods compensable absent any claim that they performed a work duty.”

While throwing out the federal FLSA claim, the appellate panel did say the workers’ could raise a state law claim they asserted in the appeal with respect to their shortened lunch period.  The plaintiffs argued that workers have greater protection under a Nevada law that requires that an employer provide a half-hour meal break if it employs a worker for a continuous eight-hour period.

The panel reversed a lower court’s pre-trial dismissal of the case and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration.   

The panel noted that Busk and Castro did not claim the walk to and from the cafeteria deprived them of adequate time to eat lunch.  “We express no view on whether such a claim is cognizable under FLSA, nor on whether the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to state a valid claim under FLSA. We leave that to the district court’s consideration on remand,” the panel states