Can you name some companies that you genuinely hate?

Gotta love those company commercials that tell you to "get the facts" on an issue and provide a link to their website.

That is exactly what JetBlue said last week when they announced that they are ending their effort to have longer seat pitches then most. THey claim that they could not get compensated for the cost. Many years ago my brother loved to pay a premium and fly Midwest air, the best flying experience he had ever had, and attempt to bring back the comfort of the golden age of aviation. They said the same thing, they could not get paid so they had to give up.

I think this is really " we can make more money doing crap so we will". I believe that at some point conscientious people say no to dedicating a huge part of their life to providing crap.

So you are excusing Amazon because they do their dirty work through a contractor? Bit of a double standard there don't you think? But why don't you hurry over to the courthouse and plead their case that it was their contractor committing OSHA violations, not them. Of course it's subjective, and your answer reveals much about you and your values. I mean, it's not like someone died .... oh wait, two people did die.

Go ahead, Engineer, just TRY and list 10 companies with a market cap of $146 Billion or more with a 100% spotless record for not only them but every one of their suppliers. Go ahead, we're waiting. The fact that a problem emerges in a subcontractor's operations and someone gets killed is not unusual. Do you have any idea how may foresters working indirectly for International paper are killed in any given year? Hell even the Girl Scouts have had girls killed in the line of duty delivering cookies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Marcia_Trimble

So too the US Peace Corps loses about six volunteers every year on average.
http://fpcv.org/fallen-pcvs/

Believe it or not, things happen, even in the best run companies. Mistakes are made, someone loses a finger, an eye or even their life. About 100 people died building the Hoover dam. The important thing for any company in that situation is to learn from the mistakes and revise their procedures to try and avoid future occurrences. Yet YOU are unable to do this. You can't even own up to your own mistake at not understanding the difference between Amazon.com and its suppliers. How many people have died at all of the firms that supplied all of YOUR goods and services? Do you have any clue? No, of course you don't, and you've never even stopped a second to ask that.

I work in the manufacturing sector and I can tell you that none of the violations that you are willing to accept would be accepted for a second in any of the dozens of manufacturing facilities I have been in. Amazon works in an industry where they have excellent control of employee safety. There are lots of companies that run warehouses and have spotless safety records. They don't drive their employees into the ground in order to not receive demerits, have them work in unsafe heat or hide behind contractors either.

You are certainly willing to overlook a lot of problems with the Amazon system, likely because it is a company you admire. I'm fine with that. I don't think all that much of Amazon for all the reasons I posted. I don't have a problem with Dow Chemical. They provide extremely important products in an industry that is inherently dangerous. For some reason you seem to think that makes me an evil person. I couldn't help throwing some of that judgmental shade back to you in our own words. You want to love Amazon and defend their worker safety record and practices by comparing them to International Paper and the Girl Scouts? Ok, interesting choices, but ok. You are welcome to them but that pedestal you have them on is awfully shaky.

Where else will you get the company's side of an argument? I doubt Greenpeace is going to objectively tell you why Dow feels they are not liable. Refusing to go there is refusing to listen to both sides of the story. That doesn't mean you don't consider both sides with a grain of salt.

Good point.

Assuming I'm going to sites like Greenpeace?

<buzzer says you're wrong>

I've been reading a selection of business sites, and doing some 'follow the trail' work - who is on whose boards etc

I'd already been to the Dow site before you linked it and spotted the lovely dodges. Looking up some of the specific points they made proved (to me) how happy I was that they were already on my 'avoid purchases' list.

Once again, you avoid confronting the many problems pointed out with respect to your posting. Perhaps you're too densely layered in stupidium to be able to recognize your own failings but:
1) You made charges of slave labor yet have done nothing to back that up, you cite no assessment by any United Nations commission, Amnesty Internation or other reputable organization.
2) You continue to rattle on about Amazon and your idiotically selected quote that proved only that a company that provides services to Amazon was cited for an OSHA violation. Whoopie. You continue to be oblivious to the fact that a company that that provides services to Amazon is not the same thing as Amazon itself.
3) You are blind to the many failings of Dow Chemical, even though they have been cited for thousands of OSHA violations, for instance in the Dow Chemical/Rohm & Haas plant in Deer Park, TX. In this one plant following one deadly accident, a plant that Dow touted as their safest of all, OSHA inspectors found 7 OSHA violations, in a single visit.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=596378.015
You also conveniently overlooked the previously cited notation that the US PIRG cited Dow as one of the 12 companies endangering the most people. That danger doesn't come merely from being in an intrinsically dangerous business, it comes from cutting corners, failure to implement and adhere to safe procedures, and failure to take responsibility for and clean up their own messes.

You get a bunch of half truths from companies when they give you "the facts".

From Exxon-Mobile you get numerology like: "your smart-phone could run for 3000 days on a gallon of gas..."

People come away with the idea gasoline is miraculously efficient, because (1) they think of a gallon of gas as a small quantity; (2) they don't realize that Exxon is probably talking about using the smart-phone to receive calls and texts only, not for web browsing.

In actual fact, a gallon is huge in size compared to your smart-phone battery; and in actual fact, a smart-phone can run for a couple days on the battery it does have, if you use it sparingly.

But people go to the website and "get the facts" without realizing these fairly obvious details.



Probably not. But I don't spend much time at the Greenpeace website either. Either way it's nauseating. People cite numbers out of context and present them as elucidating "facts". Yuck.

BB: Under American law, a company doesn't avoid responsibility for killing people and polluting the watershed merely because they merge with another company,

--------------