Why Amazon’s new jobs announcement isn’t as good as it seems

Huzzah! I can actually write about some jobs being created rather than axed. No less than 7,000 of them, courtesy of the global giant known as Amazon.

This really ought to be an unabashedly super shiny good news story amid the pandemic gloom. It was elsewhere making its presence felt. Costa, the coffee outfit responsible for some notable instances of decency during lockdown, said 1,650 jobs were at risk as a result of the continuing uncertainty over the recovery of its trade.

Trouble is, Amazon is a company that looks more and more like one of those sinister mega-corporations depicted by writers of dystopian fiction such as William Gibson.

Take the productivity monitoring used to keep an eye on those working at the company’s enormous fulfilment centres, and the persistent stream of negative stories about what life is like there. When you drive past one it sometimes feels as if you’re looking at the 21st century equivalent of a Victorian era mill.

No, no, no, no, no says Amazon, which has run ads depicting them as smiley happy places where people bake cakes for each other, enjoy family-friendly hours and “sure we all have targets” but everyone mucks in and they’re not too bad.

The treatment meted out to former Amazoner Chris Smalls calls that into question.

The five-year veteran of the company, who worked at a facility in New York, was fired after helping organise a work stoppage over conditions there.

Leaks that have emerged from the company look disturbingly like it has been planning a smear campaign, an allegation he has made. His plight drew attention from New York attorney general Letitia James.

Of course, that’s America. But the GMB union has levelled similar allegations about conditions in the UK.

The treatment of staff involved with unions like the GMB is where it gets even more sinister.

Shortly before the story of the new Amazon jobs broke, another one concerning a couple of jobs being created in the US landed the company in a lot of hot water. The vacancies advertised were for “intelligence analysts” who “must be capable of engaging and informing... stakeholders on sensitive topics that are highly confidential, including labour organising threats against the company.”

The sort of person it was looking to fill the roles, per the ad? An “officer in the intelligence community, the military, law enforcement, or a related global security role in the private sector”.

“The job post was not an accurate description of the role – it was made in error and has since been corrected,” is what the company told the BBC.

If that explanation has you scratching your head you’re not alone: How does a big company, filled with smart, savvy people make an “error” concerning a job description like that? What does Amazon expect its intelligence analysts to do?

It’s interesting to note that the Beeb said it was unable to find a replacement ad containing the correct job description.

Labour spying has in theory been illegal in the US for more than 80 years. In practice? It goes on. Many big companies have the sort of people Amazon was “mistakingly” advertising for.

Dare I suggest that the error was in admitting it?

If Amazon fulfilment centres really were the smiley happy places depicted in the ads, why would the company need to have any concerns at all about unions? They ought to love the place. But they don't.

New jobs are, as a rule, very welcome. And they are desperately needed amid fears that UK unemployment could smash through the four-million barrier before it reaches its peak. But jobs like these?