The "wage slaves" are given the opportunity to leave and work at any other company that will hire them and yet willingly choose not to. That implies quite a non-traditional definition of slavery.
Can you explain the strikes, complaints about work pressure (having to piss in bottles, ridiculous uncontextual performance requirements), high workplace injury rate compared to competitors, etc
given this abundant choice.
It's a large company with thousands of employees, and the company has stepped on a lot of toes by out-competing many, many brick and mortar retailers, so there is "consumer demand" for reports of their inherent wickedness and every malcontent gets a microphone.
I repeat the same question -- if they don't like it there so much, why not go work for Walmart? Or Target, Home Depot, BJ's, etc.?
If the way they're attracting employees is by offering better pay and benefits than competitors rather than by offering a less demanding job, it's not as if that isn't public information. Why would you choose a thing and then object to the trade offs inherent in it?
People have this desire for them to do both, but if the job was less demanding then they could attract employees with less compensation, and they'd have every reason to not pay as much. So why is it wrong for employees to prefer to get paid more in exchange for fewer breaks?
It's like people hate for anybody to have a choice. If you work for Amazon you get paid more but work inflexible hours with limited breaks. If you work for Uber you get paid less but you set your own hours and can take a break whenever you want. Yet somehow both of these are put up as examples of mistreatment. They're just the trade offs inherent in the unskilled labor market.
