Why Nomadland’s sunny depiction of seasonal work at an Amazon fulfilment centre strikes such a false note

The Oscar-winning film was available to watch in the UK days after a bitter unionisation battle was lost. The company’s use of PR to address criticism of conditions isn’t working, writes James Moore

Frances McDormand won an Oscar for ‘Nomadland’ but critics have rounded on the way the film portrays Amazon (20th Century Studios)

A rare knock on Nomadland, Chloe Zhao’s multiple-Oscar-winning exploration of the lives of those forced into a wandering existence on the fringes of American society, concerns its sunny depiction of life at an Amazon fulfilment centre. 

The company’s seasonal work programme is featured a few minutes into the film, which has just dropped on Disney Plus in the UK. It is shown as providing the mostly elderly nomads with a place to stay, the companionship of smiling colleagues, and work that Frances McDormand’s character Fern says she likes – not to mention “great money”. 

Small wonder that the monster truck of the corporate world allowed the cameras in. 

The “great money” line will have gone down particularly well at Amazon HQ. Extolling the “great rates of pay” is something of a stock line. 

Last week they were increased, at least in the US, shortly after the company won a bitterly contested unionisation drive led by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union in Bessemer, Alabama, which the latter is now challenging alleging “illegal interference” on the part of the business. 

As many as half a million workers will enjoy a rise of up to $3 an hour in what Amazon described as a $1bn investment, which looks like a big deal but appears rather less generous when set against sales of $108.5bn in just three months, a 44 per cent rise when compared to last year. 

The issues that led to that unionisation drive, which drew supportive comment from president Joe Biden, don’t simply concern pay. In the book, by journalist Jessica Bruder, on which the film is based, the experiences of the real-life nomads weren’t always as happy as those of Fern. One reported episodes of dizziness and repetitive strain injury. Conditions at those cavernous centres have regularly been the subject of criticism, with attention focused on the gruelling productivity targets workers have to meet and the pressure they are put under. 

Such experiences are what helped motivate those campaigning for change in Bessemer. Similar complaints have repeatedly been raised by the GMB union on this side of the pond. 

“Amazon spend lots of money in the UK trying to delude people with their PR campaigns. Every time we have been involved in exposing poor safety practices and the injuries that workers receive, you will see a new big fluffy TV-ad campaign featuring people saying they enjoyed the work, saying what a safe place it is to work there. Spending all that money on the spin is at odds with the reality on the ground,” GMB national officer Mick Rix told me.

“It’s not just the rates of pay that are a problem. It’s the unrelenting pressure of unrealistic productivity targets, and the unsafe nature of the pace of work. Our Members have told us that they sometimes go to the toilet and use plastic bottles, because they have to tramp over to the other side of the warehouse to reach the bathrooms which threatens their productivity targets.

“Another worker, whose wife was waiting to give birth, said he nearly missed it because they took his phone away. Stories like that are why we are calling for change.

“We compared ambulance call-outs at an Amazon warehouse to a nearby Tesco warehouse of a similar size: there were far, far more to Amazon.”

The GMB is calling for “serious discussions” to address these issues and to “jointly find common solutions to their problems”.

“We would far rather have a constructive dialogue with Amazon. The question needs to be asked: why are they so afraid of talking to unions?”

Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chairman, is clearly aware that the company has a problem on its hands. 

In his recent letter to shareholders he sought to take on critics and establish a counter-narrative: “If you read some of the news reports, you might think we have no care for employees. In those reports, our employees are sometimes accused of being desperate souls and treated as robots. That’s not accurate. They’re sophisticated and thoughtful people who have options for where to work. When we survey fulfilment centre employees, 94 per cent say they would recommend Amazon to a friend as a place to work.”

“We don’t set unreasonable performance goals,” Bezos went on, while insisting staff were allowed to take “informal breaks” in addition to those scheduled by the company and would receive “coaching” from managers only if they missed targets set over a period of time. 

Here’s the thing: if it is as Bezos says, why do these reports keep emerging? What explains the events at Bessemer? 

The GMB’s point about Tesco is worth considering here, because negative stories about the rival retailer do not appear to anything like the same degree. 

It’s true that Tesco isn’t the global company Amazon is, but in its home market its brand is just as powerful. It makes the same level of noise and carries the same sort of clout. It doesn’t feel the need to run ads eulogising the benefits of working there, and people rarely, if ever, feel guilty about shopping there. Right now, it’s hard not to feel that way about putting your purchases through Amazon. 

Pretty words from the boss, glossy PR campaigns, and even airbrushed scenes in award-winning movies aren’t going to change that and damp down the intense controversy surrounding the company. 

Bezos should know that by now. But despite admitting that his company needs to “do better” by employees, the tone of his letter suggests that the issue remains a blind spot. 

Perhaps the current, labour-friendly administration in the US will open his eyes. Until someone does, the brickbats will just keep on flying.