Amazon and Jeff Bezos should take note – looking after employees when they’re sick keeps brands healthy

Campaigners have erected a billboard outside the billionaire's mansion as part of a campaign to get better treatment for staff, writes James Moore

Amazon employees hold a protest and walkout over conditions at the company's Staten Island distribution facility in March (Getty)

Two weeks of paid sick leave for all Amazon employees would cost less than 1 per cent of CEO Jeff Bezos’s fortune, according to the global consumer campaigning group SumOfUs.

Yes, yes, I know. Most of Bezos’s wealth is tied up in Amazon stock. But so what? It doesn’t make the figure any less valid and the shares have leapt since the middle of March, by more than nearly 50 per cent.

It isn’t hard to see why. The company has picked up a lot of extra business as a result of the closure of brick and mortar retail rivals made necessary by the global pandemic. Wall Street is expecting record earnings to be reported tomorrow, when financial results for the first three months of the year are due.

Those results have been secured through the efforts of its workers at a time when there have been persistent and disturbing reports about their treatment in the wake of Covid-19.

Amnesty International voiced concerns as hundreds of US employees were preparing to call in sick in protest over labour issues at the business.

“Employees face an impossible choice of potentially putting their health at serious risk by going to work or having to leave the company,” it warned. It also highlighted allegations about reprisals meted out to employees who have spoken out.

“There is no way Amazon workers can keep a safe distance from each other and hit their productivity targets,” said the GMB union in the UK.

Bezos was a signatory to the statement put out by the US Business Roundtable that sought to “redefine the purpose of a corporation to promote an economy that serves all Americans” last year.

In it, the signatories committed to “investing in our employees”.

The statement continued: “This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.”

Sick pay would count as “an important benefit”, especially now.

“Dignity and respect,” would surely involve ensuring that workers’ health is protected and engaging rather than pushing back when issues are raised by concerned employees.

I should note that Amazon has said it has instituted protective measures at its warehouses, or “fulfilment centres”.

But these reports just keep on coming and over 112,000 SumOfUs members have now signed its petition demanding that the company, and other businesses, provide comprehensive sick leave.

Amazon currently holds the status of “super brand”. That will be under threat if reports like this lead to people feeling ambivalent about giving it their custom.

Erecting a billboard outside one of Mr Bezos’ mansions accusing him of being a “super spreader”, as SumofUs has done, is a smart stunt, but the wider campaign could have a bigger impact still.

To the extent of knocking some of the gloss off Amazon’s results? Potentially.

Bezos would do well to take note of what happened to Apple, when SumOfUs submitted a motion calling for the tech giant to a make a public commitment to free expression, report to shareholders annually on how it was upholding that, and to give reasons for removing apps and services in response to government requests that could limit users’ ability to exercise their right to free expression.

It secured the support of 40.5 per cent of Apple shareholders at the company’s AGM. No, that’s not a victory. But such a high level of dissent is unusual. SumOfUs gave Apple a bloody nose.

Spending less than 1 per cent of Bezos’ personal wealth in providing better sick pay at the business he founded, and addressing other concerns raised by employees, isn’t just the right thing to do. It could ultimately pay for itself courtesy of the goodwill that would be fostered. It should therefore be classed as an investment, and a wise one.