The Baldy Center Blog

The Baldy Center Blog Post 46. 
Blog Author: Tanya J. Monestier, Professor, School of Law
Blog Title: What You Don’t Know About Your Amazon Purchases

You probably consider yourself a savvy online shopper. Perhaps you’ve shopped on Amazon dozens, if not hundreds, of times and believe you have a good handle on how it works. You likely know that Amazon sells goods itself and provides a platform for third parties to sell their goods. Many of these third parties warehouse their goods with Amazon, so that when you place an order, that order is “Fulfilled by Amazon.” You probably also know that some third-party sellers on Amazon may be less-than-legitimate, with names like JKUYIO and KYMMOOO. It’s likely that you avoid these sellers at all costs and stick with goods that are “Sold by Amazon,” which you trust. But beneath the surface lurks a hidden truth, one that could change everything you thought you knew about Amazon. Prepare to have your trust shaken by Amazon’s dirty little secret.

Amazon largely sorts its inventory by good, not by seller. Every unique good will have a single inventory identifier, regardless of who the seller is. So, if one hundred sellers are selling a Stanley water bottle—including Amazon itself—all those water bottles are pooled in inventory and sold interchangeably. If you purchase a Stanley water bottle “Sold by” Amazon, you’ll get a Stanley water bottle, but it likely won’t actually be “from” Amazon, since it will be just one of many Stanleys that could have been pulled from the pile. This “Stanley” could be a dangerous counterfeit, containing lead or other chemicals that leach into your water.

This inventory management practice is referred to colloquially as “commingling” — but Amazon prefers the more innocuous-sounding term “virtual tracking.” Regardless of what we call it, Amazon is lying to consumers about who their goods are truly sold by. Amazon represents to a buyer that goods are “Sold by” Amazon but then delivers goods that originated from a third-party seller, probably one based in China. Commingling is well-known in the Amazon seller community, but it is fair to say that the ordinary buyer has no idea that it’s happening and would not be pleased about it. 

If you want to know for sure whether the goods you are buying from Amazon are drawn from commingled inventory, you need to do some leg work after you receive the goods.  You need to go to your “Orders” and click on the “View Invoice” tab on the upper right side of the page.  There, your invoice will say:

• Sold by: [name of seller you thought you were buying from] 
• Supplied by: [same name as above OR “Other”]

If you see “Other” in the “Supplied by” space, your goods are drawn from commingled inventory. Recent legislation requires Amazon to disclose the actual name of the supplier of the goods so that customers can know who the goods are actually coming from. But Amazon doesn’t do this. Instead, they simply include the notation “Other” and hope no one will bother following up. I recently went on a wild goose chase trying to figure out who “Other” was on a particular Amazon purchase; I got nowhere.

In a recent article, I argue that the Federal Trade Commission should enjoin Amazon from commingling goods in inventory, as commingling constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices within the meaning of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Telling a buyer that their goods are from Amazon when, in fact, their goods are from KYMMOOO qualifies as a material misrepresentation. If buyers knew that Amazon was pulling this bait-and-switch, it would undoubtedly affect purchasing decisions. At the very least, Amazon should be forced to disclose to a buyer before a sale is made that the buyer may be receiving goods from a seller other than the one represented as the nominal seller.

You’ve likely heard the saying “buyer beware.” But how can buyers beware where the thing they should beware of is a closely guarded secret that Amazon is determined to keep under wraps?

RELATED LINKS

• INFORM Consumers Act | Federal Trade Commission
• SSRN article by Tanya J. Monestier, Amazon's Dirty Little Secret

The Baldy Center Blog Post 45. 
Blog Author: Hannah Montgomery, Program and Operations Administrator, The Center for K-12 Black History & Racial Literacy Education

Blog Title: Our Tomorrow, A Reason to Hope — Reflections on the  70^th Anniversary of Brown v. BOE community forum

Standing in the Senior Center at the William-Emslie Family YMCA in early November 2024, the sun was going down outside the sweeping windows as people began to slowly trickle inside, bringing a curious energy through the door as they took in the space. Our panelists arrived one by one, most of them meeting for the first time, happy to make introductions and assuage each other’s nerves before their big moment in front of the crowd – after all, they were about to sit in a seat of vulnerability to talk about their experiences integrating Buffalo schools.

Curiosity turned to excitement as attendees began recognizing each other – alumni, coworkers, friends calling out to each other to say, “hey, how are you? I know, this week has been hard.” 

And it had been a hard week. Many walked into the event feeling the weight of the election results that had been announced the day before – disappointment, anger, hurt, confusion heavy on the shoulders of those attending an event determined to celebrate and commemorate one of the most renowned achievements in the history of civil rights, Brown versus the Board of Education (BOE). The timing of it all felt a bit poignant and more than little painful.

But as the room began to fill, the line for the buffet lengthened, the smell of fresh fried chicken wafting through the room, a sense of community and togetherness fell over the crowd. Seats were taken and laughter bubbled amidst conversation as people gathered around tables, enjoying a meal together while they caught up with each other. Some chatted with old acquaintances. Some made new connections. All took photos and enjoyed discussing with each other as we waited for Buffalo’s poet-laureate to take the stage. 

Jillian Hanesworth performed two pieces of poetry that she wrote for our event, setting the atmosphere of celebration, honoring the fight of the Buffalo citizens and lawmakers who helped make Brown v. BOE successful and who have made strides within our city for equity and inclusion, while stressing the importance of knowing where we came from to inform where we are going.  (Poems linked below)

As Jillian said in her remarks following her poems, “If you’re in this room, it’s because you care. That’s the starting line. If you’re here today, it’s because you understand that we have so far to go. So, in the spirit of those who gave us something to celebrate, we have to remember that we also have something to fight for. We have to fight for our tomorrow, we have to make sure that we are giving our youth a reason to hope.”

It was what the crowd needed to hear, as we sat feeling lighter now from the conversation, the poetry raising goosebumps along our arms. From the power and the hope that Jillian praised which came before us and for the power and hope that will come from us and after us. 

Her moving piece set the scene well for our four panelists to take the stage. Nanette D. Massey, Mario Workman, Donette Ruffin, and Kathy Franklin Adams were kind enough to join us in a panel moderated by Dr. Anthony White and summarized by Dr. Marcus Watson. These four were former teachers, administrators, and students, who all experienced the aftermath of Brown v. BOE within our own city. The good, the bad, and the ugly. The powerful truths of the court case coming to life within them and their stories – stories that they have known and shared within their private lives, but never to a room of friends, advocates, learners, and freedom fighters determined to understand Brown v. Board beyond what is taught in the classroom. 

Our panelists are four of a whole generation of changers who participated in a pivotal moment within our city’s history but who have been without a platform to speak more broadly until now, when it is possible that a platform to speak historical truths is needed more than ever. As Critical Race Theory (CRT) is threatened within the school system of the US, it was a privilege and honor to hear our panelists describe their experiences. 

In many ways, Brown v. BOE is applauded for the right reasons – that it was a step towards equality, that it offered opportunities to teachers and students that would not have been available prior to the law passing, that in order for society to be successful, society had to be integrated. Our panelists were able to give us a greater sense of the nuance behind Brown v. BOE as they relived their experiences with us, as the common idea that Brown v. BOE was all good neglects to acknowledge that everything created with good intention will inevitably also have negative fallout. 

Buffalo may have been known as a model for successful integration and a coveted bussing program utilizing magnet schools, but those sweeping statements of national praise could not describe the way it felt to be a boy younger than 10 years-old being called the 'n-word' by a grown adult. 

Those statements cannot describe being forced out of your beloved school, away from your students who value your expertise as much as they value that you look like them. 

Generalizations cannot describe being punched by a teacher for “reading too well and asking too many questions,” and it cannot describe your own mother finding you a bit too “uppity” once you began interacting with white children and feeling confident that nothing was off-limits to you.

Statements blandly painting a canvas of unequivocal praise can’t truly capture the successes either – the positive relationships made with principals and staff embracing integration, the friendships that formed under less-than-ideal circumstances but that have lasted a lifetime, the children who grew up strong and determined because they experienced the frontlines of integration. 

These are some of the personal moments that our panelists were able to speak on – personal moments that they deserve to have heard and honored. 

When Brown v. BOE is taught, it is taught as a simple success story. To truly understand it, it must be put into perspective that it is more than just a law that passed 70 years ago – it was a moment that shaped the experiences of individuals who have feelings like any other, who then had to carry on in the circumstances that were created, no matter how good or bad those circumstances were, no matter that the intention behind it all was good, but flawed. 

Our duty is to educate and be educated on the whole truth of history, even when the history is hard, and to acknowledge the hard that we have come from and use that knowledge as power to face the hard that is still yet to come. 

As Jillian Hanesworth thanked the crowd and our panelists, she said, “I stand on your shoulders, I stand on your fight.” These panelists were not part of Brown v. BOE winning in the Supreme Court – they didn’t stand on trial, attend protests, get arrested at sit-ins. But they are no less important than those that did, as they traded their 60-second walk to school for an hour and a half bus ride across town with no say in the matter. It would be no exaggeration to say that these are some of the Ruby Bridges of our city – teachers, students, administrators who paved the way for the future of Buffalo, and who the future of our city, still struggling with integration and equity within the school system, stands upon.

We were lucky that these panelists were able to grace us with their time and vulnerability to speak on their personal histories, as those histories are the foundation of Buffalo’s history, the history of the entire US, and the ground we stand on as we exit the stage of mourning from the past few weeks and prepare to fight, and win, another day.
 

Poetry by Jillian Hanesworth 

• Untitled, poem (1) by Jillian Hanesworth
• Untitled, poem (2) by Jillian Hanesworth

Related links:

•  The Center for K-12 Black History & Racial Literacy Education
• Panel Discussion on YouTube
• Learn more about the community forum marking the 70th Anniversary of Brown v BOE

Hannah Montgomery is the program and operations administrator for The Center for K-12 Black History & Racial Literacy Education.

The Baldy Center Blog Post 44. 
Blog Author: Erin Hatton PhD, Professor

Blog Title: Is Unpaid Labor Exploitation or “Therapy”? The Answer Depends on Stigma*

Is Unpaid Labor Exploitation or “Therapy”? This question was on my mind when I interviewed 40 people who had been required to work, without pay, for the Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs), which are no-cost residential programs for people with addiction. There are approximately 126 ARCs across the country and, often, they are among the few—if not the only—long-term treatment options available for people with addiction who do not have insurance or the resources to pay thousands of dollars a month for in-patient addiction treatment.

Yet, these programs are not exactly free of charge. All ARC residents must work without pay at least 40 hours a week for the duration of their six-month (or more) stay in the program. The Salvation Army calls it “work therapy” and, along with evangelical Christian programming, this unpaid labor is the primary form of addiction “treatment” dispensed at ARCs.

Even as the rehab workers’ unpaid labor is framed as their “therapy,” it is economically valuable to the Salvation Army. Indeed, it fuels the Salvation Army’s thrift store enterprise: rehab workers retrieve donations from private households, they unload, sort, and fix donations in large warehouses located near every ARC, and they dispatch donations to nearly 1,000 Salvation Army thrift stores in the U.S. This work generates over $500 million a year for the Salvation Army.

In his time at the ARC, “Jack” (a pseudonym) sorted donated clothes in the warehouse and then he worked as a truck dispatcher, taking calls from potential donors and organizing trucks to pick up donations. I interviewed Jack and, when asked how he viewed his work at the ARC, he echoed the Salvation Army in describing it as “therapeutic.” “You remember The Karate Kid, right, the whole wax-on, wax-off thing?” Jack asked, by way of explanation.

"What they’re doing is giving you the skills to get out there and do it. [They’re saying,] “Listen man, you’re going to have to listen to an authority figure. You’re going to have to let things go. You’re going to have to develop a work ethic. You’re going to have to get up and be at work by 8 o’clock.” So, there is a therapeutic element to it… So, I think the work therapy is giving you the tools to do what you don’t want [to do]. You know, nobody becomes a criminal to work 9:00 to 5:00. A lot of us have to learn that."

Jack thus believes that rehab workers’ unpaid labor is a form of “therapy” because it teaches and enforces their labor compliance and capitalist discipline: they must learn “to listen to an authority figure,” “develop a work ethic,” and “get up and be at work by 8 o’clock.” Such lessons are necessary, Jack’s words suggest, because people with addiction are not already adequately submissive to capitalists and capitalism. “The work therapy is giving you the tools to do what you don’t want,” Jack said. “Nobody becomes a criminal to work 9:00 to 5:00. A lot of us have to learn that,” he explained, distinguishing people with addiction—whom he described as “criminals”—from their implicit moral counterpart: mainstream workers who do not have to learn such lessons.

Like many people in America, Jack views people with addiction through the lens of stigma. In fact, most of my informants did as well, and they used a variety of stigmatizing tropes to describe people with addiction. “Addicts” are “lying” and “manipulative,” my informants often said. “Addicts” are “thieves” and “conmen”; they are “lazy,” “selfish,” unproductive, and “entitled.”

It is this stigma of people with addiction, I find, that is used to justify their exploitation. Like three-fourths of my informants (n = 30), Jack’s stigmatization of people with addiction means that he construes his unpaid labor as a form of “therapy,” not exploitation. Because they are “criminals” who do not have a “work ethic,” they need this labor discipline. By contrast, 10 of the rehab workers I interviewed viewed their unpaid labor at the ARC as unjustly exploitative, not “therapy,” and none of them espoused stigmatizing tropes of addiction.

Thus, I find that Jack and other unpaid rehab workers offer new answers to longstanding sociological questions. For more than a century, scholars of labor, capitalism, and power have contemplated how and why workers ideologically consent to, and therefore sustain, their own exploitation. In response, scholars have identified mechanisms that either justify such exploitation, so that workers deem it to be legitimate, or hide it, so that workers don’t recognize it as exploitation at all. Scholars such as Michael Burawoy have argued that the latter are particularly important. Without the obfuscation of exploitation, Burawoy writes, “hegemony is fragile.” **

Yet, in this study I find that there are also mechanisms of legitimation powerful enough to legitimize exploitation even when such exploitation is entirely unhidden. For these stigmatized workers, their exploitation does not need to be hidden. It becomes a justified form of “therapy” to correct their stigmatized status.

Blog Post Notes
* Hatton, Erin. 2024. “Nobody Becomes a Criminal to Work 9 to 5’: Unpaid Labor, Stigma, and Hegemony in Addiction Treatment.” Social Problems: doi.
** Burawoy, Michael. 2012. “The Roots of Domination: Beyond Bourdieu and Gramsci.” Sociology 46(2): 198.  

Related link:
UB Research News Stigma legitimizes unpaid labor as therapy — even for those doing the work

The Baldy Center Blog Post 43. 
Blog Authors: Alexandra Oprea (UB Philosophy) and Daniel J. Stephens  (UB Philosophy)
Blog Title: How to Vote Competently

In the year 2024, there are national elections across 73 different democracies with different electoral systems. Over 1.5 billion voters (of an eligible 2.4 billion) have already cast a ballot in 56 of these elections and at least another billion are expected to do so by the end of the year*. We presume that these voters want to discharge their duty competently, but what would it mean for them to do so? 

In a recent paper, entitled “A minimal standard of democratic competence,” published in the journal, Politics, Philosophy & Economics**, we argue that democratic citizens ought to vote in ways that help to preserve the continuation of their democracy. At a minimum, this involves considering the democratic credentials of various candidates and refusing to vote for candidates or policies that, if chosen, would predictably lead to the end of their democracy. 

The standard we propose is minimal in two senses. First, it describes a floor that we should expect every democratic citizen to rise above in order to be considered competent as a voter. Second, it relies on minimally controversial assumptions about what democracy is and should be. Our highest aspirations for democratic politics may include reasonable deliberation, economically sound policies, a just distribution of benefits and burdens, and/or high levels of political participation. But the democratic floor that all these aspirations build upon is a system of free and fair elections together with the suite of civil and political liberties that enable those elections. For example, free and fair elections require candidates who are not afraid to challenge the incumbent, voters who can expect their electoral choices to be protected from interference or intimidation, and journalists who do not fear censorship or persecution for their work. 

One can think of this model of democratic competence as analogous to competence in other domains. For instance, if you want to be even a minimally competent chess player, you need to be able to make legal chess moves and refrain from flipping the board over. Similarly, if you want to be a competent democratic citizen, you need to know how to vote for candidates that will keep the democracy going and commit to doing so without flipping the board over, metaphorically speaking.

Out of the nearly 4 billion voters across the world with the right to cast a ballot in 2024, many will confront relatively “easy” choices where neither of the major candidates constitutes a predictable threat to their democracy. But a growing proportion of voters are living in democracies at high risk of backsliding into authoritarianism, where one or more of the major candidates or parties have systematically indicated their lack of commitment to free and fair elections by intimidating the opposition, persecuting journalists, advocating political violence, or otherwise seeking to remove existing guardrails to an authoritarian takeover. It is for this reason that a clear standard of democratic competence can be practically valuable. We see at least three ways in which this would be so. 

First and foremost, we hope that voters themselves will strive to be competent in the way we suggest by prioritizing information about candidates’ democratic credentials. This may require difficult decisions to vote for candidates with less appealing policy proposals for the sake of keeping the democracy going. In addition to adopting the standard for themselves, voters can aim to convince others to do the same through conversation, social media posts, and canvassing. Because preserving democracy should be a shared priority across the political spectrum, one can expect these social norms around voting competently to be more widely acceptable than norms about choosing economic, immigration, or other kinds of policies.

Second, we intend the standard to be used in crafting priorities for civic education, particularly at the K-12 level. Civic education has lagged behind as a policy priority in a number of democracies as achievement in core academic subjects that are measured on international tests have garnered disproportionate attention and resources. Our standard suggests that democracies ought to prioritize civic education, particularly when high numbers of their citizens appear to fall below the relevant standard. This supports both traditional programs of civics and course content that teaches students how to spot a would-be authoritarian, including the history of authoritarian transitions and common demagogic techniques.

Finally, we believe that understanding democratic competence in this way can provide democratic citizens with reasons to support various reforms to their electoral systems. There are as many combinations of electoral rules as there are democracies, and some of these electoral systems make it easier for voters to be competent by making it harder for anti-democratic candidates to make it either onto the ballot or to the final round of the election. Although more research is needed to rank such electoral systems on this measure, we believe that the proposed standard can guide the conversation in the right direction.