In Germany, a Union Culture Clashes With Amazon’s Labor Practices

But across the Atlantic — nein, non, no.

Even as President Obama spoke about middle-class jobs last week at an Amazon warehouse in Tennessee, Amazon was facing strikes at warehouses in Germany, its second-biggest market. Unions there say the company has imported American-style business practices — in particular, an antipathy to organized labor — that stand at odds with European norms.

“In Germany, the idea that warehouse workers are going to be getting opposition from an employer when it comes to the right to organize, that’s virtually unheard-of,” said Marcus Courtney, a technology and communications department head at Uni Global Union, a federation of trade unions based in Nyon, Switzerland. “It puts Amazon out in left field.”

Amazon is hardly out there alone, however. Large American technology companies are increasingly running into obstacles as they expand in Europe. For Facebook and Google, the running issue is privacy. Google was fined this year by German authorities for illegally collecting personal data while creating its Street View mapping service, after facing minimal sanctions over Street View at home. Meanwhile, European privacy regulators are considering tough regulations to protect consumers on the Internet, a direct challenge to Google, Facebook and other online companies that mine personal data.

Antitrust officials in Europe are scrutinizing Apple’s relationships with wireless carriers, as well as Google’s competitive practices. And Google, Apple and Amazon have all been criticized by European lawmakers for tactics that help them minimize their tax bills.

Amazon has been criticized for its working conditions in the United States — but not nearly to the same extent as in Europe. On the surface, Amazon’s labor problems in Germany revolve around wages.

The union says workers in warehouses in two small German cities are properly classified as retail employees, and should be paid at the higher rate required for people who work in department stores and other retail outlets. Amazon says they are more properly classified as warehouse workers, and paid at a lower rate.

The subtext, though, is Amazon’s opposition to unions in its warehouses as a general principle, because the company fears unions will slow down the kind of behind-the-scenes innovation that has propelled its growth.

Dave Clark, the company’s vice president of worldwide operations and customer service, says Amazon views unions as intermediaries that will want to have a say on everything from employee scheduling to changes in processes for handling and packaging orders. Amazon prizes its ability to quickly introduce changes like these into its warehouses to improve the experience of its customers, he said.

Last year, the company spent $775 million to buy a manufacturer of robots that it plans to eventually deploy in its warehouses, though it has not said when they would come to Germany. The last thing it wants is to have to get approval from unions for such changes.

“This really isn’t about higher wages,” Mr. Clark said. “It isn’t a cost question for us. It’s about what our relationship is with our people.”

“We’re still a developing industry,” he added — despite the fact that Amazon posted revenue of $15.7 billion in the last quarter and the company is enjoying a buoyant stock price.

In the United States, Amazon successfully thwarted efforts to unionize. Over a decade ago, Mr. Courtney of Uni Global led an unsuccessful effort in the company’s home state of Washington to organize Amazon’s customer service representatives.

Two years ago, an investigative article by The Morning Call newspaper in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley chronicled poor working conditions in an Amazon warehouse in the state, including instances where it stationed paramedics outside to take heat-stressed workers to the emergency room. Amazon says it has addressed the problem by installing air-conditioning in all of its facilities.

More recently, a firm that provides temporary employees for Amazon warehouses is defending itself in a class-action suit that claims the firm shortchanged workers on pay as they waited in security lines to exit warehouses.

Jonathan Barnes, a spokesman for the staffing firm named in the suit, Integrity Staffing Solutions, declined to comment.

But it is a different story in Germany, where the powerful labor movement behind the Amazon strikes traces its roots back more than two centuries.

Mr. Courtney, the Swiss-based head of the federation of trade unions, said other American tech giants, including I.B.M. and Hewlett-Packard, have been more tolerant than Amazon of unions in their European operations.

And the strikes in Germany raise especially knotty problems for the company, which has ambitious expansion plans there.

Bits Blog: I.B.M.’s Rometty on the Data Challenge to the Culture of Management

Graham Carlow/Feature Photo Service for IBM Virginia M. Rometty in February.

Five years ago, Samuel J. Palmisano, then chief executive of I.B.M., gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on the big opportunity ahead for modern computing technology to help businesses, government agencies and other institutions operate more intelligently. His remarks captured an emerging trend that opened the way to a large, lucrative business for I.B.M.

On Thursday evening, his successor, Virginia M. Rometty, is scheduled to deliver a speech in the same setting, looking at how far technology has come and its implications for how business and government are managed.

In 2008, Mr. Palmisano spoke of the accelerating pace of computer processing, storage and software that exploited artificial intelligence. He pointed to the explosion in data from the Web, social networks and sensors. He mentioned I.B.M., if at all, only in passing.

But to the vision he sketched out Mr. Palmisano attached the term “Smarter Planet.” It became the tagline for I.B.M.’s highly successful campaign to sell software and services — and sometimes hardware, too — to corporations and governments for an array of “smart” projects.

For Ms. Rometty, the script is similar in the sense that it is intended for an audience beyond the business community and refers to I.B.M. by name only once.

Still, the context is quite different. Mr. Palmisano gave his talk in the fall of 2008, when the financial crisis was sending the world’s economies into a tailspin. His speech gained a wider audience only partly because of what he said about technology. He was the chief executive of a major global corporation declaring that it was a good time to invest for the long term rather than pull back in a defensive crouch.

Today the economy is growing, if slowly, and corporate America is thriving. Yet Ms. Rometty’s speech — like her predecessor’s — seeks to broaden the discussion of the opportunity and implications of technology trends. Hers, in some ways, is a more subtle message about the next step — the broad absorption of this advancing technology.

In an advance copy of the speech, Ms. Rometty points to three effects of the smart technology, which these days flies under the banner of Big Data. She calls them three lessons.

“Lesson 1: Decisions will be based not on ‘gut instinct,’ but on predictive analytics.”

“Lesson 2: The social network is not just the new water cooler; it’s the new production line.”

“Lesson 3: Value will be created not for ‘market segments’ or demographics, but for individuals.”

Each of the three themes or lessons is illustrated by examples: Memphis police using data analysis to curb crime; a Mexican cement maker tapping the crowdsourced intelligence of its workers in product development: and the Obama campaign’s sifting of data to pinpoint get-out-the-vote efforts.

Ms. Rometty concludes by saying, “The challenge is not the technology. The challenge, as always, is culture — changing our entrenched ways of thinking, acting and organizing.”

Her point echoes a message management experts have been making for some time. I shared a copy of the speech with Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the Center for Digital Business at MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

In an e-mail, Mr. Brynjolfsson said, “I agree very much with the speech. The technology has been available for a few years now to create a management revolution based on big data, and now we’re beginning to see more and more companies undertake the much harder job of reinventing their business processes and culture to take full advantage of those technologies.”

Any speech by an executive, especially one that aspires to reach a wider audience, walks a line: How much is it fresh information and thoughtful insight versus a self-serving sales pitch?

Decide for yourself. Ms. Rometty’s speech is scheduled to begin at 6 P.M. Eastern time on Thursday and to be webcast live on the Council on Foreign Relations site and on I.B.M.’s Smarter Planet blog

By 7:30 P.M. or so, the text of Ms. Rometty’s speech should also be on the I.B.M. blog.

Corner Office: Ryan Smith of Qualtrics, on Building a Transparent Culture

Q. What were some early leadership lessons for you?

A. I definitely had an interesting upbringing. There are five children, and everyone’s been pretty successful. My parents are both Ph.D.’s — they were in academia until the late stages of their careers, when they decided to go into entrepreneurial ventures.

They raised us with the mentality of “if you want it, you’ve got to go out and get it.” I remember when I was 13, my mother dropped us off in downtown Provo one summer, about two miles from where we lived, and said, “You guys are all paying for your clothes this year. Don’t come home till you have jobs.” They instilled in us the idea that “you can be anything you want to be, but you’re going to have to go do it.”

Q. How did you start Qualtrics?

A. I was a sophomore in college and working in L.A. for Hewlett-Packard on a summer program. My father was diagnosed with throat cancer, so I took a semester off school to be with him. He was always tinkering with technology to make the research world better. And when he would come home from his radiation treatments, he couldn’t speak. I bonded with him by helping him with his work. The cancer was very severe, and he needed something to look forward to. So we would work together, and by the time he recovered from the cancer, I had signed up 20 clients and we had formed a business. We’re 290 employees now, and we’ll probably double in size in the next 18 months.

Q. Tell me about the culture you’re trying to foster.

A. We’ve been extremely transparent, but not so that we can be cool. And it’s not about an open environment, because that’s not what makes a company transparent. It’s more around the fact that everyone needs to know where we are going and how we are going to get there.

So we want everyone to understand our objectives and make that available to everyone as we’re evolving, so people aren’t guessing and they’re not internally focused. That’s one obstacle a lot of companies fall into. I believe most companies fail because they’re not focused — they either get focused on other things in the market that aren’t important, so they’re thrashing around without a clear objective, or they’re focused internally on things like politics and bureaucracy. It’s not that these companies aren’t smart companies or lack good businesses. It’s just that there’s a lot of noise.

We want to be transparent because we want to encourage our people to have all the information to keep them focused on what really matters — our objectives and how they’re going to contribute.

Q. Can you give more details about how that works?

A. We took our best product guy and some of our best engineers and built a system internally to help scale our organization by knowing everyone’s objectives in the company. We have five objectives annually for our company, and everyone goes into the system each quarter to put in their objectives that play into those broader goals.

For one of the broader objectives, you might have 230 specific objectives. The reason we’re making all this available is, especially nowadays, you’re hiring individuals to think. We can’t control the way they think. All we can control or have an effect on is the environment around them.

We have another system that sends everyone an e-mail on Monday that says: “What are you going to get done this week? And what did you get done last week that you said you were going to do?” Then that rolls up into one e-mail that the entire organization gets. So if someone’s got a question, they can look at that for an explanation. We share other information, too — every time we have a meeting, we release meeting notes to the organization. When we have a board meeting, we write a letter about it afterward and send it to the organization.

When everyone’s rowing together toward the same objective, it’s extremely powerful. We’re trying to execute at a very high level, and we need to make sure everyone knows where we’re going.

The point is that it’s not like we just said, “Hey, we’re going to be transparent.”  We look at every decision and then say, “Why shouldn’t we share this with everyone?” And we do that instead of the default reaction of saying, “We’re not going to share anything.” It might make some people uncomfortable, but that’s not a good-enough argument. 

Q. Let’s shift to hiring. How does the conversation go? What are you looking for? What questions do you ask?

A. We definitely want someone with a high trajectory. The organization is going to change quickly — we’re not perfect, and we make mistakes. We want to find individuals who align with that, who will add value to the company in whatever role they’re in. Part of that is the disposition to be willing to do whatever it’s going to take, because we feel that if we win as a team, we’re going to win together.

Q. Tell me more about how you get at those qualities.

A. From my standpoint, I’m looking to see if someone’s a “gamer” — that’s what I call it. I want to know the hardest thing they’ve ever done. So if you were in Korea, traveling by yourself, did you go home when things got tough? That’s what I’m trying to figure out because when the ship’s going well, everyone’s good. But when obstacles come up, we’ve got to sit back and rethink, how are we going to navigate these? Will some people want to jump off the ship? Or are they going to be a gamer and want to come in, roll up their sleeves and say, “Hey, this is part of it.”

That’s what I’m looking for. I want someone who’s going to roll up their sleeves when a little bit of challenge comes their way.

I think you can pick that up by looking at someone’s career. When times get tough, do they stick in? Because most good things happen after you hit a rough patch. If things are too easy, we probably didn’t learn enough.

The interview has been edited and condensed.