Amazon has reportedly ended its relationship with a German security company that was accused of having far-right links and mistreating foreign workers at the U.S. firm’s distribution centers.

Hensel European Security Services’s (HESS) methods were the subject of a documentary last week by the German TV channel ARD, which used secret filming to establish how the firm harassed and intimidated foreign workers and also how some of its military-style employees appeared to have far-right allegiances.

The firm itself has strongly denied such links – it noted in a statement that it itself employs many immigrants — but the documentary quickly attracted the attention of Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leading politicians. HESS’s case has almost certainly not been helped by the fact that the acronym it uses was also the name of Hitler’s deputy…

The documentary alleged that HESS regularly searched temporary staff members’ accommodation and even frisked them after breakfast, to check that they did not steal rolls. On Friday, Amazon said it was looking into the claims, but early on Monday the U.S. company said it had parted ways with HESS:

“Amazon has secured that the criticized security service is not used any longer, effective immediately. As a responsible employer of approximately 8,000 salaried logistics employees, Amazon has zero-tolerance for discrimination and intimidation and expects the same from every company we work with.”

There are organizations established solely for the purpose of providing accurate information on working conditions abroad for American firms entering the global arena. Amazon isn’t a beginner at international distribution nor are they unaware of the standards required – or not required – in other nations.

Someone didn’t do their homework.

  1. McCullough says:

    So, hows that working out for Apple. Quite well I think.

  2. NAtech says:

    “The documentary alleged that HESS regularly searched temporary staff members’ accommodation and even frisked them after breakfast, to check that they did not steal rolls. ‘

    Wow. sounds familiar, shades of the old standard German Arbeitslager…the more things change…

  3. deowll says:

    All I’m left with is they might have been over zealous and some gossip got going and the company got fired.

    What does this have to do with reality? The reality is gossip is enough to destroy your business.

    • stormtrooper 651 says:

      An appropriate post from the jew/catholic/black hating eidard.
      What better distraction than the germans. The old “call everyone else a nazi” routine.

  4. B. Dog says:

    How weird would it be if someone did a documentary in the U.S. showing how workers were hassled for not being politically correct?

    • Aldous Hilter (read it AGAIN!) says:



      Where have you been? Living under a rock or somewhere?!

  5. Dallas says:

    Good for Amazon. That’s why I buy nearly everything from Amazon and own part of the company.

    Jeff Bezos and his wife pledged millions of his own money to same sex marriage following the scandal of the Chik-Fil-Ahole owner.

    • LibertyLover says:


      I thought he was exercising free speech.

      I may be mistaken, though.

      • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

        LL–yes Chik fil exercised its First Amendment Rights to demonstrate what A-Holes they were/are just as referenced by Dallas.

        Being an A-Hole yourself, I can see how you miss the subtlety. A-Holes always support each other.

        Every true libertarian supports same sex marriage. FREEEEEEEEEDOM after all is leaving other people alone.

        Only LEIberTARDs like yourself disagree. Well, LIEberTARDs, born agains, neo cons who don’t have family members who are gay, retards, homophobes, xenophiles===you know, your Saturday night “Go Fish” card game companions.

        • LibertyLover says:

          Booger! I didn’t pick you. Get back where you belong.

        • McCullough says:

          I don’t “support” same sex marriage. I just truly don’t give a fuck. That’s Libertarian.

          Its none of my bidness.

          I guess I’m an A-Hole as well.

          • Dallas says:

            Your aloofness, insensitivity to others perils and detachment from society on this is important issue does not, in itself make you an a-hole. You’ve probably been one since elementary school.

          • McCullough says:

            Huh, maybe I need to be more sensi…..

            nahhhh, still don’t give a fuck!

            Actually, I think the sacred act of “marriage” is nonsense anyway. It’s a stupid tradition, and I have no clue why gay people think its’ such an important issue.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Pretty much my attitude, too.

            I feel the same way about straight marriage, as well.

          • Dallas says:

            Believing in marriage is irrelevant. I don’t believe in that either. If you are uninformed on the legal, implied and customary priviledges afforded to married couples, then well it just validates my point.

            Here’s something up your alley. Can you do something about the Mexican pest problem in here?

          • McCullough says:

            Dallas says:

            ” If you are uninformed on the legal, implied and customary priviledges afforded to married couples, then well it just validates my point. ”

            I’m informed. It’s just that I don’t care. It’s not the government’s or my business to interfere with anyone’s personal life. But they do, and that’s unfortunate.

            On a scale of things to worry about, this just doesn’t register.

          • LibertyLover says:


            Just because I don’t actively pursue a “right” you feel strongly about, don’t think that I don’t understand the issues at stake.

            If you truly wished to see equality, then concentrate on getting the government out of the marriage business altogether instead of picking and choosing who should have what rights and who shouldn’t.

            By insisting the government recognize gay marriage, people are doing nothing more than making the situation worse.

          • Dallas says:

            I agree about getting the gov out of the marriage business. However, I think fighting two fronts is best to cover both outcomes.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Sigh. You really don’t understand unintended consequences at all.

            If anything, this proves that people do vote with their wallets. “What’s in it for me?”

        • Mextli says:

          “FREEEEEEEEEDOM after all is leaving other people alone.”

          That includes people that do not agree with you. Simple isn’t it?

          I am really glad we do not have the travesty of “Gay Marriage”, whatever that is, being legal in all states.

        • Gwad his own self says:


      • Dallas says:

        A scandal doesn’t necessarily imply an illegal act and yes, I’d agree Cathy was exercising his freedom of speech.

        Chik-Fil-Ahole learned a valuable lesson taught in B school:
        “If you’re business involves selling dead chicken meals, you should refrain from offending chicken eaters in public”

  6. bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

    1. “mistreating foreign workers at the U.S. firm’s distribution centers” /// Would this mean good ol’ Americans?—half the white population of which have German Ancestry?

    2. Nazi Roots huh? As tight as the Catholic Church, or something less?

    Carry on.

  7. Aldous Hilter (read it AGAIN!) says:

    Talk about someone “not doing their homework”!

    This is GERMANY! So when you say “far-right” what exactly are you referring to?

    For the average dumb-ass AMERICAN, it might look like the fault is with conservatives (assumption being Republican-leaning politics). But again, it’s GERMANY! Their “right” is actually more LIBERAL!

    So if you “reporters” can’t tell your right from your left when reporting then I don’t think I can trust a damn thing you say even if you could prove that Amazon was run by Hitler himself.

    STOP WITH THE RIGHT VS LEFT BULLSHIT! Stop the subliminal crap when you say things like “far right” or “far left” unless you mean to describe an actual geographic side of something. Try putting it in terms of liberal versus conservative so we can all see the REAL story! You might also note I didn’t say “progressive” versus conservative either. That’s because it’s possible to be either liberal or conservative and still be progressive!!!

    • Rational Ranger says:

      > Try putting it in terms of liberal versus conservative
      > so we can all see the REAL story!

      In case you aren’t aware, liberal and conservative are relative terms (in Great Britain they mean the opposite to what they mean in the US). They don’t really mean anything in a global context.

      The so-called German “Far right” is not necessarily either conservative or liberal: they are nationalist. For the most part they are “leftist” by the historical definition.

      Liberal and conservative are about as meaningful as right and left (in other words, not meaningful at all).

      It is far more important to understand the goals that political factions hold and their ideological basis.

      Heck, even some Nazis called their movement leftist, so right and left are largely not relevant bases for understanding anything.

      Historically, “left” referred to the left house of the French assembly and referred to people who wanted to substantially change the basis of French society during the French revolution. “Rightists” sat on the right side and wanted to maintain French society pretty much as it had been.

      But, what happens when the so-called leftists have assumed power and changed the society (as in most Western countries since WW2)? If they’re seeking to protect what they’ve implemented, suddenly, they are “rightest” because they are seeking to maintain what they’ve emplaced. They are “conservative” of their liberal state. Or what about when Nationalists seek to drastically change what the “left” has put in place? Then they too are “leftists.”

      So, really these terms are just confusing unless you define the precise version to which you’re referring.

  8. Rational Ranger says:

    Sounds like another distraction of the week….

    The US is slowly turning into a liberal fascist state and all we get is “…look over there….”

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Enjoyed your post above. How would you define destraction?

      ===Anything you personally are not interested in?
      ===Anything below the top 3 newsworthy items?
      ===All Pop Culture?

      If news weren’t distracting, aka–something for everyone==there would be such boredom and repetition, it would start to look like Liberty Loser was in charge of what was thought best for us.

      We wouldn’t want that.

      • Rational Ranger says:

        > How would you define destraction?

        I think that I would define “distraction” as the intentional replacement of one thing by a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else.

        > If news weren’t distracting, aka … there would
        > be such boredom and repetition…

        I don’t think so. If the media were really concerned with reporting “news” they would ask themselves what the concerns and interests of their readers were and focus the attention on those things that are the most important to them.

        • Rational Ranger says:

          Actually, I have to modify my definition. There is intentional and unintentional distraction. The definition shouldn’t make a distinction between the two.

          I was talking, specifically, about intentional distraction, but a distraction could be intentional or not.

          • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

            Well—ALL NEWS ITEMS are intentionally choosen to the exclusion of others.

            I think you have missed the point. If you want general news/infotainment/pop culture then you tune into the Main/Lame stream media.

            If you think only financial news is important, you have Bloomberg.

            If you think only international news is important, you have CNN or Al Jazera or BBC?

            If you think only Science news is important, you have…… you have….. the Discovery Channel.

            Perhaps your position would be explained by citing one news story that was used to distract from another? Most recently, that might be the Dorner Cop Killer case that was “local news” used to distract from Obama’s SOTU? Well–one man’s cup of tea is just a stinking wet weed to another.

            Easy to complain====impossible to make everyone happy===therefore the whole process is hit or miss and necessarily so to be of interest to a mass market. Otherwise, you get a whole channel like Faux Spews that will not destract you from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

            Sorry. You can’t separate distraction from full spectrum. If you want specialty news, go to a specialty source.

          • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

            Evidently, if you want to make money, the more distracting the better:


  9. bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

    McCullough coming ever so close confuses his own personal likes and dislikes with what the LAW should allow or not says:
    2/18/2013 at 5:43 pm

    I don’t “support” same sex marriage. I just truly don’t give a fuck. That’s Libertarian. /// Well, liberdrool as I am, I must admit I don’t “support” gay marriage either. BUT====I recognize my own personal druthers are just that. Why should that be the basis for any law at all? Once I realized that gay marriage barely affected me at all ((it does–providing benefits to more partners makes the system less robust/funded for the smaller hetero group)) then I had to realize I was only dealing with my own prejudices/upbringing/isolation. I truly clasped what I constantly preach===>LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE THE FUCK ALONE. Which means let them do whatever they want to unless your own rights are actually truly affect to a degree that interfering with others is justified. If you disagree with me….. you are simply…… wrong.

    Its none of my bidness. /// Thats right. What other people do that doesn’t hurt you is none of your business which is what you make it when you support a law that does outlaw/make illegal/does not allow that conduct.

    I guess I’m an A-Hole as well. /// Yes, if you support the Homophones and Christian Right Taliban at Chick -Fil-A===asshole is exactly what you are. Its only “wonderful” that every day when you wake up…. you can change your mind. During the day too, but studies show that is more difficult. Consciousness/the persistence of personality==>where does it float off to when we are asleep, and how does it take control back? ((Ha, ha!))

    FREEEEEEEEEDOM–not just the right to agree with me. Actually, just the reverse.

    Can you handle it?

    This is a perfect issue to plumb your own depths.

    Yea, verily.

  10. McCullough says:

    Your train comes unglued by implying that I “support” Homophobes or the Christian Taliban.

    I mean seriously, why can’t you just take it at face value that I don’t care either way.

    We have a legal system, its a contract between peoples, use it and please shut the fuck up about the rest. We don’t need the drama.

    BTW, I don’t eat fast food, processed chicken parts. That shit will kill you.

    • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

      If you don’t care one way or the other—then we are in complete agreement in one oblique manner===but you expressed your position as being in agreement with Chik Fil A which does give a shit and they are A Holes in their opinion. When you opine your opinion might make you an A Hole too===that is what you are saying.

      Yeah—its English.

      I think its great you don’t care one way or the other. Its not the same path, but it goes thru the same first 3 train stops on the road to FREEEEEEEEEEDOM. Not bad.

      I wonder how much you don’t recognize what your own position is versus it was inartfully stated ….. or recognized?

      But I dither.

      • McCullough says:

        I did not at any point say I agreed with Chunk fil A.
        That was another poster, please get your facts straight if your going to call me an A Hole.

        BTW, I care even less about Cluck-Fil A’s position on gay marriage.

  11. every time i come on here, you guys accuse liberals like myself of being just like the GOP… in this case you claim that liberals are against gay marriage, which is patently absurd.

    this page is a big old neo-feudalist circle jerk a lot of the time unfortunately.

    • Dallas says:

      I don’t recall any accusations of liberals nor teapublicans being against gay marriage.

      The topics here are broad and intended to be thought provoking. Scholars like me, Bobbo, Orchid and others contribute a variety of opposing or varied views vs the dark views of McCullough , Mextli , Libertylover and the like.

      Sure, we have a rodent infestation here , ie Pedro, but overall, it’s a fun site.

      • LibertyLover says:


        What is so dark about giving people back their liberty?

        To quote you, “Why do you hate being free so much?”

  12. Rational Ranger says:

    This blog is supposed to be “Dvorak Uncensored” not Eideard Unleashed. Really, it has descended into nothing but a huge liberal meme-fest. The story posters are thoughtless cretins apparently without any critical thinking skills.

    I understand that John C Dvorak is busy and can’t maintain his own blog, but he could at least establish editorial policy. John C Dvorak has demonstrated outstanding critical thinking skills and his viewpoint is many works, he should be concerned about a blog like this with his own name on it.

    As it stands, this site has become crap. Even a few good ideas once in awhile would make it far better than the crap that is posted far more often.

    Just my $0.02

  13. MikeN says:

    The reality is in Europe, Olympic athletes were kicked off the team for supporting a party that is not in line with liberals vision of a European superstate. If your party supports restricting immigration, you are a Nazi. If you think you should be allowed to sell in pounds and ounces instead of grams and kilograms, you are a Nazi. If you think that liberal values should rule over Muslim ones, you are a Nazi.

  14. bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

    McCullough–it was Dallas who called Chik Fil A “Chik Fil Ahole.” Ahole as in A-hole. He said this and I agreed because Chik Fil A are homophobes and by that definition: A-holes.

    In this context, THEN you said:

    I don’t “support” same sex marriage. /// Usually this means one is against it. Not always, just usually.

    I just truly don’t give a fuck. That’s Libertarian. /// So, you are in the exception group, just as I say I am. We are only hooman beings–by nature, none of us care about EVERYTHING that is care worthy. The work gets divided up.

    Its none of my bidness. //// It is your business. Businesses can be poorly run, mismanaged, and even abandoned. Like careworthy–every issue in society is “your business.” We pick and choose what we tend to.

    I guess I’m an A-Hole as well. /// Given the above, you now conclude you are an A-Hole as well? As well as who? And the only Ahole noted was Chick Fil A who is an A-Hole for being anti-gay and trying to force their opinions on their employees.

    But I can see you could have meant just that you are an A-Hole for some other reasons like you don’t care? Well–thats poor construction. Its also poor construction to jump into a conversation for the purpose of emphasizing you have nothing to contribute, that you just don’t care about a subject. What does that add?

    Even Pedro’s yawn has the benefit of being clear he wants and means to be irrelevant. You might try that in the future.

    • McCullough says:

      Christ, and I thought my wife was anal-retentive.
      My turn to roll eyes.

      • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

        You really should come to grips more with the substance of exchanges. You constantly challenge but with no mass.

        I posted, You responded and we have gone back and forth. Whatever you see in me, you should see equally in yourself.

        Why don’t you respond to the criticism made rather than too easily default to vague self referential ad hominem attack?

        The best criticism will always do that.

        Yea, verily.

        • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

          When the field is vanquished, the anal retentive can only argue with themselves:

          I have posted that winning or losing an argument are both valuable in helping one to form/confirm their opinions.

          I think, I’m beginning to think, its not enough to Leave other people Alone when it comes to the political issues of the day. If one supports FREEEEEEEEEDOM, its not enough to leave other people alone.

          To be FOR freedom, one must support it.

          To be FOR Freedom, one must support those who do not have it.

          To be FOR FREEDOM, one must support Gay Marriage.

          If you don’t, you are indeed an A-Hole. Not being as large and loose as some others should not be a comfort.

          FREEEEEEEEEEEDOM—-an active process. Passive resisters but chaff in the wind.


Bad Behavior has blocked 19392 access attempts in the last 7 days.