Not really, since they are single events you don't know anything about the frequency and how it compares to the frequency in other locations.
The law of large number causes unusual events to happen every day, which means the more globally your news operates the more freak events you can accumulate. Your town newspaper regularly reporting that someone had to work next to a corpse would be concerning. BBC world news reporting that this happened somewhere in the world might be statistical blips.
One is reporting on extremely unusual things (working next to corpses), which hopefully don't happen in amazon facilities more regularly than in any other facility but due to amazon's size even a low probability of such a thing happening on any particular day means it's eventually going to happen in one of their facilities.
Another is that the undercover reporters come from an environment where what's considered normal or even better-than-averagee in manual labor jobs would seem outrageous if someone demanded it from them in their regular jobs.
Combining unusual cherry-picked events with their own perception tinted with nightmare vision goggles leads to biased reporting that may not necessarily reflect the experience of most workers.
But I commented on one argument, which is that it's basically a fluke. But for some reason I keep seeing streams of reports of many different flukes. Are they all unrelated?
So if that AMA reddit thread describes working conditions where people don't want to drink water because they don't have time to pee, is it unrelated to reports of warehouse workers defecating thrash cans or drivers peeing in bottles?
One common thread there is that workers seem to have pretty steep quotas that don't tolerate breaks of any kind. Is then the situation of working next to a corpse at Amazon really comparable to a similar unusual situation in Luxembourg?
I don't know, the point is that we would need statistics to judge better than with the anecdotes we have now.
Amazon might be an especially egregious case of soulcrushing manual labor and exploitation of poor people who don't have many options.
Or they might be a far less headline-worthy case of having an incident rate no worse than industry-average but with above-minimum wage pay (as TFA claims) and the reports we're seeing are mostly due to their size amplifying any tiny signal.
Anyway, your initial post about the mere existence of incidents at X being proof that working conditions at X are appalling. Which is incorrect because it doesn't tell us anything about whether the incident rate is above the base rate outside X or not.
Of course one can still find those incidents appalling, but if X is nothing special compared to its environment then we would have to improve things everywhere and can't uniquely blame X.
You seem to conflate two different cases of tolerable here. Of course murder is usually not tolerated by society, so the individual case would hopefully still lead to a murder conviction. But you wouldn't blame amazon for fostering murderers unless you could show that its ranks commit more murders than the general population, i.e. amazon has a rate of murder that has not been found intolerable.
The law of large number causes unusual events to happen every day, which means the more globally your news operates the more freak events you can accumulate. Your town newspaper regularly reporting that someone had to work next to a corpse would be concerning. BBC world news reporting that this happened somewhere in the world might be statistical blips.