A level of unprecedented macro-economic growth (at least for those of the leading edge information sector) led to a gushing style that matched the Reagan Revolution in all its consumptive excess. The names changed (BoBos rather than Yuppies) but the song remained the same: an entire class of well-paid workers partied all night like it was 1999 and worked all day.

Never mind that few of the dot-com companies were showing any profits: they were too busy creating the business giants of the 21st Century to care.

Leading the way was Amazon (or Amazon.com, if you will) which promised to turn into the Walmart of the Internet. Their meat-and-potatoes is selling books, but Amazon has slowly entered product category after product category in its ultimate goal of becoming the Web's department store to the world. Their place in the elite pantheon of corporate titans was cemented when Amazon's CEO, Jeff Bezos, was named Time Magazine's 1999 Man of the Year. A funny thing happened on the way to global domination: the Internet revolution stalled. Apparently, profits did matter after all. The dot-com boom turned into the dot-com bust.

Through most of the 90's, the prosperity of the hi-tech industries led many to claim that the new companies practiced a kinder, gentler form of corporate capitalism. The dot-coms had a different relationship with its workers, they insisted. The argument was widely believed, but a few cynics out there knew it was bullshit.

The cynics were proven correct: when the going got tough, the dot-com CEOs proved they could behave like ruthless pricks as easily as Roger Smith. When the bubble burst, lay-offs became the latest dot-com fad: in January 2001 alone, over 12,000 pink slips were handed out.

Leave it to Amazon to not miss the opportunity of jumping on a hi-tech bandwagon. On January 30, 2000, citing losses of $545 million in the fourth quarter of 2000, they announced plans to eliminate 1,300 jobs, 15 percent of its workforce. This in itself is a pretty huge story. What makes it even bigger is which jobs Mr. Bezos and associates have decided to target.

400 of the jobs were in the Seattle customer service center. Coincidentally, workers in this customer service center were attempting to organize a union: unlike the upper members of the digital caste system, they had long been victims of low wages and heavy workloads. In response to these two curious facts, Bezos insisted, "It is completely unrelated. Everyone is being offered the opportunity to relocate. It is the high cost of doing business in Seattle."

For some strange reason, some people weren't buying Bezos's story. The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech) have asked the National Labor Relations Board to investigate whether Amazon's goal was to "specifically target Seattle Customer Service due to union activity."

Marcus Courtney, co-founder of WashTech, stated that for the workers attempting to unionize, "The No. 1 issue was job security, because Amazon.com had been outsourcing jobs." It appears their concerns were quite valid. An observant fellow, Courtney added, "We believe some serious red flags are raised by the fact that the only customer service center impacted by lay-offs was the one undergoing a union organization drive."

Alan Barclay, a customer service worker involved in the drive, stated: "Any illusions I might have had about the nobility of Amazon.com have been shattered." Zach Works, another customer service specialist who retained his job, put it more bluntly: "My friends were sacrificed for Wall Street."

Perhaps there were other factors, but the attempt to unionize clearly was a major part of Amazon's decision. The Seattle lay-off also serves as a warning shot to the rest of the workforce: know your place, or you too will soon be unemployed. Bezos may not admit it publicly for legal reasons, but get him drunk on whisky, and he no doubt would gloat in private over Amazon's brash act.

Don't expect "president" Bush or his administration to do much about this. His first choice for Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez, dropped out when it was revealed she was shockingly sympathetic to illegal Guatemalan aliens. No controversy was heard in the press about her public opposition to minimum wage laws as "Marxist" and anti-union writings.

As for Amazon, the cuts may end up costing them more than they expected, despite the short-term cheers from Wall Street. It is precisely through quality customer service that Amazon has earned such a good name with consumers: the Seattle center was its most experienced staff.

Ultimately, the greatest harm will happen to Amazon if its name becomes deservedly tarnished over its actions. Contrary to management claims, the vast majority of Amazon's losses last quarter were due to write-offs on bad investments okayed by Mr. Bezos in other dot-coms, not overpriced costs of labor in the Seattle area. Subtract the one-time costs, and their losses were actually only $90 million, which was less than analysts expected. Furthermore, fourth quarter sales were $972 million, up 44 percent from 1999, when Bezos was Time Magazine's Man of the Year. Considering these numbers, there certainly were other options, but Amazon decided to take the low road.

The only question is if shoppers will continue to follow them.