8 ms·
FAA Slaps Amazon with $350k Penalty for Shipping Violation
- a13n 10y agoOoh $350k, about what it costs them to hire one software engineer for a year
- chrischen 10y ago4 engineers at Amazon's pay rate.
- djsumdog 10y ago4? In Seattle? No way, unless they're at a satellite office. Senior devs go for $130 ~ $180 in Washington (plus all the taxes and benefits; lower if you contract). For $350k they'd get 2, maybe 3 tops. If you're taking low level interns, yea, they could probably get 6 ~ 8.
- praccu 10y agoUh, at Amazon, junior devs go for around $120 if they don't negotiate well. Interns, last I checked, were close to $80. If you fold in the TCO (benefits, computer / chair / licenses, etc.) for a senior engineer, the $350 isn't too far off.
- chrischen 10y agoI know full time devs there who were getting under $100k, granted this was 2-3 years ago.
- JOnAgain 10y agoI read "4" as a joke about Amazon paying poorly (when compared to Facebook and Google)
- a13n 10y agoPlus equity, health insurance, benefits, office space for them, equipment, food, taxes, blah blah blah $350k.
- a13n 10y agoWhat a senior dev gets paid !== what a senior dev costs
- notmything 10y agoTypical small minded HN user, the cost of an employee does not begin and end with salary.
- drizzzler 10y agoor about a minute of revenue
- tn13 10y agoSo is Amazon happy that one of the most important partners of their business suffered ? Cant we trust UPS and Amazon more than FAA in this case?
- Johnny555 10y agoBased on the decline of Amazon UPS deliveries over the past couple years, UPS is becoming less and less important to them. For a while, Ontrac was doing most of my Amazon deliveries, but more recently, Amazon's own delivery service has been delivering most of my orders (not sure if they are really Amazon drivers or if they are contractors). UPS is still doing some deliveries (seems to be only products that aren't available in nearby warehouses), but not nearly as many as they used to. When Amazon first started using Ontrac, Ontrac's delivery service was so horrible that I think Amazon did it only so they could squeeze more money from UPS and Fedex, though Ontrac has improved a lot since then. Recently Amazon has starting using the USPS to deliver more packages (or at least the last-mile delivery), and that service has been disappointing, I can usually count on a USPS package being delivered at least a day late, and more than once, it hasn't shown up at all, despite being marked as "delivered at front door". In any case, while I would think that any unhappiness between UPS and Amazon would be resolved through their contracts, I doubt that UPS wants to rock the boat with Amazon, because even a small piece of the Amazon delivery pie is a lot of deliveries. So in this case, where workers health and safety is in question, it's good that the government stepped in to prevent UPS's desire to keep a customer happy from getting in the way of their worker's welfare.
- click170 10y agoThis is interesting because I've had similar problems with Amazon orders that come thru Canada post. One incident I was already in the middle of the dispute process when they finally delivered it. A week after the Canada post website showed Delivered. I originally blammed Canada post but perhaps this is an AWS shipping issue after all.
- Johnny555 10y agoOh, I'm sure my problems are related to the USPS and not Amazon -- one of the lost packages turned up a week later from a neighbor to whom it was misdelivered. Amazon has always been quick to ship out replacements when I reported the missing packages (even when the USPS said they were "delivered"), and even for the one that was re-delivered by my neighbor, when I reported to amazon that I received it, they said I could keep the $10 item, no need to return it.
- cbhl 10y agoI imagine we'll see less of this going forward, as Amazon moves towards local warehouses and Amazon Prime Now one-hour delivery, in lieu of shipping everything by air using UPS/FedEx.
- protomyth 10y agoWell, I would suppose a car accident with this stuff improperly packed would be 'eventful'.
- Animats 10y ago"The liquid leaked from a one-gallon container of “Amazing Liquid Fire,” a drain cleaner, during a flight from Louisville, Ky. to Boulder, Colo. ... The FAA alleged that the shipment was not properly packaged, was not accompanied by a proper declaration stating the hazardous nature of its contents." 9 employees injured. "Amazing Liquid Fire" is concentrated sulfuric acid. Amazon review: "It eats through everything except plastic and porcelain. When you use this you have to be careful when you pour it down the drain it ate through the metal ring around the drain hole..... Unfortunately it did not unclog my drains, guess I have to call a plumber." MSDS info: Very hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, irritant, permeator), of eye contact (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching.... Also, sulfuric acid in contact with a long list of other chemicals is explosive. "Amazing Liquid Fire" ships in a 1 gallon plastic jug. You can't even ship that via UPS Ground. Above 500ml, you have to use hazardous material freight. Come on, Amazon, you have databases. You should know which products are hazardous. If the vendor can't give you an MSDS for it, maybe you shouldn't be shipping it.
- Animats 10y agoOh, and Amazon's recommendation engine shows "Frequently bought together - Amazing Liquid Fire and Red Hot Devil Lye." If you mix those two, you are going to have a really bad day.
- djsumdog 10y agoAnd everyone who purchased those two items together also get their very own personalized FBI terrorist watch list.
- maxerickson 10y agoNah, regional drug enforcement. The internet reveals that they are both ingredients used for cooking meth. And now I wonder how much attention Googling "meth recipe" is worth. This page discusses it from a law enforcement perspective (or so): http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0511November/TechSpeak.aspx http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0511November/TechSpeak.a...
- serge2k 10y agoSo next time you want to whine about FAA safety regs, remember they ended up written because of things like this.
- emp_zealoth 10y agoBut opression! /s
- kordless 10y agoBut safety for all! /s
- ancap 10y agoIt could be handled as a civil suit. The nine employees would likely get a lot more than $350k.
- serge2k 10y agoI would hope they do sue and win a civil suit. Violating FAA regulations by transporting hazardous chemicals improperly, resulting in bodily harm. Sounds like a pretty good case. The fines should really be higher. Amazon should get hit hard enough to actually care about it.
- tedmiston 10y agoCan Amazon turn around and claim that this was third party seller's responsibility as that seller shipped the product?
- akiselev 10y agoNot if they're knowingly holding and shipping inventory of hazardous materials, which is the point of "Fulfilled by Amazon." I mean, how do they sell something without knowing what it is? If they're selling chemicals without a single person checking to make sure that they're properly handled then that's even worse. Obviously, the person who sent them the sulfuric acid is at fault to, but there were several failures here.
- swehner 10y agoShould be $350,000,000, no doubt.
- Dr_tldr 10y agoThird party vendors doing sketchy stuff with shipping does not profit Amazon enough for this to be part of their overall business plan. 350k is definitely only a warning shot, but in this case, the interests of the FAA, Amazon, and public safety are all in fairly close alignment.
- Apofis 10y agoHow the fuck is Amazon on the hook for the shipping method a 3rd party vendor used?
- colechristensen 10y agoI imagine this was a 'fulfilled by Amazon' order. That is, a 3rd party vendor shipped the product to Amazon which sold and shipped it. As to the parent's comment, Amazon sees a huge part of it's business moving to this area, it's not just noise. Amazon wants to be a logistics company, not a store.
- scurvy 10y agoSo they shipped something ORM-D by air? Throw the book at them.
- jrockway 10y agoIncidentally, I've seen Amazon err the other way on lithium batteries. I have ordered things like LiFePO4 cells or devices with lithium ion batteries inside and they come with a sticker that says "PRIMARY LITHIUM BATTERY, NOT FOR TRANSPORT ON PASSENGER AIRCRAFT" which apparently doesn't apply to lithium ion batteries. Better safe than sorry, though, I suppose. (I have also ordered primary lithium batteries... and those also get the sticker correctly.) UPS has an incredibly detailed document here about the regulations: https://www.ups.com/media/news/en/us_lithium_battery_regulations.pdf https://www.ups.com/media/news/en/us_lithium_battery_regulat...
- mmagin 10y agoI've had them ship a flashlight that came with an alkaline battery labeled as if it had a lithium battery. I've also found that they wouldn't ship the 8 oz version of a popular homebrewing sanitizer (Star San -- it's phosphoric acid and a strong detergent) to my address, but they shipped the 32 oz version just fine. As a customer, the annoying thing is that they don't make it easy to request a review of this bogus database info.
- jrockway 10y agoYeah, that happens randomly. I think the 32 oz version of Star San is from a different vendor that is probably not shipping it properly. Or vice versa. (I too have 32 oz of Star San ;)
- nommm-nommm 10y agoAmazon is known by third party FBA sellers for shipping out poorly packaged items. They then ding your seller account when your stuff arrives broke. This doesn't surprise me in the least. From the article: “Amazon has a history of violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations,” the agency said in a news release. From February 2013 to September 2015, Amazon was found to have violated such regulations 24 times, the FAA said, adding that the agency would continue to investigate the company’s compliance with air safety regulations.