4 ms·

> ... claiming he did it because Amazon has an incentive program that pays drivers $5 for each undelivered package they return. and then > "This behavior is u

by lsh 8y ago

> ... claiming he did it because Amazon has an incentive program that pays drivers $5 for each undelivered package they return. and then > "This behavior is unacceptable and does not reflect the high standards we have for delivery partners," Amazon so you build a delivery system with incentives to not deliver packages, then fire those with the temerity to game the system.

mikeash 8y ago
We expect people to follow the law even when breaking it would profit them. Do we criticize stores for building a business with incentives for taking stuff without paying, then prosecuting people who take advantage of that?
- lsh 8y ago
  We've built systems to fleece the sick and dying and put children into prisons, why the hell not?
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    You're being overly critical of society, and failing to consider the nuance in all of these policies. What's the alternative to allowing healthcare providers to sell their product/services to the dying? Throw anyone who does in prison? But then you're criminalizing consensual interactions. Force other people to pay for the medical care of the dying? Then you're throwing people who refuse to care for people they have no moral responsibility for in prison. Maybe you think the latter is the answer, but it's not an easy thing to justify, especially for those who reject your ideological presuppositions. And what do you do with children of people entering the country illegally? Release them to their parents, and let their parents go home without punishment? Maybe that's what you prefer. But there are major trade-offs from having such a policy, in losing the ability to disincentivize illegal immigration, so it's not obvious it's the right stance. It's easy to criticize society when you don't have a better alternate solution to difficult problems. You're mistaken if you think throwing your arms in the air and saying "to hell with it", and contributing to those problems, by justifying theft of property, won't make things worse. It will. The only constructive way forward is to do the right thing in every situation, and clearly the right thing is not to violate the trust your client/employer put in you and steal a package. Making excuses for this behaviour only encourages more people to go down this destructive path in life.
yayana 8y ago
If he is guilty of theft then Amazon was accepting fenced goods. I don't see what is controversial about these definitions. If peons are going to be charged with serious crimes over dark patterns used for free advertising that eat up civic resources then follow through on the rest of the law.. He is guilty of violating ToS or fraud, (to whatever extent Amazon could believe he (regularly?) found 18 undelivered packages!?) but if this is theft then Amazon was encouraging and abetting theft. The DA should really start the process of investigating this Amazon program to see if Amazon is benefiting materialy from returned packages not being claimed, etc, etc.
- soneil 8y ago
  Would they benefit? Assuming it's amazon packages that are being returned (I can't see any other approach that's remotely logical), then either: a) they re-attempt delivery, and it's zero-sum (with slightly raised logistics costs) b) the package goes in the returns bin, and they send a new replacement (at a loss, returns aren't sold at ticket value) c) the package goes in the returns bin, and the customer is refunded (also at a loss due to the devaluation of the return). None of these options actually has amazon benefitting. The latter two just have them lose less.
  - yayana 8y ago
    D) Amazon doesn't actively report the return to the recipient and waits for the recipient to claim it. Some recipients don't, some packages are incorrectly paid for by their delivery contractor (USPS) insurance or go into incorrect penalties against them. The most likely thing I would suspect is an initial program intended to handle seasonal employees leaving packages at the wrong door, then being abused leading to needing to come back and scan before redelivery.. I don't see why Amazon didn't spend their quote denying they in anyway paid drivers for returns as it reads to me like they aren't really denying that they might have a dark incentive that they became reluctant to fix. (The article reads a little like it is just local police beat, but then there should be nothing from Amazon.)
rconti 8y ago
I'm not even clear what the first line is saying. Packages undelivered by.. them? other drivers? How? If it's by another driver, how do they get it, and how do they know it's not delivered? If it's their own package, wait, they're literally paying drivers not to deliver my packages? What in the actual hell.
- psetq 8y ago
  AFAICT (from googling), it's actually for returning undeliverable packages (no access, etc), and it sounds like resorting to this regularly it will reflect negatively on your job status.
- yorwba 8y ago
  Maybe it was intended for the case when someone orders a bunch of stuff from Amazon, but then goes on vacation before it's delivered. Then when a driver notices that yesterday's delivery hasn't been collected yet, it might be for the best to take it back and try again a few days later.
baddox 8y ago
I think some explanation is missing here. Why would Amazon pay its drivers to pick up other packages and return them to Amazon? Surely the Amazon incentive program would only apply to packages which that driver picked up at the beginning of their route but was unable to deliver.
Johnny555 8y ago
so you build a delivery system with incentives to not deliver packages, then fire those with the temerity to game the system. I think the incentive is to keep drivers from tossing undeliverable packages into the trash or just dumping them on the ground where the address should be even if it's a vacant lot. Only a thief would treat it as an incentive to not deliver packages. Lots of businesses make it easy for dishonest employees to steal from them, but it's still the employee's fault when he takes advantage of the system. When I was in college, bartenders were notorious for pouring double drinks for their friends (or pouring a drink and pocketing the money, etc)... and some bar owners tried to put expensive pour metering systems in place to combat it, but the ones I'm aware of were eventually disbanded because the system made making drinks more labor intensive, and labor was more expensive than some free booze. So even if bartenders can skim money, that doesn't mean they should or that it's the employer's fault for not doing more to stop it.
floatingatoll 8y ago
The driver had the "temerity" to remove a delivered package from someone's porch for $5 of personal profit at the cost of the shipper's and receiver's time and/or money. "Gaming" systems in reality can result in draconian, irreversible punishments. That _some_ systems are more permissive and allow people to exploit them once, twice, or more times before exercising punishments is no guarantee that _all_ systems will. There is fault to be found with Amazon for designing a bad system. There is fault to be found with the driver for "gaming" a bad system. One does not excuse the other. Participants in a badly-designed system are not automatically empowered to disregard the rules and "game" that system. TLDR: "An eye for an eye" may be an appealing strategy, but it is not universally accepted as valid.
- gdulli 8y ago
  All this talk about the returned package credit is surprising me. Occam's Razor would suggest here that the driver was simply a thief who lied and gave an excuse that made himself look less guilty than if he'd stolen.
soneil 8y ago
As long as the incentive to actually deliver them is higher, it seems sensible enough to me. It's the loophole that allows him to return things that weren't his to return, that sounds like it may be more problematic than intended.
ericd 8y ago
It doesn't seem necessary to have a program like he's claiming - it's easy to see who's not delivering packages and not returning them, and it's easy to then never work with that person again. So I doubt his claim is true.

by lsh 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

We expect people to follow the law even when breaking it would profit them. Do we criticize stores for building a business with incentives for taking stuff without paying, then prosecuting people who take advantage of that?

lsh 8y ago
We've built systems to fleece the sick and dying and put children into prisons, why the hell not?
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  You're being overly critical of society, and failing to consider the nuance in all of these policies. What's the alternative to allowing healthcare providers to sell their product/services to the dying? Throw anyone who does in prison? But then you're criminalizing consensual interactions. Force other people to pay for the medical care of the dying? Then you're throwing people who refuse to care for people they have no moral responsibility for in prison. Maybe you think the latter is the answer, but it's not an easy thing to justify, especially for those who reject your ideological presuppositions. And what do you do with children of people entering the country illegally? Release them to their parents, and let their parents go home without punishment? Maybe that's what you prefer. But there are major trade-offs from having such a policy, in losing the ability to disincentivize illegal immigration, so it's not obvious it's the right stance. It's easy to criticize society when you don't have a better alternate solution to difficult problems. You're mistaken if you think throwing your arms in the air and saying "to hell with it", and contributing to those problems, by justifying theft of property, won't make things worse. It will. The only constructive way forward is to do the right thing in every situation, and clearly the right thing is not to violate the trust your client/employer put in you and steal a package. Making excuses for this behaviour only encourages more people to go down this destructive path in life.

yayana 8y ago

If he is guilty of theft then Amazon was accepting fenced goods. I don't see what is controversial about these definitions. If peons are going to be charged with serious crimes over dark patterns used for free advertising that eat up civic resources then follow through on the rest of the law.. He is guilty of violating ToS or fraud, (to whatever extent Amazon could believe he (regularly?) found 18 undelivered packages!?) but if this is theft then Amazon was encouraging and abetting theft. The DA should really start the process of investigating this Amazon program to see if Amazon is benefiting materialy from returned packages not being claimed, etc, etc.

soneil 8y ago
Would they benefit? Assuming it's amazon packages that are being returned (I can't see any other approach that's remotely logical), then either: a) they re-attempt delivery, and it's zero-sum (with slightly raised logistics costs) b) the package goes in the returns bin, and they send a new replacement (at a loss, returns aren't sold at ticket value) c) the package goes in the returns bin, and the customer is refunded (also at a loss due to the devaluation of the return). None of these options actually has amazon benefitting. The latter two just have them lose less.
- yayana 8y ago
  D) Amazon doesn't actively report the return to the recipient and waits for the recipient to claim it. Some recipients don't, some packages are incorrectly paid for by their delivery contractor (USPS) insurance or go into incorrect penalties against them. The most likely thing I would suspect is an initial program intended to handle seasonal employees leaving packages at the wrong door, then being abused leading to needing to come back and scan before redelivery.. I don't see why Amazon didn't spend their quote denying they in anyway paid drivers for returns as it reads to me like they aren't really denying that they might have a dark incentive that they became reluctant to fix. (The article reads a little like it is just local police beat, but then there should be nothing from Amazon.)

rconti 8y ago

I'm not even clear what the first line is saying. Packages undelivered by.. them? other drivers? How? If it's by another driver, how do they get it, and how do they know it's not delivered? If it's their own package, wait, they're literally paying drivers not to deliver my packages? What in the actual hell.

psetq 8y ago
AFAICT (from googling), it's actually for returning undeliverable packages (no access, etc), and it sounds like resorting to this regularly it will reflect negatively on your job status.
yorwba 8y ago
Maybe it was intended for the case when someone orders a bunch of stuff from Amazon, but then goes on vacation before it's delivered. Then when a driver notices that yesterday's delivery hasn't been collected yet, it might be for the best to take it back and try again a few days later.

baddox 8y ago

I think some explanation is missing here. Why would Amazon pay its drivers to pick up other packages and return them to Amazon? Surely the Amazon incentive program would only apply to packages which that driver picked up at the beginning of their route but was unable to deliver.

Johnny555 8y ago

so you build a delivery system with incentives to not deliver packages, then fire those with the temerity to game the system. I think the incentive is to keep drivers from tossing undeliverable packages into the trash or just dumping them on the ground where the address should be even if it's a vacant lot. Only a thief would treat it as an incentive to not deliver packages. Lots of businesses make it easy for dishonest employees to steal from them, but it's still the employee's fault when he takes advantage of the system. When I was in college, bartenders were notorious for pouring double drinks for their friends (or pouring a drink and pocketing the money, etc)... and some bar owners tried to put expensive pour metering systems in place to combat it, but the ones I'm aware of were eventually disbanded because the system made making drinks more labor intensive, and labor was more expensive than some free booze. So even if bartenders can skim money, that doesn't mean they should or that it's the employer's fault for not doing more to stop it.

floatingatoll 8y ago

The driver had the "temerity" to remove a delivered package from someone's porch for $5 of personal profit at the cost of the shipper's and receiver's time and/or money. "Gaming" systems in reality can result in draconian, irreversible punishments. That _some_ systems are more permissive and allow people to exploit them once, twice, or more times before exercising punishments is no guarantee that _all_ systems will. There is fault to be found with Amazon for designing a bad system. There is fault to be found with the driver for "gaming" a bad system. One does not excuse the other. Participants in a badly-designed system are not automatically empowered to disregard the rules and "game" that system. TLDR: "An eye for an eye" may be an appealing strategy, but it is not universally accepted as valid.

gdulli 8y ago
All this talk about the returned package credit is surprising me. Occam's Razor would suggest here that the driver was simply a thief who lied and gave an excuse that made himself look less guilty than if he'd stolen.

soneil 8y ago

As long as the incentive to actually deliver them is higher, it seems sensible enough to me. It's the loophole that allows him to return things that weren't his to return, that sounds like it may be more problematic than intended.

ericd 8y ago

It doesn't seem necessary to have a program like he's claiming - it's easy to see who's not delivering packages and not returning them, and it's easy to then never work with that person again. So I doubt his claim is true.