5 ms·

Which warehouses are "sweat shop" level?

dessant 6y ago
I think all of them, given that workers are severely underpaid compared to the value they provide, and have no means to influence the future of the company, other than to speak up and be fired. Though it's possible that the parent was referring to Amazon warehouses where workers had to pee in a bottle to keep their productivity points above the cutoff level.
- 0xy 6y ago
  They're paid at the level they will accept for the job they provide. Amazon couldn't hire 100,000 people in a month if they were underpaying anyone. Also, why should they have means to influence the future of the company? They're hired voluntarily to do one job, not to lead the company.
  - dessant 6y ago
    They accept the job because they need it to survive, but that does not mean they are happy with what they're paid, see all the crushed unionization attempts. Nor does it mean that the company cannot afford to pay them more and still make a nice profit, just because they'd also work for less. Yes, workers should be able to influence the future of a company they invest their lives in, the same way citizens can influence the future of their countries. The incentives of workers and shareholders can be aligned, when greed is kept in check. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-worker-ownership-plan/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-w...
    - 0xy 6y ago
      Why should a worker who voluntarily accepts a contract be allowed to renege on that contract and suddenly have control of other people's property?
      - wins32767 6y ago
        Because contracts aren't the highest form of value, they are just a construct we agree to follow as a tool to help create a society that aligns to our values? If contracts are creating results that are not aligned with our values as a society, we should be willing to modify them or do away with the concept of a contract entirely if that allows us to get to a better outcome that we collectively agree upon.
        0xy 6y ago
        Seems to me like this ideology was soundly rejected twice by an extremely large margin in Sanders' losses in 2016 and 2020. I don't think the country wants to eliminate the idea of a voluntary contract as you suggest.
        wins32767 6y ago
        It's not an ideology that I'm expressing, it's the opposite. We shouldn't be bound by ideology in trying to find solutions to social problems, but be willing propose major changes to fix badly broken systems. A big part of the problem the US has is that it's become a norm to view any proposal through the lens of ones own ideologies or the assumed ideologies of ones interlocutor and dismissing it on the basis of improper ideology rather than proposing an alternate solution.
        0xy 6y ago
        It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Nobody in the country wants to end voluntary contracts as you suggest. You want people to be able to renege on contracts they explicitly agreed to under no duress. This position is not supported by the country and has been rejected countless times. Even unionism as a whole has been rejected. I would not join a union even if it was free, absolutely never.
        dessant 6y ago
        Why wouldn't you join an union? What's wrong with them?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Hiring 100k people a month is only half the picture. Their turnover rate is absurd, and folks wouldn't be quitting in droves if they were paying adequately to compensate for the working conditions. Why should they have means to influence the future of the company? That's been repeatedly proven in court and enshrined in law.
SamWhited 6y ago
The ones that have been in the news for years for being sweat shop level. The ones that 60 Minutes did an exposition on, and that activists have been trying to draw attention to. I don't understand what you want by asking this question, an address?
three_seagrass 6y ago
https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/amazon-warehouses-are-cult-like-sweatshops-run-by-robots-ex-employee/ https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/amazon-warehouses-are-cult-lik... >I soon learned that only difference between an Amazon warehouse and a third-world sweatshop were the robots. At Amazon, you were surrounded by bots, and they were treated better than the humans.
- o10449366 6y ago
  Are there 3rd world sweatshops that pay $16 USD/hour and provide benefits? I'd wager there are a few more differences than just the robots.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    This is a No-True Scotsman. You asked for examples of Amazon sweatshop conditions, and once given, you're now redefining the semantics of 'true' sweatshops to being both in the third world and making less than $16/hour.
    - pathseeker 6y ago
      No it's not. The very definition of sweatshop implies very low wages and long hours.
      - three_seagrass 6y ago
        According to Wikipedia, a sweatshop is semantically a workplace with very poor, socially unacceptable or illegal working conditions. The work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenging or underpaid. It's true that workers in sweatshops may work long hours with low pay, but it's not limited to that. If you read the article with the example that was asked for, you'd see the examples of how it's sweatshop conditions.
        adamweld 6y ago
        I read through the article, I don't really see how it fits that definition. Long shifts on your feet, physical labor, short breaks and no cell phones. Precise tracking of performance. Does it sound like fun? Hell no. But it seems like decent pay for unskilled physical labor, and I haven't read anything that sounds like sweatshop conditions.

I think all of them, given that workers are severely underpaid compared to the value they provide, and have no means to influence the future of the company, other than to speak up and be fired. Though it's possible that the parent was referring to Amazon warehouses where workers had to pee in a bottle to keep their productivity points above the cutoff level.

0xy 6y ago
They're paid at the level they will accept for the job they provide. Amazon couldn't hire 100,000 people in a month if they were underpaying anyone. Also, why should they have means to influence the future of the company? They're hired voluntarily to do one job, not to lead the company.
- dessant 6y ago
  They accept the job because they need it to survive, but that does not mean they are happy with what they're paid, see all the crushed unionization attempts. Nor does it mean that the company cannot afford to pay them more and still make a nice profit, just because they'd also work for less. Yes, workers should be able to influence the future of a company they invest their lives in, the same way citizens can influence the future of their countries. The incentives of workers and shareholders can be aligned, when greed is kept in check. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-worker-ownership-plan/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-w...
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Why should a worker who voluntarily accepts a contract be allowed to renege on that contract and suddenly have control of other people's property?
    - wins32767 6y ago
      Because contracts aren't the highest form of value, they are just a construct we agree to follow as a tool to help create a society that aligns to our values? If contracts are creating results that are not aligned with our values as a society, we should be willing to modify them or do away with the concept of a contract entirely if that allows us to get to a better outcome that we collectively agree upon.
      - 0xy 6y ago
        Seems to me like this ideology was soundly rejected twice by an extremely large margin in Sanders' losses in 2016 and 2020. I don't think the country wants to eliminate the idea of a voluntary contract as you suggest.
        wins32767 6y ago
        It's not an ideology that I'm expressing, it's the opposite. We shouldn't be bound by ideology in trying to find solutions to social problems, but be willing propose major changes to fix badly broken systems. A big part of the problem the US has is that it's become a norm to view any proposal through the lens of ones own ideologies or the assumed ideologies of ones interlocutor and dismissing it on the basis of improper ideology rather than proposing an alternate solution.
        0xy 6y ago
        It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Nobody in the country wants to end voluntary contracts as you suggest. You want people to be able to renege on contracts they explicitly agreed to under no duress. This position is not supported by the country and has been rejected countless times. Even unionism as a whole has been rejected. I would not join a union even if it was free, absolutely never.
        dessant 6y ago
        Why wouldn't you join an union? What's wrong with them?
- klyrs 6y ago
  Hiring 100k people a month is only half the picture. Their turnover rate is absurd, and folks wouldn't be quitting in droves if they were paying adequately to compensate for the working conditions. Why should they have means to influence the future of the company? That's been repeatedly proven in court and enshrined in law.

SamWhited 6y ago

The ones that have been in the news for years for being sweat shop level. The ones that 60 Minutes did an exposition on, and that activists have been trying to draw attention to. I don't understand what you want by asking this question, an address?

three_seagrass 6y ago

https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/amazon-warehouses-are-cult-like-sweatshops-run-by-robots-ex-employee/ https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/amazon-warehouses-are-cult-lik... >I soon learned that only difference between an Amazon warehouse and a third-world sweatshop were the robots. At Amazon, you were surrounded by bots, and they were treated better than the humans.

o10449366 6y ago
Are there 3rd world sweatshops that pay $16 USD/hour and provide benefits? I'd wager there are a few more differences than just the robots.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  This is a No-True Scotsman. You asked for examples of Amazon sweatshop conditions, and once given, you're now redefining the semantics of 'true' sweatshops to being both in the third world and making less than $16/hour.
  - pathseeker 6y ago
    No it's not. The very definition of sweatshop implies very low wages and long hours.
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      According to Wikipedia, a sweatshop is semantically a workplace with very poor, socially unacceptable or illegal working conditions. The work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenging or underpaid. It's true that workers in sweatshops may work long hours with low pay, but it's not limited to that. If you read the article with the example that was asked for, you'd see the examples of how it's sweatshop conditions.
      - adamweld 6y ago
        I read through the article, I don't really see how it fits that definition. Long shifts on your feet, physical labor, short breaks and no cell phones. Precise tracking of performance. Does it sound like fun? Hell no. But it seems like decent pay for unskilled physical labor, and I haven't read anything that sounds like sweatshop conditions.