> Does that make them bad employers? I would expect it to be quite logical that employers want to hire the best workers, where the 'best' is those who can proce

> Does that make them bad employers? I would expect it to be quite logical that employers want to hire the best workers, where the 'best' is those who can process the most items. Sure, if by "most items" you really meant "most items at a sustainable rate that won't cause long-term injury, for enough hours to qualify for benefits such as health insurance at a pay-scale sufficient to live on, on a schedule that allows taking care of non-work obligations, etc. " Instead, businesses are optimized to hire those who can do the most for the least pay, are desperate enough to not complain about the working conditions, and burn them out without much concern over any externalities. Particularly galling to me are the "35 hours a week is a part-time job that doesn't qualify for health benefits" (which makes it very difficult to get and keep a second job), and the "we pay in 15m increments rounded down just to make sure you aren't a full time employee" dodges.