> But labor experts say the move to consolidate shifts in the warehouse industry is a tactic long used by employers to cut back on labor costs; hiring and sched

> But labor experts say the move to consolidate shifts in the warehouse industry is a tactic long used by employers to cut back on labor costs; hiring and scheduling fewer workers for longer shifts means paying for fewer benefits. It's still 40 hours per person per week, and they run 24/7, so the only way this could reduce the number of benefits they have to pay for is if people on this schedule legitimately work better. While this could very well be the case (doctors and nurses for example typically work long shifts to reduce the risks associated with shift changes), I don't really see that being the case here where it doesn't really matter who is handling a package. Further, the alternative scenario with lots of shorter shifts is a frequent predatory practice which allows employers to hire lots of part time individuals who do not qualify for benefits as well as giving them leverage over their employees by threatening to give them bad shifts and insufficient hours. It would be one thing if day shift workers were being asked to switch back and forth between day and night shifts with short notice, but that's not what's happening here. They are being offered a different position with steady hours to completely replace their current one. It would be silly to say that once you've accepted a day shift position you're ineligible from being offered a night shift position. The article also frames this as exploiting existing workers who will get fired if they don't comply. But would it have been better for either the employees or amazon to just lay off everyone at the closing location and fill the new warehouses with all new hires, thus forcing those who would have been fine with working there into a difficult job market and depriving Amazon of skilled employees? One might make the argument that the current warehouse should not have been closed in the first place, but the factors which caused that decision and its merits are beyond the scope of this discussion. Regardless, giving everyone the voluntary option to remain employed in some capacity when closing a facility is, at least in my opinion, good practice which should not be vilified.