7 ms·

Leaked memo shows Amazon knows delivery drivers resort to urinating in bottles

84 points by scottbucks 6y ago

testfoobar 6y ago
I can't imagine this is limited to Amazon. Bathroom access became impaired with fast food/restaurants and municipalities closing off bathrooms to the public. My neighborhood park hasn't had a working bathroom or water fountains since last year.
- garrettgrimsley 6y ago
  It isn't limited to Amazon, and it isn't a side-effect of the pandemic. I work for UPS and even before the pandemic most drivers used a bottle or cup on a regular basis, especially if you're in a rural area. In denser areas you can use Port-a-Johns at construction sites or restrooms at businesses. Your commercial customers will likely allow you to use their restroom even if it is closed to the public. I've never heard of someone defecating in the vehicle. Leaving your bottles in the vehicle is frowned upon, but it happens.
  - riffraff 6y ago
    >especially if you're in a rural area In a rural area wouldn't it be more convenient to just pee roadside?
    - garrettgrimsley 6y ago
      After dark, yes, go anywhere. During the day when people can potentially see you that would be a bad idea. If you can use the vehicle to block line of sight then that could also work.
      - dylan604 6y ago
        Right up until a bored small town cop cites you for public urination.
    - masonic 6y ago
      Because... women are never drivers?
      - garrettgrimsley 6y ago
        They can also go on the side of the road, with the added hassle of disposing of paper. Where do you think they use the bathroom when hiking or camping? And this is why I included cups in my original comment. They can't use bottles as easily on account of the narrow nature, so a cup with a larger mouth is preferred.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Reminds me of a couple of years ago when Starbucks made a big public relations splash saying that it would no longer require people to buy something in order to use its restrooms, or to charge their devices. Where I live, a week later, all of the Starbucks bathrooms that were previously wide open suddenly had locks on them, and the public electrical outlets were covered with metal plates.
- amelius 6y ago
  Yes. Urinating is actually more difficult in today's world than it was in the middle ages.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Earlier this month there was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times lobbying for more public restrooms: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/opinion/sunday/public-toilets-united-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/opinion/sunday/public-toi...
- arkitaip 6y ago
  Obviously it isn't but Amazon is the third largest private employer in the world and it make sense making sure they offer reasonable working conditions for their employees.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sneak 6y ago
The person ultimately in control of whether or not they were peeing in bottles of course already knew at the time of the event. I probably dislike Amazon more than most here, but I think the trend is to blame them for a lot more than that which falls under the heading of their responsibilities. This feels like a bad argument to make, when there are so many vastly better and legitimate criticisms of Amazon (such as their operating an entire on-prem data center for the CIA to store their drone killing and torture site videos, et c).
- brundolf 6y ago
  They impose quotas on drivers (similar to warehouse workers) that prevent them from finding time for stuff like bathroom breaks. This is not a matter of individual choice.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Absolutely not. They can still take bathroom breaks, they just risk being fired for missing their quota. It is ultimately a personal decision when someone places retaining a job over their own personal human dignity. That is not and cannot be placed on Amazon; to do so is a fundamental misattribution of responsibility for the individual's choice to a) work at Amazon and b) submit to these unreasonable demands. Amazon isn't the only employer.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      You sound like Paris Hilton addressing poverty by saying, "Why don't poor people just get more money?"
      - sneak 6y ago
        An employer-employee relationship only exists by mutual and voluntary consent.
        reaperducer 6y ago
rottencupcakes 6y ago
I wonder what percentage of independent contractor Truckers or Fedex deliverymen urinate in bottles?
omginternets 6y ago
I recognize that labor laws are a complicated subject, and I recognize that their advocates don't always have the best interests of workers at heart. Nevertheless, I do wonder how far things have to go before we collectively agree that Amazon treats its workers inhumanely. - Paying people so little that they resort to living in tents? No. - Union-busting? No. - Requiring near-total abnegation of basic bodily functions? No. So where's the line? Does someone have to die of exhaustion? 10 people? 1% of workers? A hallmark of totalitarianism is when a government deems itself to have power over the bodily functions of individuals. It may be useful to apply this analysis to private entities as well.
- sneak 6y ago
  This would make sense if Amazon were the government, and they were the only game in town. The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    > The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment. Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not. This isn't obviously just a problem with Amazon, but employment across low-paying jobs isn't voluntary. They're all shit (some more than others). This is an overarching problem with employment in general.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not. No, the threat is that they'd have to work somewhere other than Amazon, same as everyone else. Most people in our society work non-Amazon jobs, it's not that bad a "punishment" for taking a bathroom break. It's also not a "threat": a job today is no obligation to a job tomorrow. Things change.
      - AstralStorm 6y ago
        The threat is that they won't be able to make ends meet if so much as a month without a job happens to them. That's because the job does not pay anything near enough. Existential threat. And job is time and energy consuming enough to make it high impossible to look for something else, much less anything else that isn't similarly exploitative. It is a systemic problem and Amazon is one of the big parts of that system. "Just find another job" ignores the reality of situation of people actually taking this terrible job.
hirundo 6y ago
In general I think this is more of a burden to women than men. I have no problem using a bottle on long drives, and my male friends have been mostly the same. But I've known women for whom it would be a deal breaker and would leave the job on that account. This is based in both gender and sex, in that it's less convenient for the female sex and the female gender tends to be more modest.
mimikatz 6y ago
This is semi standard behavior for truckers. There is even a name for it "trucker bombs"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

84 points by scottbucks 6y ago

I can't imagine this is limited to Amazon. Bathroom access became impaired with fast food/restaurants and municipalities closing off bathrooms to the public. My neighborhood park hasn't had a working bathroom or water fountains since last year.

garrettgrimsley 6y ago
It isn't limited to Amazon, and it isn't a side-effect of the pandemic. I work for UPS and even before the pandemic most drivers used a bottle or cup on a regular basis, especially if you're in a rural area. In denser areas you can use Port-a-Johns at construction sites or restrooms at businesses. Your commercial customers will likely allow you to use their restroom even if it is closed to the public. I've never heard of someone defecating in the vehicle. Leaving your bottles in the vehicle is frowned upon, but it happens.
- riffraff 6y ago
  >especially if you're in a rural area In a rural area wouldn't it be more convenient to just pee roadside?
  - garrettgrimsley 6y ago
    After dark, yes, go anywhere. During the day when people can potentially see you that would be a bad idea. If you can use the vehicle to block line of sight then that could also work.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      Right up until a bored small town cop cites you for public urination.
  - masonic 6y ago
    Because... women are never drivers?
    - garrettgrimsley 6y ago
      They can also go on the side of the road, with the added hassle of disposing of paper. Where do you think they use the bathroom when hiking or camping? And this is why I included cups in my original comment. They can't use bottles as easily on account of the narrow nature, so a cup with a larger mouth is preferred.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Reminds me of a couple of years ago when Starbucks made a big public relations splash saying that it would no longer require people to buy something in order to use its restrooms, or to charge their devices. Where I live, a week later, all of the Starbucks bathrooms that were previously wide open suddenly had locks on them, and the public electrical outlets were covered with metal plates.
amelius 6y ago
Yes. Urinating is actually more difficult in today's world than it was in the middle ages.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Earlier this month there was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times lobbying for more public restrooms: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/opinion/sunday/public-toilets-united-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/opinion/sunday/public-toi...
arkitaip 6y ago
Obviously it isn't but Amazon is the third largest private employer in the world and it make sense making sure they offer reasonable working conditions for their employees.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

The person ultimately in control of whether or not they were peeing in bottles of course already knew at the time of the event. I probably dislike Amazon more than most here, but I think the trend is to blame them for a lot more than that which falls under the heading of their responsibilities. This feels like a bad argument to make, when there are so many vastly better and legitimate criticisms of Amazon (such as their operating an entire on-prem data center for the CIA to store their drone killing and torture site videos, et c).

brundolf 6y ago
They impose quotas on drivers (similar to warehouse workers) that prevent them from finding time for stuff like bathroom breaks. This is not a matter of individual choice.
- sneak 6y ago
  Absolutely not. They can still take bathroom breaks, they just risk being fired for missing their quota. It is ultimately a personal decision when someone places retaining a job over their own personal human dignity. That is not and cannot be placed on Amazon; to do so is a fundamental misattribution of responsibility for the individual's choice to a) work at Amazon and b) submit to these unreasonable demands. Amazon isn't the only employer.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    You sound like Paris Hilton addressing poverty by saying, "Why don't poor people just get more money?"
    - sneak 6y ago
      An employer-employee relationship only exists by mutual and voluntary consent.
      - reaperducer 6y ago

rottencupcakes 6y ago

I wonder what percentage of independent contractor Truckers or Fedex deliverymen urinate in bottles?

omginternets 6y ago

I recognize that labor laws are a complicated subject, and I recognize that their advocates don't always have the best interests of workers at heart. Nevertheless, I do wonder how far things have to go before we collectively agree that Amazon treats its workers inhumanely. - Paying people so little that they resort to living in tents? No. - Union-busting? No. - Requiring near-total abnegation of basic bodily functions? No. So where's the line? Does someone have to die of exhaustion? 10 people? 1% of workers? A hallmark of totalitarianism is when a government deems itself to have power over the bodily functions of individuals. It may be useful to apply this analysis to private entities as well.

sneak 6y ago
This would make sense if Amazon were the government, and they were the only game in town. The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  > The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment. Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not. This isn't obviously just a problem with Amazon, but employment across low-paying jobs isn't voluntary. They're all shit (some more than others). This is an overarching problem with employment in general.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not. No, the threat is that they'd have to work somewhere other than Amazon, same as everyone else. Most people in our society work non-Amazon jobs, it's not that bad a "punishment" for taking a bathroom break. It's also not a "threat": a job today is no obligation to a job tomorrow. Things change.
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      The threat is that they won't be able to make ends meet if so much as a month without a job happens to them. That's because the job does not pay anything near enough. Existential threat. And job is time and energy consuming enough to make it high impossible to look for something else, much less anything else that isn't similarly exploitative. It is a systemic problem and Amazon is one of the big parts of that system. "Just find another job" ignores the reality of situation of people actually taking this terrible job.

hirundo 6y ago

In general I think this is more of a burden to women than men. I have no problem using a bottle on long drives, and my male friends have been mostly the same. But I've known women for whom it would be a deal breaker and would leave the job on that account. This is based in both gender and sex, in that it's less convenient for the female sex and the female gender tends to be more modest.

mimikatz 6y ago

This is semi standard behavior for truckers. There is even a name for it "trucker bombs"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]