4 ms·

What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers

What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. From what I can see, other commenters agree that if this really is just a safety measure and doesn't transgress worker privacies in other ways, then it would be OK. So how about the critiques focus on ensuring that this outcome is achieved? Unless everyone really thinks that no amount of safety is worth any risk of breaches of worker privacy? To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter. But I welcome responses that explain what incentive Amazon has to expand this system beyond improving safety for drivers and other road users.

Arainach 6y ago
> At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. Welcome to America, where the regulators are owned by the corporations and there's a never ending supply of hopelessly poor people desperate for jobs to replace anyone who quits. Your perspective is hopelessly naive.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  [Editing this with a re-write, as the first version was snarky, which I don't want to bring to the discussion] Your comment is unproductive as it's largely unfalsifiable ideological rhetoric (with the personal barb "hopelessly naive" thrown in to really poison the discussion). Granted: Corporate influence of government is a real issue; Corporate exploitation and mistreatment of workers is a real issue; But also: Democracy and government oversight of companies still exists, and still has a meaningful influence on the way companies operate; As does the fact that, whilst many people are struggling and desperate for work, there is not, in fact, a never-ending supply of workers who are both competent/capable of doing the work that Amazon needs, but also so poor and desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of maltreatment for an extended period of time. (If your whole argument hinges on that claim, which it seems to, you need to do some more work proving it, as it's a very big claim.) It's way late where I am so I'm exiting the discussion for some sleep, thanks.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    There's plenty of history in America that the fines and punishments for these things are less than the money made doing them, unfortunately. The math is quite simple for any large corporation.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      > The math is quite simple I know this happens in some contexts (eg environmental protections), but with regard to employee treatment in huge workforces, no, it really isn’t so simple, and you again provide no backing for the claim, just hand-waves. And you haven’t demonstrated your bigger claim: that there is a literally unlimited supply of people who would, at once, make good Amazon workers, and be so desperate for work and without any other work options that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment.
      - Arainach 6y ago
        Here's a typical incident: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/fl-et-pho-79-davie-ordered-pay-back-wages-20200626-4367m6v5qvbyhnupfu6umhg4k4-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/restaurants-and-b... Wage theft for years and what's the punishment? Pay it back. So best case the theft is never reported and the company wins. Worst case the company got a massive interest free loan. That's not punitive - that's carte blanche to keep doing it. There are 10 million unemployed people in America. That number doesn't include those that have given up even looking for a job, and it doesn't include those who are underemployed well below their credentials. It doesn't count those who are currently earning minimum wage in poverty and who would gladly go through pain and awful treatment to make another buck or two an hour.
        tomhoward 6y ago
        "Typical" is a nebulous and tenuous claim, and you've cited a single case of a business that is nothing like Amazon. It is a relatively small company (6 restaurants), and yes, they were force to pay back $314k. It seems it was the first time that business was found to have offended. If the legal system there is like it is in most places, subsequent offences will draw harsher penalties. Here's a report about some state and federal authorities starting to take criminal action against operators of companies who commit serious wage theft offences: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors-treating-wage-theft-as-a-crime-in-these-states https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors.... Larger companies like Amazon, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash etc - but Amazon in particular, being so large/prominent - are under constant scrutiny from media, politicians/courts, unions/employee groups, labor activists, social media and discussion forums like this one. Sometimes the reports of the most serious incidents (people dying on the job or having to urinate in bottles as a routine part of the job) turn out to be exaggerated or falsified, so it can be hard for an impartial observer to know what the situation really is. But there are enough forces at play to motivate companies to keep wages and conditions at a humane level. (For the record, I've known people who have worked in warehouses for online retailers - one being a close friend in the US but not working for Amazon, and another being a relative who worked for Amazon here in Australia. Both have said the work was hard and conditions could have been better, but they weren't like prison camps or gulags.) Your final paragraph is narrative and speculation, and I accept it's based on real issues, but it doesn't prove the specific claim you're basing your argument on: that there is an infinite supply of people both competent enough to do a good job for Amazon, but so desperate for work that they'll accept any level of mistreatment. And getting back to the main point of the discussion: this thread now has 168 comments, and nobody has convincingly suggested a way in which this system can be used for anything other than safety, apart from insisting that it's a way for drivers to be blamed for safety transgressions that should be the company's responsibility, but without suggesting a way that the company could take full responsibility for safety without using some kind of system like this one. It just looks like a case of anything Amazon (or any other large/powerful organisation or person) does, some people will insist that the worst conceivable motive for that thing simply must be the real one.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
> At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. > and/or regulators will intervene. Two responses to this: 1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now? 2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars. You say it yourself; > To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter. Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money, they are incentivized to abuse their employees, as they are doing now. Giving them additional tools and blindly trusting that they won't is, frankly, insane. --- Where are people finding this weird mix of empathetic rationality, where a global corporation will find it in their best interest to treat employees well, despite repeatedly not doing so in the past? Do we apply this logic to repeated spouse-beaters? What's their incentive to beat their spouses?
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. It's true that bottom-rung Amazon workers are low-skilled and not in a very strong bargaining position. But they still need certain aptitudes, competencies and physical fitness levels to be able to carry out the work effectively, which means they will have options other than working for Amazon. Your claim is effectively that there is a limitless supply of people who are competent/able-bodied enough to do the job Amazon needs, but at the same time so desperate for any kind work that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment. This just doesn't hold water, and nobody in this thread has provided solid evidence for it. People just keep implying this is the case and assuming it to be self-evident. > Two responses to this: > 1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now? Companies are subject to local, state and federal labor laws everywhere they operate, and governments, regulators and courts everywhere are perpetually looking at what needs to be done to bring about reasonable improvements in pay and conditions for workers. This article [1] describes changes in NY and California to bring about criminal prosecutions for wage theft. Criminal liability also applies in some places for workplace health and safety breaches. Could/should more be done? Sure. But your suggestion that companies like Amazon operate free of any regulatory oversight or consequence is false. > 2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars. Can you cite an example of this with Amazon or a similarly large company? As far as I know this is false, when it comes to labor laws. Companies that continue to commit the same breaches face increasingly severe penalties, and in some cases the potential for criminal prosecution against the company operators. > Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money You're trying to prove your point by looking at just one factor in isolation of all the others. Sure, companies exist to make money. But they need to think about legal issues, employee retention, brand/reputation/media coverage, company culture, management self-respect... Your last sentence is just gross. It's fascinating when people need to resort to vile imagery to get their point across. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors-treating-wage-theft-as-a-crime-in-these-states https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors...

Arainach 6y ago

> At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. Welcome to America, where the regulators are owned by the corporations and there's a never ending supply of hopelessly poor people desperate for jobs to replace anyone who quits. Your perspective is hopelessly naive.

tomhoward 6y ago
[Editing this with a re-write, as the first version was snarky, which I don't want to bring to the discussion] Your comment is unproductive as it's largely unfalsifiable ideological rhetoric (with the personal barb "hopelessly naive" thrown in to really poison the discussion). Granted: Corporate influence of government is a real issue; Corporate exploitation and mistreatment of workers is a real issue; But also: Democracy and government oversight of companies still exists, and still has a meaningful influence on the way companies operate; As does the fact that, whilst many people are struggling and desperate for work, there is not, in fact, a never-ending supply of workers who are both competent/capable of doing the work that Amazon needs, but also so poor and desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of maltreatment for an extended period of time. (If your whole argument hinges on that claim, which it seems to, you need to do some more work proving it, as it's a very big claim.) It's way late where I am so I'm exiting the discussion for some sleep, thanks.
- Arainach 6y ago
  There's plenty of history in America that the fines and punishments for these things are less than the money made doing them, unfortunately. The math is quite simple for any large corporation.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    > The math is quite simple I know this happens in some contexts (eg environmental protections), but with regard to employee treatment in huge workforces, no, it really isn’t so simple, and you again provide no backing for the claim, just hand-waves. And you haven’t demonstrated your bigger claim: that there is a literally unlimited supply of people who would, at once, make good Amazon workers, and be so desperate for work and without any other work options that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment.
    - Arainach 6y ago
      Here's a typical incident: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/fl-et-pho-79-davie-ordered-pay-back-wages-20200626-4367m6v5qvbyhnupfu6umhg4k4-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/restaurants-and-b... Wage theft for years and what's the punishment? Pay it back. So best case the theft is never reported and the company wins. Worst case the company got a massive interest free loan. That's not punitive - that's carte blanche to keep doing it. There are 10 million unemployed people in America. That number doesn't include those that have given up even looking for a job, and it doesn't include those who are underemployed well below their credentials. It doesn't count those who are currently earning minimum wage in poverty and who would gladly go through pain and awful treatment to make another buck or two an hour.
      - tomhoward 6y ago
        "Typical" is a nebulous and tenuous claim, and you've cited a single case of a business that is nothing like Amazon. It is a relatively small company (6 restaurants), and yes, they were force to pay back $314k. It seems it was the first time that business was found to have offended. If the legal system there is like it is in most places, subsequent offences will draw harsher penalties. Here's a report about some state and federal authorities starting to take criminal action against operators of companies who commit serious wage theft offences: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors-treating-wage-theft-as-a-crime-in-these-states https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors.... Larger companies like Amazon, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash etc - but Amazon in particular, being so large/prominent - are under constant scrutiny from media, politicians/courts, unions/employee groups, labor activists, social media and discussion forums like this one. Sometimes the reports of the most serious incidents (people dying on the job or having to urinate in bottles as a routine part of the job) turn out to be exaggerated or falsified, so it can be hard for an impartial observer to know what the situation really is. But there are enough forces at play to motivate companies to keep wages and conditions at a humane level. (For the record, I've known people who have worked in warehouses for online retailers - one being a close friend in the US but not working for Amazon, and another being a relative who worked for Amazon here in Australia. Both have said the work was hard and conditions could have been better, but they weren't like prison camps or gulags.) Your final paragraph is narrative and speculation, and I accept it's based on real issues, but it doesn't prove the specific claim you're basing your argument on: that there is an infinite supply of people both competent enough to do a good job for Amazon, but so desperate for work that they'll accept any level of mistreatment. And getting back to the main point of the discussion: this thread now has 168 comments, and nobody has convincingly suggested a way in which this system can be used for anything other than safety, apart from insisting that it's a way for drivers to be blamed for safety transgressions that should be the company's responsibility, but without suggesting a way that the company could take full responsibility for safety without using some kind of system like this one. It just looks like a case of anything Amazon (or any other large/powerful organisation or person) does, some people will insist that the worst conceivable motive for that thing simply must be the real one.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

> At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. > and/or regulators will intervene. Two responses to this: 1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now? 2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars. You say it yourself; > To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter. Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money, they are incentivized to abuse their employees, as they are doing now. Giving them additional tools and blindly trusting that they won't is, frankly, insane. --- Where are people finding this weird mix of empathetic rationality, where a global corporation will find it in their best interest to treat employees well, despite repeatedly not doing so in the past? Do we apply this logic to repeated spouse-beaters? What's their incentive to beat their spouses?

tomhoward 6y ago
> To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions. It's true that bottom-rung Amazon workers are low-skilled and not in a very strong bargaining position. But they still need certain aptitudes, competencies and physical fitness levels to be able to carry out the work effectively, which means they will have options other than working for Amazon. Your claim is effectively that there is a limitless supply of people who are competent/able-bodied enough to do the job Amazon needs, but at the same time so desperate for any kind work that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment. This just doesn't hold water, and nobody in this thread has provided solid evidence for it. People just keep implying this is the case and assuming it to be self-evident. > Two responses to this: > 1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now? Companies are subject to local, state and federal labor laws everywhere they operate, and governments, regulators and courts everywhere are perpetually looking at what needs to be done to bring about reasonable improvements in pay and conditions for workers. This article [1] describes changes in NY and California to bring about criminal prosecutions for wage theft. Criminal liability also applies in some places for workplace health and safety breaches. Could/should more be done? Sure. But your suggestion that companies like Amazon operate free of any regulatory oversight or consequence is false. > 2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars. Can you cite an example of this with Amazon or a similarly large company? As far as I know this is false, when it comes to labor laws. Companies that continue to commit the same breaches face increasingly severe penalties, and in some cases the potential for criminal prosecution against the company operators. > Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money You're trying to prove your point by looking at just one factor in isolation of all the others. Sure, companies exist to make money. But they need to think about legal issues, employee retention, brand/reputation/media coverage, company culture, management self-respect... Your last sentence is just gross. It's fascinating when people need to resort to vile imagery to get their point across. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors-treating-wage-theft-as-a-crime-in-these-states https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/prosecutors...