5 ms·

> 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, i

> 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.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Constant surveillance can be used for something like the modern American legal system: Create enough offenses that everyone is guilty of something, and selectively punish those you otherwise want to punish. It's also a dystopian nightmare. Humans aren't perfect, and expecting them to be perfect every second of every day isn't humane, reasonable, or sane - especially when companies like Amazon have already tied everything to metrics and OKRs such that to keep their job, employees need to cut every corner they can get away with up to and including peeing in bottles instead of taking actual bathroom breaks.

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.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Constant surveillance can be used for something like the modern American legal system: Create enough offenses that everyone is guilty of something, and selectively punish those you otherwise want to punish. It's also a dystopian nightmare. Humans aren't perfect, and expecting them to be perfect every second of every day isn't humane, reasonable, or sane - especially when companies like Amazon have already tied everything to metrics and OKRs such that to keep their job, employees need to cut every corner they can get away with up to and including peeing in bottles instead of taking actual bathroom breaks.