5 ms·

That driver was a contractor, deciding to pee in his own bottle. He chose to take more packages than he could deliver and is rushing to cut corners. As well as

by Rule35 6y ago

That driver was a contractor, deciding to pee in his own bottle. He chose to take more packages than he could deliver and is rushing to cut corners. As well as conspicuously dumping piss outside customer houses he probably speeds through school zones. Contractors don't get a wage, that's key to this whole discussion. And if contractors don't make a profit they shouldn't take the contract. This kerfuffle is in the middle of big cities, not some tiny company town in the outback. They have all the same options anyone else does, it's not like they're forced to drive for Amazon.

munk-a 6y ago
What if that level of "too many packages" is the only way the driver could avoid getting a demerit for under performance? What if a livable wage is only possible if you quote more packages than is reasonable due to the intense pressure amazon has on the contract delivery market?
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  What if 80% of drivers don’t do this? Maybe the other 20% need to just get a different job if they aren’t able to avoid under performance without resorting to time saving tricks.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I think the percentages need work since if 20% of the tens of thousands of drivers you employ/contract do a thing then clearly your hiring policies are pretty terrible. If you worked as a dev and 20% of your co-workers end up committing corporate espionage then the place you work is almost certainly Los Alamos. But I get your point - the issue, I think, is that under-performance in a job role should be a rarity. You should be hiring people that are likely going to comfortably exceed your minimum expectations and compensate them appropriately. If someone isn't a fit for a position it's most optimal for the company to never hire them (to avoid the cost of training and any capital costs associated with the new employee) but, barring that, it's optimal for both parties to break off the arrangement ASAP since the employer isn't getting the value they expect for their cost and the employee is going to be getting a whole lot of stress. If it's the case where a significant portion of drivers are marked as underperforming then you're either 1) being dishonest about the job expectations in an effort to penalize decently efficient employees wrongfully or 2) presenting the position in a misleading or confused manner and not properly screening employees - either way it's on the employer, not the employee, if the issue is widespread. It really seems like the issue with strict performance requirements in warehouses and with drivers is pretty widespread so I'd first look to attribute this to amazon rather than the folks they are hiring and, with assistance from inference along with lots of personal biases, I'm pretty certain Amazon is using artificially inflated performance targets as a way to minimize paid compensation while cycling through the glut of available labour knowing that, in a lot of states, being accepted to a position after submitting an offer and refusing it will result in a discontinuation of unemployment and a constant stream of applications is required to maintain unemployment checks. A business can essentially hold you hostage with the US unemployment system by under-selling the actual job expectations and then using the threat of being fired with cause for performance reasons to complicate your chances of getting back on insurance.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      > A business can essentially hold you hostage with the US unemployment system Thankfully we're talking about contractors and none of that is the case. > I think the percentages need work since if 20% of the tens of thousands of drivers you employ/contract do a thing then clearly your hiring policies are pretty terrible. Not employees, they weren't hired. And the contractors aren't promised anything, they're given a chance to prove themselves.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        Contractors are employed persons. They're distinct under the law in the US for some fully BS reasons but in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit. There are cases where the contractor style of employment is valid and advantageous for the worker. But when it comes to the gig economy contractors are CINO (contractors in name only) - they're employees that companies like treating differently to get out of paying insurance for and that's it.
        Rule35 6y ago
        I agree about the legal dodgery here. The way healthcare is available via employers means that contractors and part-time workers are hurt unreasonably. The solution to that is letting people keep their plan when quitting a job, reupping a plan that expired, and mandating set rates where health-insurance costs the same regardless if you're a company or an individual. This stuff is broken. But contractor vs employee is a useful distinction for everyone and trying to fix all the other issues by neutering what contractor means goes the wrong way. Contractors, INO or otherwise, have freedom to pick their shift and their employer on almost a daily basis, if not more frequently. Drivers have Uber and Lyft apps open, etc. Amazon drivers can give Bezos the finger and drive for a courier firm with no notice and no black-mark on their employment history. > in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit There's no force involved. Even economic. The drivers drive for them despite having the same job options that non-drivers do, and they choose this.

by Rule35 6y ago

munk-a 6y ago

What if that level of "too many packages" is the only way the driver could avoid getting a demerit for under performance? What if a livable wage is only possible if you quote more packages than is reasonable due to the intense pressure amazon has on the contract delivery market?

throwawaysea 6y ago
What if 80% of drivers don’t do this? Maybe the other 20% need to just get a different job if they aren’t able to avoid under performance without resorting to time saving tricks.
- munk-a 6y ago
  I think the percentages need work since if 20% of the tens of thousands of drivers you employ/contract do a thing then clearly your hiring policies are pretty terrible. If you worked as a dev and 20% of your co-workers end up committing corporate espionage then the place you work is almost certainly Los Alamos. But I get your point - the issue, I think, is that under-performance in a job role should be a rarity. You should be hiring people that are likely going to comfortably exceed your minimum expectations and compensate them appropriately. If someone isn't a fit for a position it's most optimal for the company to never hire them (to avoid the cost of training and any capital costs associated with the new employee) but, barring that, it's optimal for both parties to break off the arrangement ASAP since the employer isn't getting the value they expect for their cost and the employee is going to be getting a whole lot of stress. If it's the case where a significant portion of drivers are marked as underperforming then you're either 1) being dishonest about the job expectations in an effort to penalize decently efficient employees wrongfully or 2) presenting the position in a misleading or confused manner and not properly screening employees - either way it's on the employer, not the employee, if the issue is widespread. It really seems like the issue with strict performance requirements in warehouses and with drivers is pretty widespread so I'd first look to attribute this to amazon rather than the folks they are hiring and, with assistance from inference along with lots of personal biases, I'm pretty certain Amazon is using artificially inflated performance targets as a way to minimize paid compensation while cycling through the glut of available labour knowing that, in a lot of states, being accepted to a position after submitting an offer and refusing it will result in a discontinuation of unemployment and a constant stream of applications is required to maintain unemployment checks. A business can essentially hold you hostage with the US unemployment system by under-selling the actual job expectations and then using the threat of being fired with cause for performance reasons to complicate your chances of getting back on insurance.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > A business can essentially hold you hostage with the US unemployment system Thankfully we're talking about contractors and none of that is the case. > I think the percentages need work since if 20% of the tens of thousands of drivers you employ/contract do a thing then clearly your hiring policies are pretty terrible. Not employees, they weren't hired. And the contractors aren't promised anything, they're given a chance to prove themselves.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      Contractors are employed persons. They're distinct under the law in the US for some fully BS reasons but in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit. There are cases where the contractor style of employment is valid and advantageous for the worker. But when it comes to the gig economy contractors are CINO (contractors in name only) - they're employees that companies like treating differently to get out of paying insurance for and that's it.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        I agree about the legal dodgery here. The way healthcare is available via employers means that contractors and part-time workers are hurt unreasonably. The solution to that is letting people keep their plan when quitting a job, reupping a plan that expired, and mandating set rates where health-insurance costs the same regardless if you're a company or an individual. This stuff is broken. But contractor vs employee is a useful distinction for everyone and trying to fix all the other issues by neutering what contractor means goes the wrong way. Contractors, INO or otherwise, have freedom to pick their shift and their employer on almost a daily basis, if not more frequently. Drivers have Uber and Lyft apps open, etc. Amazon drivers can give Bezos the finger and drive for a courier firm with no notice and no black-mark on their employment history. > in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit There's no force involved. Even economic. The drivers drive for them despite having the same job options that non-drivers do, and they choose this.