> Unless you want employees to be wearing bodycams their whole shift... and then you're going to have to pay other people to review the footage which can take s

> Unless you want employees to be wearing bodycams their whole shift... and then you're going to have to pay other people to review the footage which can take serious time... Proof can (and should) be positive, rather than adversarial. You could have a bodycam that's recording for the whole shift, but — like in the case of the Amazon driver's photograph — the onus is on the worker to (hopefully with app assistance) trim their bodycam footage down to a short clip that proves the building was inaccessible, and then submit that clip as part of their report. If they choose "building was inaccessible" as an option, then this clip would be a required field on the form; they can't "complete" their job without it. Yes, there's a bit of video evidence to review. But it's very small amounts of evidence at a time, and evidence only generated in an edge-case. (At least, at game-theoretic equilibrium. There might be more evidence generated at first as workers test the water to see what they can get away with.)