6 ms·

It's so weird that this is even needed. I mean didn't they already have laws that requires breaks, etc... Leave it to Amazon to come up with a legal or computat

It's so weird that this is even needed. I mean didn't they already have laws that requires breaks, etc... Leave it to Amazon to come up with a legal or computational strategy to work around the existing laws.

dsr_ 5y ago
It turns out that it is not enough to pass a law; it must be enforced, and it must be enforced even-handedly.
- throwaway14356 5y ago
  yes, waste of money without. They are probably big enough to merrit permanent inspectors on the floor. Lets give them a quota in attention points to point out - or be fired.
- shados 5y ago
  America is amazing at passing feel good laws without thinking about the enforcement logistics.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    The US is not alone in that. Laws should always include a cost benefit analysis and a declaration saying how they will be enforced and how they will be financed.
    - shados 5y ago
      You're so right. Reminds me of when people were claiming ADA exemptions for masks, as a "loophole". Then folks involved in the ADA point out it wasn't a loophole, because it was illegal to claim an exemption if you have a real condition. Except the way laws like the ADA and HIPAA are written, it's literally impossible in most cases to check if someone is lying or not. So unless you're ready to literally gamble on your guts feeling (they can't sue you for discrimination if it was indeed false, but you have no way to check!), you couldn't do anything. But hey, it's against the law, so I'm sure people won't lie.
tyingq 5y ago
Seems like the laws that require breaks don't preclude setting piecework quotas that make them impossible to use. See https://www.scribd.com/document/407590982/Amazon-Terminations#fullscreen&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/407590982/Amazon-Termination... Scroll down to "The system also tracks an associates time off task" It basically admits that "time off task" doesn't automatically account for bathroom breaks. You have to ask a manager to include each one, during the conversation where you're being scolded for high "time off task"! The wording in this section is Amazon's wording, too. Oof. Edit: After a bit of searching, there don't appear to be any federal laws requiring breaks in the US, and there are many states that don't have any either. Breaks: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/rest-periods https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/rest-periods Meals: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks
- jonshariat 5y ago
  Nurses also have this problem. On a busy floor, they rarely get to use their breaks or have to quickly scarf down some food and run back.
  - thebradbain 5y ago
    (Not all, but many) Nurses/Doctors are exempt employees though, which has its own set of rules. Warehouse workers aren't, generally
    - bluedino 5y ago
      Most nurses are hourly.
      - tssva 5y ago
        Hourly employees can be exempt.
  - chefandy 5y ago
    When I was working in restaurants a decade ago, getting breaks was the exception rather than the norm.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lhorie 5y ago
Regulations about breaks don't really cover this situation. The gist, as I understand, is that Amazon requires workers to meet very specific productivity metrics such that the employment becomes a trade-off between efficiency and employee well-being. My understanding is that there isn't anything in the books that quantify exactly what's the minimum acceptable amount of "slacking off" an employee is allowed to engage in (I'm using the term "slacking off" loosely here to mean anything that isn't strictly actively engaging 100% in whatever is considered "productive"). In other words, there's nothing that specifically says "employers can't get you into hot water because you walked too slow from this shelf to that shelf" The thing I constantly find weird about California regulation these days is how short sighted and micro-managey it all is. This one clearly is explicitly targeted at Amazon, the AB5/Prop 22 pair is specifically targeted at Uber/Lyft, etc. It strikes me as a deep lack of understanding about how policy making is supposed to work. Ideally, policy is supposed to be something you get experts to research holistically, present data on and implement based on certain expectations of how pros and cons are supposed to play out. California policy making looks to me more like a reactive game of whack-a-mole, trying to put out whatever is the fire du jour with hacks and bandaids and hoping the new rules don't cause any collateral damage.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  All the experts are bought and paid for by someone these days though. Who exactly are you supposed to be asking about something like this? And if you look at Universities, well good luck. They have a known ideological bent that would cause recommendations that are skewed the other way.
- tdeck 5y ago
  Well, in terms of AB5 the federal government tried to head this one off with broad legislation 83 years ago. The Fair Labor Standards Act defines an "employ" as "to suffer or permit to work" specifically because they understood that employers would try to classify workers as anything other than an employee in order to get around the law. It doesn't seem to have worked out that way, so there's an argument for being a bit more specific. (I learned about this from this excellent podcast: https://www.marketplace.org/shows/the-uncertain-hour/to-suffer-or-permit-to-work/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/the-uncertain-hour/to-suff...) I think the underlying problem is that these employers have disproportionate power, influence, and resources, along with endless creativity. If they can't get the government fully on their side every time, they'd rather it be dysfunctional.
rodgerd 5y ago
Pretty rich when Jeff Bezos is attacking SpaceX on the grounds that Musk doesn't respect the law. Like, he's not wrong, but that's solid "takes one to know one" territory right there.

dsr_ 5y ago

It turns out that it is not enough to pass a law; it must be enforced, and it must be enforced even-handedly.

throwaway14356 5y ago
yes, waste of money without. They are probably big enough to merrit permanent inspectors on the floor. Lets give them a quota in attention points to point out - or be fired.
shados 5y ago
America is amazing at passing feel good laws without thinking about the enforcement logistics.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  The US is not alone in that. Laws should always include a cost benefit analysis and a declaration saying how they will be enforced and how they will be financed.
  - shados 5y ago
    You're so right. Reminds me of when people were claiming ADA exemptions for masks, as a "loophole". Then folks involved in the ADA point out it wasn't a loophole, because it was illegal to claim an exemption if you have a real condition. Except the way laws like the ADA and HIPAA are written, it's literally impossible in most cases to check if someone is lying or not. So unless you're ready to literally gamble on your guts feeling (they can't sue you for discrimination if it was indeed false, but you have no way to check!), you couldn't do anything. But hey, it's against the law, so I'm sure people won't lie.

tyingq 5y ago

Seems like the laws that require breaks don't preclude setting piecework quotas that make them impossible to use. See https://www.scribd.com/document/407590982/Amazon-Terminations#fullscreen&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/407590982/Amazon-Termination... Scroll down to "The system also tracks an associates time off task" It basically admits that "time off task" doesn't automatically account for bathroom breaks. You have to ask a manager to include each one, during the conversation where you're being scolded for high "time off task"! The wording in this section is Amazon's wording, too. Oof. Edit: After a bit of searching, there don't appear to be any federal laws requiring breaks in the US, and there are many states that don't have any either. Breaks: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/rest-periods https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/rest-periods Meals: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks

jonshariat 5y ago
Nurses also have this problem. On a busy floor, they rarely get to use their breaks or have to quickly scarf down some food and run back.
- thebradbain 5y ago
  (Not all, but many) Nurses/Doctors are exempt employees though, which has its own set of rules. Warehouse workers aren't, generally
  - bluedino 5y ago
    Most nurses are hourly.
    - tssva 5y ago
      Hourly employees can be exempt.
- chefandy 5y ago
  When I was working in restaurants a decade ago, getting breaks was the exception rather than the norm.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lhorie 5y ago

Regulations about breaks don't really cover this situation. The gist, as I understand, is that Amazon requires workers to meet very specific productivity metrics such that the employment becomes a trade-off between efficiency and employee well-being. My understanding is that there isn't anything in the books that quantify exactly what's the minimum acceptable amount of "slacking off" an employee is allowed to engage in (I'm using the term "slacking off" loosely here to mean anything that isn't strictly actively engaging 100% in whatever is considered "productive"). In other words, there's nothing that specifically says "employers can't get you into hot water because you walked too slow from this shelf to that shelf" The thing I constantly find weird about California regulation these days is how short sighted and micro-managey it all is. This one clearly is explicitly targeted at Amazon, the AB5/Prop 22 pair is specifically targeted at Uber/Lyft, etc. It strikes me as a deep lack of understanding about how policy making is supposed to work. Ideally, policy is supposed to be something you get experts to research holistically, present data on and implement based on certain expectations of how pros and cons are supposed to play out. California policy making looks to me more like a reactive game of whack-a-mole, trying to put out whatever is the fire du jour with hacks and bandaids and hoping the new rules don't cause any collateral damage.

namelessoracle 5y ago
All the experts are bought and paid for by someone these days though. Who exactly are you supposed to be asking about something like this? And if you look at Universities, well good luck. They have a known ideological bent that would cause recommendations that are skewed the other way.
tdeck 5y ago
Well, in terms of AB5 the federal government tried to head this one off with broad legislation 83 years ago. The Fair Labor Standards Act defines an "employ" as "to suffer or permit to work" specifically because they understood that employers would try to classify workers as anything other than an employee in order to get around the law. It doesn't seem to have worked out that way, so there's an argument for being a bit more specific. (I learned about this from this excellent podcast: https://www.marketplace.org/shows/the-uncertain-hour/to-suffer-or-permit-to-work/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/the-uncertain-hour/to-suff...) I think the underlying problem is that these employers have disproportionate power, influence, and resources, along with endless creativity. If they can't get the government fully on their side every time, they'd rather it be dysfunctional.

rodgerd 5y ago

Pretty rich when Jeff Bezos is attacking SpaceX on the grounds that Musk doesn't respect the law. Like, he's not wrong, but that's solid "takes one to know one" territory right there.