5 ms·

Regulations about breaks don't really cover this situation. The gist, as I understand, is that Amazon requires workers to meet very specific productivity metric

by 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.
kelnos 5y ago
> 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. I was thinking exactly this while reading this article. I was really hoping to read that this was a much more generic law that strengthens worker protections, that also just happens to help with the problems in Amazon warehouses. But, nope, just feels like "injustice whack-a-mole". That's not a good way to develop policy at all.
- coding123 5y ago
  There are too many laws. The other effect it has is that it cements Amazon. Any other startup that tries to compete, even in a small way, Amazon now has a new legal tactic to shut-down competitors by making sure they get drowned in all the legal mumbo jumbo.
- lenkite 5y ago
  Considering that more and more power is becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer mega-companies, it is natural that laws should target these specific companies. These are corporations with more power than nation states with CEO's having more personal power than many dictators. If you want generic laws, then break up these companies into smaller ones.
shados 5y ago
I've worked in logistics and supply chain for a while, and that type of quota is pretty much the norm (honestly, it kind of is in any job that is easy to quantify, like call centers, sales, and some segments of retail). The way the quotas get set is kind of as a bell curve. You set quotas, including threshold for promotions, as some where you'll get let go. They hire people, and those folks thrive to meet the quota/make more money. If everyone is doing so well that the tip of the bell curve is too much to the right, they increase the quota. If they have trouble hiring and everyone's leaving, or if they end up needing to let go too many people, they lower it. Of course, a company could push it way too far if they have enough power and a big enough employee pool. They can then put super high quotas and only keep people who can push it that far (probably where the whole "peeing in bottles" come from). The concept itself isn't that weird. Maybe weird to people who mostly worked in salaried jobs that are hard to quantify. Where it becomes a problem is when too many people are desperate enough for money that they're willing to literally harm themselves to meet their quotas or get promoted. That's probably where regulators came from with this type of law. I didn't read it, but that sounds really tough to implement.
- konschubert 5y ago
  All this would be much less if a problem if people didn’t have to work to survive. Universal healthcare and UBI are would enable much more employer freedom in defining working conditions.
  - nomel 5y ago
    > if people didn’t have to work to survive Living has always required energy, effort, and skill. How can we get around this without some sort of parasitic relationship? Do you have any recommendation for some reading for a sustainable model? From my understanding, UBI is largely unproven.
    - konschubert 5y ago
      Most people will want more than just the basics. Most people won't be satisfied with UBI. They want to earn something on top. So people will still want to work. But they no longer are forced to take any job just to survive. I'm sorry I don't have reading recommendations. This doesn't mean they don't exist, I am just not deep enough into this topic to ever have looked for them.
biaachmonkie 5y ago
I'd like to see the quotas like Amazon has for the warehouse workers be set by having the management team, C-level, Board of Directors, etc work the roles for a week doing those jobs. Then average their productivity rates and that becomes the maximum that could possibly be set as a quota. It seem that far to often management just keep increasing the productivity requirements, squeezing more and more blood from the stones of the workforce with zero regard for the health and wellbeing of the regular employees.

by lhorie 5y ago

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.

kelnos 5y ago

> 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. I was thinking exactly this while reading this article. I was really hoping to read that this was a much more generic law that strengthens worker protections, that also just happens to help with the problems in Amazon warehouses. But, nope, just feels like "injustice whack-a-mole". That's not a good way to develop policy at all.

coding123 5y ago
There are too many laws. The other effect it has is that it cements Amazon. Any other startup that tries to compete, even in a small way, Amazon now has a new legal tactic to shut-down competitors by making sure they get drowned in all the legal mumbo jumbo.
lenkite 5y ago
Considering that more and more power is becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer mega-companies, it is natural that laws should target these specific companies. These are corporations with more power than nation states with CEO's having more personal power than many dictators. If you want generic laws, then break up these companies into smaller ones.

shados 5y ago

I've worked in logistics and supply chain for a while, and that type of quota is pretty much the norm (honestly, it kind of is in any job that is easy to quantify, like call centers, sales, and some segments of retail). The way the quotas get set is kind of as a bell curve. You set quotas, including threshold for promotions, as some where you'll get let go. They hire people, and those folks thrive to meet the quota/make more money. If everyone is doing so well that the tip of the bell curve is too much to the right, they increase the quota. If they have trouble hiring and everyone's leaving, or if they end up needing to let go too many people, they lower it. Of course, a company could push it way too far if they have enough power and a big enough employee pool. They can then put super high quotas and only keep people who can push it that far (probably where the whole "peeing in bottles" come from). The concept itself isn't that weird. Maybe weird to people who mostly worked in salaried jobs that are hard to quantify. Where it becomes a problem is when too many people are desperate enough for money that they're willing to literally harm themselves to meet their quotas or get promoted. That's probably where regulators came from with this type of law. I didn't read it, but that sounds really tough to implement.

konschubert 5y ago
All this would be much less if a problem if people didn’t have to work to survive. Universal healthcare and UBI are would enable much more employer freedom in defining working conditions.
- nomel 5y ago
  > if people didn’t have to work to survive Living has always required energy, effort, and skill. How can we get around this without some sort of parasitic relationship? Do you have any recommendation for some reading for a sustainable model? From my understanding, UBI is largely unproven.
  - konschubert 5y ago
    Most people will want more than just the basics. Most people won't be satisfied with UBI. They want to earn something on top. So people will still want to work. But they no longer are forced to take any job just to survive. I'm sorry I don't have reading recommendations. This doesn't mean they don't exist, I am just not deep enough into this topic to ever have looked for them.

biaachmonkie 5y ago

I'd like to see the quotas like Amazon has for the warehouse workers be set by having the management team, C-level, Board of Directors, etc work the roles for a week doing those jobs. Then average their productivity rates and that becomes the maximum that could possibly be set as a quota. It seem that far to often management just keep increasing the productivity requirements, squeezing more and more blood from the stones of the workforce with zero regard for the health and wellbeing of the regular employees.