5 ms·

Amazon threatened driver’s job for leaving route during tornado

79 points by onychomys 5y ago

onychomys 5y ago
So as somebody who grew up in a place without tornados and now lives in a place with them, let me be the first to say that when the dispatcher says: ----- "If you decided to come back, that choice is yours," replied the dispatcher. "But I can tell you it won't be viewed as for your own safety. The safest practice is to stay exactly where you are. If you decide to return with your packages, it will be viewed as you refusing your route, which will ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning. The sirens are just a warning." ----- that's just plain not true. I mean, yes, the sirens are technically just a warning. But they don't go off until things get really serious. If you hear them, you need to get to actual shelter as quickly as possible. They're not just some vague suggestion. I have no idea how some supervisor who presumably lives in a tornado region could not realize that!
- Miner49er 5y ago
  They're a warning that a tornado has been indicated by radar or actually seen by a person. Where I'm from I only ever remember them being issued when seen by an actual person, where I am now it's mostly if radar is showing it, it seems.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Or the supervisor just doesn't care. Getting stuff delivered during Christmas rush is worth gambling with some nobody's life, right? /s
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ascagnel_ 5y ago
  > I mean, yes, the sirens are technically just a warning. But they don't go off until things get really serious. If you hear them, you need to get to actual shelter as quickly as possible. I don't live in a tornado area, but I had always assumed tornado warnings functioned similarly to other storm warnings -- a "watch" indicates elevated activity and likelihood of a severe weather event, while a "warning" indicates danger is likely and you should take appropriate action immediately to avoid danger.
  - nharada 5y ago
    A watch means conditions that would likely allow a tornado are present, a warning means a funnel has been spotted either visually or on radar. I grew up in a tornado prone area, and during a warning we were taught to shelter in the basement since it means there's a tornado somewhere in the area.
  - jscheel 5y ago
    I live in Dixie Alley, we have to take warnings seriously here. A warning does not mean "danger is likely." The NWS defines a warning like so: "A tornado has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. There is imminent danger to life and property. Move to an interior room on the lowest floor of a sturdy building. Avoid windows. If in a mobile home, a vehicle, or outdoors, move to the closest substantial shelter and protect yourself from flying debris."
    - totesraunch 5y ago
      As a west-coaster I'm curious, if during a warning people are driving/walking around what's the standard thing people do? Do business allow public in for safety or do people try and go home?
justtologin 5y ago
> "the delivery service partner's dispatcher didn't follow the standard safety practice." Amazon, not uniquely, has a business model based around devolving blame and recourse in a way that insulates them from the normal downside risk a business would have. I don't know if this is a consequence of how risk averse the world has become, but I believe it's a source of competitive advantage. You call amazon about a problem, the only feedback they ask for is about the call center agent, who almost certainly has the least agency or autonomy of anyone in the process but is subject to all the blame. Uber is the same, any problem you have or recourse you want is directed at the driver or restaurant, when both are basically cogs in a machine. But it could never be the company's fault. Here it's the same thing. It was the "delivery service partner" that was the problem. I'd believe that legally this could be true, but the root cause is still amazon offloading responsibility for any downside onto the "delivery service partner". I don't know what the answer is, but I think there is some gaming of the system going on where these companies have found a way to offload risk that is not really fair.
- bigthymer 5y ago
  > I don't know what the answer is One potential answer is to make gig workers employees.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    Taking away voluntary transactions that incur no third party harm is not a solution, in my opinion. It would be a violation of freedom of contract.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      The freedom to get rekt, it's in the constitution.
      - hellojesus 5y ago
        I'm quite serious. Think about the consequences of taking away freedom of contact (which we technically already did with the repulsive reinterpretation of Lochner vs. NY). For this example: 1. Gov says no more 1099 workers -> consequence is every single contractor loses their job (thankfully those whose contracts were killed would be due just compensation under the 5th ammendment). 2. Gig worker now must get rehired as a w2 worker or they need to find a new job. 3. They get paid less if they take their old job back because now their employer needs to provide them the equipment to do their job, plus any benefits required by law, plus minimum wage. 3b. They get their job back at the same wage but consumers now have to pay more for all the reasons in [3]. Or they no longer can find work because they don't provide enough value at the adjusted wage rate to justify it, in the event consumer demand falls at the new price levels. Let's say all the above happens, and they still have their job. Next week another tornado comes and they have to swerve off course again, same conditions, to not die. Their employer can still fire them without a second thought as either party may end the working relationship at any time for any reason! So you've done nothing except make more, useless, legislation. *Note: I just read the article and saw nothing about this being a situation derived from the worker being 1099 or in the "gig" economy. However, this response is with respect to the comment specifically targeting "gig" workers.
ActorNightly 5y ago
Seems like it was a delivery partner, not actual Amazon. Lots of bias in tha article, including a unrelated random picture of an actual Amazon delivery driver.
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  Amazon exerts lots of control over the delivery partners but blames them when there are any problems. If it's Amazon's rule that the worker be fired if they evacuate from a tornado without authorization, then they need to take the blame here. The article specifically says that the order to remain in place came from Amazon.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  If the van has an Amazon logo (the article does not say, nor does the Bloomberg article it regurgitates), then it's fine to blame Amazon for how it is operated.
h2odragon 5y ago
If there's any Amazon (or UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc) delivery people reading these comments, let me personally say: (a) thanks for doing your jobs, we appreciate it, and (b) our shit aint worth endangering your life. It will wait until tomorrow.
- justtologin 5y ago
  Our stuff isn't worth endangering their lives, but in many people's calculus, a paycheck is. That's one reason we have workplace safety laws, because a pure market solution would lead to people doing unsafe things.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"a pure market solution would lead to people doing unsafe things" This depends on what you mean by "a pure market solution", as most workplace safety laws were put in place to make things more predictable for employers, rather than helping employees. The 'old system' in most places involved one-off lawsuits with somewhat unpredictable outcomes.
- mod 5y ago
  My business is closed currently due to a suspected gas leak. Apparently they're having them all over town. And you know what? It's totally fine. I absolutely don't want my people in the building until it's deemed safe. I can't really imagine another stance. Amazon is so big that it's employees really are just cogs in a machine. They really couldn't care less about these drivers. Virutally no jobs on the planet are worth such a direct risk. Especially when you can just wait it out. It's highly likely there is absolutely no pressure to have those delivered soon besides "we want them soon."
electric_mayhem 5y ago
It’s only a matter of time before it’s revealed that Amazon is run, and has been run for years, by an AI that optimizes for profit and growth at the expense of absolutely anything and everything else. Even odds as to whether it’s named Scrooge or BezOS.
- glogla 5y ago
  Considering how billionaires must inevitably think about normal people - the way normal people think about ants - for Amazon to be run by unfeeling inhuman entity, no AI is required.
felix_n 5y ago
Nothing to say about tornadoes, but I'll plant this seed (what I call "pranktivism"): I considered cancelling my Prime membership and generally boycotting Amazon. But then I thought, why be satisfied with not giving Amazon money when I can actually cost them money? So I started ordering the cheapest things that get Prime free delivery, one at a time, multiple times per week. I usually order something like a 2-pack of pens or pencils But every few days I get things that are cheap and bulky, like charcoal and what not, or cheap and heavy, like various dumbbell weights. I use some stuff, but either give away or return a lot it, usually preferring to return pricier and bulkier stuff. Other than some concerned-sounding emails I haven't faced any consequences after about 6 months of this. I'm curious what Amazon will do, if anything. I imagine it doesn't take long to fritter away the $12 a month plus the cost of things I don't return, once the fulfillment, packaging, shipping and such are added up, multiple times per week.
UncleEntity 5y ago
Where I work (driving a truck) they would much rather deal with a late delivery than having to pickup a few hundred thousand dollars (or millions even) of equipment and product out of the ditch. You call in with “yeah, this isn’t safe” and that’s that. Not sure how the Amazon big trucks operate in this regard but they do seem on the sketchy side since they don’t pay a whole lot so are scraping the bottom of the barrel to get their freight moved…or so I’ve heard, haven’t actually talked with one of their drivers.

79 points by onychomys 5y ago

So as somebody who grew up in a place without tornados and now lives in a place with them, let me be the first to say that when the dispatcher says: ----- "If you decided to come back, that choice is yours," replied the dispatcher. "But I can tell you it won't be viewed as for your own safety. The safest practice is to stay exactly where you are. If you decide to return with your packages, it will be viewed as you refusing your route, which will ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning. The sirens are just a warning." ----- that's just plain not true. I mean, yes, the sirens are technically just a warning. But they don't go off until things get really serious. If you hear them, you need to get to actual shelter as quickly as possible. They're not just some vague suggestion. I have no idea how some supervisor who presumably lives in a tornado region could not realize that!

Miner49er 5y ago
They're a warning that a tornado has been indicated by radar or actually seen by a person. Where I'm from I only ever remember them being issued when seen by an actual person, where I am now it's mostly if radar is showing it, it seems.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Or the supervisor just doesn't care. Getting stuff delivered during Christmas rush is worth gambling with some nobody's life, right? /s
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ascagnel_ 5y ago
> I mean, yes, the sirens are technically just a warning. But they don't go off until things get really serious. If you hear them, you need to get to actual shelter as quickly as possible. I don't live in a tornado area, but I had always assumed tornado warnings functioned similarly to other storm warnings -- a "watch" indicates elevated activity and likelihood of a severe weather event, while a "warning" indicates danger is likely and you should take appropriate action immediately to avoid danger.
- nharada 5y ago
  A watch means conditions that would likely allow a tornado are present, a warning means a funnel has been spotted either visually or on radar. I grew up in a tornado prone area, and during a warning we were taught to shelter in the basement since it means there's a tornado somewhere in the area.
- jscheel 5y ago
  I live in Dixie Alley, we have to take warnings seriously here. A warning does not mean "danger is likely." The NWS defines a warning like so: "A tornado has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. There is imminent danger to life and property. Move to an interior room on the lowest floor of a sturdy building. Avoid windows. If in a mobile home, a vehicle, or outdoors, move to the closest substantial shelter and protect yourself from flying debris."
  - totesraunch 5y ago
    As a west-coaster I'm curious, if during a warning people are driving/walking around what's the standard thing people do? Do business allow public in for safety or do people try and go home?

justtologin 5y ago

> "the delivery service partner's dispatcher didn't follow the standard safety practice." Amazon, not uniquely, has a business model based around devolving blame and recourse in a way that insulates them from the normal downside risk a business would have. I don't know if this is a consequence of how risk averse the world has become, but I believe it's a source of competitive advantage. You call amazon about a problem, the only feedback they ask for is about the call center agent, who almost certainly has the least agency or autonomy of anyone in the process but is subject to all the blame. Uber is the same, any problem you have or recourse you want is directed at the driver or restaurant, when both are basically cogs in a machine. But it could never be the company's fault. Here it's the same thing. It was the "delivery service partner" that was the problem. I'd believe that legally this could be true, but the root cause is still amazon offloading responsibility for any downside onto the "delivery service partner". I don't know what the answer is, but I think there is some gaming of the system going on where these companies have found a way to offload risk that is not really fair.

bigthymer 5y ago
> I don't know what the answer is One potential answer is to make gig workers employees.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Taking away voluntary transactions that incur no third party harm is not a solution, in my opinion. It would be a violation of freedom of contract.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    The freedom to get rekt, it's in the constitution.
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      I'm quite serious. Think about the consequences of taking away freedom of contact (which we technically already did with the repulsive reinterpretation of Lochner vs. NY). For this example: 1. Gov says no more 1099 workers -> consequence is every single contractor loses their job (thankfully those whose contracts were killed would be due just compensation under the 5th ammendment). 2. Gig worker now must get rehired as a w2 worker or they need to find a new job. 3. They get paid less if they take their old job back because now their employer needs to provide them the equipment to do their job, plus any benefits required by law, plus minimum wage. 3b. They get their job back at the same wage but consumers now have to pay more for all the reasons in [3]. Or they no longer can find work because they don't provide enough value at the adjusted wage rate to justify it, in the event consumer demand falls at the new price levels. Let's say all the above happens, and they still have their job. Next week another tornado comes and they have to swerve off course again, same conditions, to not die. Their employer can still fire them without a second thought as either party may end the working relationship at any time for any reason! So you've done nothing except make more, useless, legislation. *Note: I just read the article and saw nothing about this being a situation derived from the worker being 1099 or in the "gig" economy. However, this response is with respect to the comment specifically targeting "gig" workers.

ActorNightly 5y ago

Seems like it was a delivery partner, not actual Amazon. Lots of bias in tha article, including a unrelated random picture of an actual Amazon delivery driver.

resoluteteeth 5y ago
Amazon exerts lots of control over the delivery partners but blames them when there are any problems. If it's Amazon's rule that the worker be fired if they evacuate from a tornado without authorization, then they need to take the blame here. The article specifically says that the order to remain in place came from Amazon.
maxerickson 5y ago
If the van has an Amazon logo (the article does not say, nor does the Bloomberg article it regurgitates), then it's fine to blame Amazon for how it is operated.

h2odragon 5y ago

If there's any Amazon (or UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc) delivery people reading these comments, let me personally say: (a) thanks for doing your jobs, we appreciate it, and (b) our shit aint worth endangering your life. It will wait until tomorrow.

justtologin 5y ago
Our stuff isn't worth endangering their lives, but in many people's calculus, a paycheck is. That's one reason we have workplace safety laws, because a pure market solution would lead to people doing unsafe things.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"a pure market solution would lead to people doing unsafe things" This depends on what you mean by "a pure market solution", as most workplace safety laws were put in place to make things more predictable for employers, rather than helping employees. The 'old system' in most places involved one-off lawsuits with somewhat unpredictable outcomes.
mod 5y ago
My business is closed currently due to a suspected gas leak. Apparently they're having them all over town. And you know what? It's totally fine. I absolutely don't want my people in the building until it's deemed safe. I can't really imagine another stance. Amazon is so big that it's employees really are just cogs in a machine. They really couldn't care less about these drivers. Virutally no jobs on the planet are worth such a direct risk. Especially when you can just wait it out. It's highly likely there is absolutely no pressure to have those delivered soon besides "we want them soon."

electric_mayhem 5y ago

It’s only a matter of time before it’s revealed that Amazon is run, and has been run for years, by an AI that optimizes for profit and growth at the expense of absolutely anything and everything else. Even odds as to whether it’s named Scrooge or BezOS.

glogla 5y ago
Considering how billionaires must inevitably think about normal people - the way normal people think about ants - for Amazon to be run by unfeeling inhuman entity, no AI is required.

felix_n 5y ago

Nothing to say about tornadoes, but I'll plant this seed (what I call "pranktivism"): I considered cancelling my Prime membership and generally boycotting Amazon. But then I thought, why be satisfied with not giving Amazon money when I can actually cost them money? So I started ordering the cheapest things that get Prime free delivery, one at a time, multiple times per week. I usually order something like a 2-pack of pens or pencils But every few days I get things that are cheap and bulky, like charcoal and what not, or cheap and heavy, like various dumbbell weights. I use some stuff, but either give away or return a lot it, usually preferring to return pricier and bulkier stuff. Other than some concerned-sounding emails I haven't faced any consequences after about 6 months of this. I'm curious what Amazon will do, if anything. I imagine it doesn't take long to fritter away the $12 a month plus the cost of things I don't return, once the fulfillment, packaging, shipping and such are added up, multiple times per week.

UncleEntity 5y ago

Where I work (driving a truck) they would much rather deal with a late delivery than having to pickup a few hundred thousand dollars (or millions even) of equipment and product out of the ditch. You call in with “yeah, this isn’t safe” and that’s that. Not sure how the Amazon big trucks operate in this regard but they do seem on the sketchy side since they don’t pay a whole lot so are scraping the bottom of the barrel to get their freight moved…or so I’ve heard, haven’t actually talked with one of their drivers.