13 ms·
I would assume they're really just trying to "catch" people talking on cell phones, and people singing are causing "too many" false positives of the detection s
by teqsun 2y ago
I would assume they're really just trying to "catch" people talking on cell phones, and people singing are causing "too many" false positives of the detection system?
- aguaviva 2y agoThat's actually a reasonable explanation. And then it seems the manager failed to articulate that point (or perhaps they did, but people are the meeting were so upset that they weren't quite listening anymore).
- ffsm8 2y agoHow can anyone consider that reasonable? that is an insane overreach by the employer. They should be outraged!
- zamadatix 2y agoI don't know how much Amazon itself really "cares" as much as not having clear safety guidelines and safety systems can result in liability when accidents do occur due to distracted driving on grounds the employer knowingly didn't try to prevent such accidents and was the reason for the employee to be driving at the time.
- SoftTalker 2y agoI think it's reasonable to require "no talking on phones" and I'd even go so far as to say "no listening to music" when you're driving a large commercial truck on the public roads. If you think this is strict, have a look at what UPS requires of its drivers. They have very specific rules for how to do everything related to delivering packages and operating the vehicles. And not that I've specifically focused on it, but I can't recall ever hearing music playing in a UPS truck.
- Sakos 2y agoUPS trucks don't have radios but it's not banned to listen to music and UPS drivers do listen to music when they want to. This is a ridiculous idea.
- consteval 2y ago> no listening to music Do they get to keep a gun in the glove box? You know, for when they need to kill themselves?
- aguaviva 2y agoLet's ask the drivers themselves, and find out what they have to say on the subject. From tevesh21: For the most part, we have the freedom to do most anything we want. However, we’re not supposed to waste company time (going to pick up a friend) and there’s specific rules that prohibit non ups employees from being on the package car. As for music, yes. Different drivers use different methods, I personally use earbuds, some drivers use a speaker. And mrivorey: I listen to audiobooks and a couple podcasts once I'm done with my commercial stops (ie: not talking to customers anymore). Sometimes when I want to finish work faster, I'll put on some high energy music to keep me motivated, but that's only occasionally because it's harder on the body. https://www.reddit.com/r/UPS/comments/en34np/do_drivers_get_to_listen_to_music_on_their_route/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UPS/comments/en34np/do_drivers_get_... Granted, these posts were from 5 years go and UPS may have cracked down since then. But if their posts are to believed, they've no need keep that gun in the glove box in case they ever need to find a speedy way to check out, just yet. As to the drivers stuck working for Amazon -- we can't be so sure.
- aguaviva 2y agoIt's called "distracted driving" and it's perfectly reasonable for employers to take measures to prevent people from engaging in it: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving The concern here is most likely people diddling with their phones (which tends to accompany such conversations but may be harder for the cameras to detect), followed by the distraction of zoning over a long conversation over any kind of device. Not singing along with the radio, obviously (which is what people seem to be reacting to so emotionally here). You don't have to like it, and I would never work with Amazon in any capacity anyway (not for this, but for a whole bunch of vastly more important reasons). But it's definitely neither insane, nor overreach on their part.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoI am going to go out on a limb and say delivery quotas are the largest contributor to unsafe driving by Amazon delivery drivers. How far has Amazon loosened up delivery quotas, back them down to the proven safest levels, has Amazon done?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- losvedir 2y agoYeah, with half a second's thought at the headline it should be obvious they're worried about people talking on the phone or bluetooth, which really is distracted driving. I was sort of flabbergasted at the focus in the article on "singing along to the radio" as if that's what this is about. I do get how that could be a bit of a false positive, but I doubt it's that common.
- millzlane 2y agoAnd most drivers I see who deliver packages are always on the phone talking to themselves via bluetooth. So I get the sentiment. It's not like amazon is making it up. Studies have shown that music can have an adverse effect on driving.
- dantyti 2y agoroadside advertising has an adverse effect on driving. We should ban ads before we even consider vilifying music
- ghshephard 2y agoLots of counties do precisely that, and for exactly that reason. And, as others have noted, it's likely to reduce the talking-on-cellphone, which studies have shown is just as distracting and likely to cause an accident hands-free as holding the phone.
- millzlane 2y agoI don't think the villain is the music. I think the villain in this case is the distracted driving. I for one listen to music at full blast and tend to drive spiritedly which requires full 110% concentration. So I would agree that there are bigger fish to fry than listening to music while driving. But I'm going to be honest and say I've seen folks who don't listen to music and do bonehead things on the road because they're distracted. So yes, let's bad roadside billboards. I'm with you on that.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
- wahnfrieden 2y agoEven if that's "really" their objective, management could be fine with the risk of punishing drivers who struggle to comply with this for unrelated reasons. There's no reason to think they will seek fairness if the result achieves what they want well enough. The point of the article is the bluntness of the tool, not that they are trying to reduce dangerously distracting phone calls, and understanding the true objective doesn't undo that.
- gopher_space 2y agoHard to tell with Amazon. None of their logistics devs have labor experience or are interested in life on the shop floor so there's a weird disconnect between their systems and the actual work people are engaged with.
- ortusdux 2y agoI had a USPS mailman with a walking route that used a handsfree headset to work a 2nd job. Not sure what he was selling, but I overheard him close a deal while he had me sign for a package. It never seemed to affect his productivity, and I definitely respect the hustle.
- greiskul 2y agoYeah, if he is walking, who cares. But if he is driving distracted and runs over someone, it becomes a lot harder to respect the hustle.
- dgfitz 2y agoWhat does manslaughter have to do with hustle? Or are you just trying to point out that you disapprove of talking in the car on a hands-free device?
- Terr_ 2y agoHuh? I think their meaning was pretty clear, but here's an artisanally-decompressed paraphrasing: _________ If the delivery-person is walking, the potential impact of being distracted by their phone conversation is negligible. In that case, I sympathize and respect their efforts to conduct two jobs at once. However the situation is very different when operating a delivery vehicle, where errors have a greater impact. In that context, their multi-tasking is no longer something to respect, but instead recklessness that should be condemned. This is especially true if it leads to the death of a pedestrian, which might be a serious crime known as manslaughter.
- consteval 2y agoThere's also nothing wrong with talking on the phone with a hands-free device. It's equivalent to chatting with a passenger.
- fragmede 2y agoa passenger in the same car can see where the car is, and stop talking because of that. the voice on the phone has no such visibility.