4 ms·

I really dislike Amazon and already don't shop there, but am I the only one who can at least consider the idea that this isn't necessarily unreasonable? Drivin

I really dislike Amazon and already don't shop there, but am I the only one who can at least consider the idea that this isn't necessarily unreasonable? Driving is dangerous, period. I don't think we'd object as much to Amazon trying to make sure that drivers don't text and drive. Talking and driving isn't as distracting, but it is at least somewhat distracting. I've definitely seen cab drivers chatting away, driving aggressive, and missing little cues that could have easily led to an accident. Amazon is pretty understandably trying to limit liability and disruption here. The drivers are not on personal time in personal vehicles. They're on company time in company vehicles, and employers almost universally regulate employee behavior to some degree or another. Now, maybe this isn't effective, or a step too far, and they should certainly improve their talking detection, but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand. It could realistically actually save a life. edit, to clarify the question I have here: What behavior is reasonable for Amazon to monitor and regulate for drivers? Any? Something just less than this?

JohnMakin 2y ago
I kind of agree with the spirit of what you're saying but not really - at amazon's scale, even a 1% increase risk of traffic accident amongst their massive fleet means a significant number at the end of a fiscal year in terms of cost. Then, it seems like a good decision and not unreasonable. IMO the unreasonableness is that a company like Amazon is allowed to scale to a size where this kind of monitoring is deemed necessary to the bottom line - a smaller company doesn't really care as much about that small increased risk because the effect on their bottom line isn't as large compared to the cost of implementing controlling measures like this.
- millzlane 2y ago
  Aside from their bottom line there is the human element. How many other people does the 1% of the increased risk of traffic accidents affect? We can say this is for the benefit of the company sure, but any company with a large fleet trying to reduce traffic accidents regardless of their reasoning is a net win for society.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    how about the misery we are inflicting on the workers who we have already reduced to pissing in bottles and limiting their water intake so we can get our plastic shit from china a few minutes faster. while it may not kill any of them directly how much is each low level misery worth when scaled across thousands? how miserable can we make multitudes before it equals the risk of maybe causing an accident where someone dies? Is one life continued existence worth more than say 20,000 people having and increased depression rates?
yojo 2y ago
Talking on your phone while driving (hands free or otherwise) is associated with a 4x increase in likelihood of accident.[1] Correlation != causation etc, but it seems reasonable to forbid talking on the phone while driving a giant delivery van until we have concrete evidence that it is safe. Now, the particular way Amazon is going about enforcing this is creepy as hell, and well into the “I’m not comfortable with the privacy trade-off” zone for me. 1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=...
consteval 2y ago
> but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand I would. Every time I've seen an Amazon driver they're busting ass, sprinting across lawns. Of the drivers I've talked to it's incredibly stressful, and to make your quota you have to drive a bit more "confidently". And let's not even get into the piss bottle stuff. If their intent was truly safety, they would probably want to start there. But they're not. Because keeping high quotas is important for the bottom line. Hiring employees, scaling vans and infrastructure is expensive. So it follows to optimize cash you squeeeeeeze each employee as far as they can go.

JohnMakin 2y ago

I kind of agree with the spirit of what you're saying but not really - at amazon's scale, even a 1% increase risk of traffic accident amongst their massive fleet means a significant number at the end of a fiscal year in terms of cost. Then, it seems like a good decision and not unreasonable. IMO the unreasonableness is that a company like Amazon is allowed to scale to a size where this kind of monitoring is deemed necessary to the bottom line - a smaller company doesn't really care as much about that small increased risk because the effect on their bottom line isn't as large compared to the cost of implementing controlling measures like this.

millzlane 2y ago
Aside from their bottom line there is the human element. How many other people does the 1% of the increased risk of traffic accidents affect? We can say this is for the benefit of the company sure, but any company with a large fleet trying to reduce traffic accidents regardless of their reasoning is a net win for society.
- smegger001 2y ago
  how about the misery we are inflicting on the workers who we have already reduced to pissing in bottles and limiting their water intake so we can get our plastic shit from china a few minutes faster. while it may not kill any of them directly how much is each low level misery worth when scaled across thousands? how miserable can we make multitudes before it equals the risk of maybe causing an accident where someone dies? Is one life continued existence worth more than say 20,000 people having and increased depression rates?

yojo 2y ago

Talking on your phone while driving (hands free or otherwise) is associated with a 4x increase in likelihood of accident.[1] Correlation != causation etc, but it seems reasonable to forbid talking on the phone while driving a giant delivery van until we have concrete evidence that it is safe. Now, the particular way Amazon is going about enforcing this is creepy as hell, and well into the “I’m not comfortable with the privacy trade-off” zone for me. 1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=...

consteval 2y ago

> but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand I would. Every time I've seen an Amazon driver they're busting ass, sprinting across lawns. Of the drivers I've talked to it's incredibly stressful, and to make your quota you have to drive a bit more "confidently". And let's not even get into the piss bottle stuff. If their intent was truly safety, they would probably want to start there. But they're not. Because keeping high quotas is important for the bottom line. Hiring employees, scaling vans and infrastructure is expensive. So it follows to optimize cash you squeeeeeeze each employee as far as they can go.