3 ms·
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 flee
by 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 agoAside 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 agohow 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?