[HN Gopher] Amazon threatened driver's job for leaving route dur...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon threatened driver's job for leaving route during tornado
Author : onychomys
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-12-17 21:14 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| electric_mayhem wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| justtologin wrote:
| > "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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > 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.
|
| It is a consequence of bad laws and lack of labor law
| enforcement. It is par for the course to hire a "manager", give
| them no ability to modify a budget, pay them a meager $40k
| salary so that they qualify as an "exempt employee" so you do
| not have to pay them overtime, and then give them impossible
| metrics to meet.
|
| Voila, you now have a fall guy, and can save on labor costs
| because they are willing to work 60 to 80 hour weeks at no
| extra cost in exchange for a steady paycheck. And they will do
| questionable things, like the linked Amazon example, without
| the employer needing to put it in writing giving the employer
| plausible deniability.
|
| I even know many immigrants that were lucky enough to immigrate
| to the US a few decades earlier do this to their own relatives
| who chain immigrate after them.
|
| Very simple fix - make the minimum exempt employee salary $200k
| or even more per year.
| bigthymer wrote:
| > I don't know what the answer is
|
| One potential answer is to make gig workers employees.
| hellojesus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The freedom to get rekt, it's in the constitution.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Yeah, Amazon is powerful enough to set its own rules, and by
| those rules it's never at fault.
|
| Maybe the solution is to beef up some kind of small-claims-
| court like process, and have some actually-independent arbiter
| take a look at the facts.
| ece wrote:
| The supreme court did recently rule for forced arbitration,
| making this idea mostly a no-go I would think. Collective
| bargaining, and forcing contractors to be employees are the
| more realistic options. If you can't actually choose your
| working time, and work 32+ hours, there's a good chance you
| should be an employee, or at least the option to become one
| should exist.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| 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.
| h2odragon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _" 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 wrote:
| 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."
| onychomys wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Or the supervisor just doesn't care. Getting stuff delivered
| during Christmas rush is worth gambling with some nobody's
| life, right?
|
| /s
| [deleted]
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-17 23:02 UTC)