Amazon drivers pushed to the limit as holiday deliveries reach a frenzy(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Amazon drivers pushed to the limit as holiday deliveries reach a frenzy
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-drivers-20161218-story.html
93 comments
> But he said that Amazon does not instruct LMS to fire drivers who have had a trend of high complaints. LMS independently starts a disciplinary process, he said, starting with retraining, if a driver has a high number of citations for two consecutive weeks.
Of course they don't get fired. But after several months of "disciplinary process starting with retraining" they quit voluntarily, perhaps...
Of course they don't get fired. But after several months of "disciplinary process starting with retraining" they quit voluntarily, perhaps...
You missed the key here. Amazon does not instruct LMS to fire people, because coemployment. But it will inform LMS that they're failing to meet their contractual obligation to hit the complaints target, and in completely unrelated news, here's a list of driver IDs and their complaint rates.
Why would this retraining be such a pain? I mean, they're already in a job they pretty much hate, how much worse can the retraining be?
This is not sustainable. This is why pizza delivery no longer advertises specific delivery guarantees; all it does is create inattentive drivers who cause accidents.
Also, I expect those packages to be thrown onto porches without a care in the world.
This is (barely) sustainable for the short time each year that is holiday season
I think it's kind of sick when you start optimizing on people like you do on software.
Start? This is a skill they've developed for years and years. The company that inspired "I was a warehouse wage slave" no doubt can transfer a few lessons to delivery...
This kind of "optimisation" has been around for over a century, starting with Frederick Taylor. Dehumanising, mechanistic management is not new, nor is the backlash against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)
Anyone upset with this could just cancel their prime membership and stop doing business with Amazon. It is easier now than ever because they no longer compete on price. It is almost always the case that I find the same things cheaper on eBay, Newegg or jet.com. Their decision to drop price zombie from their affiliate program would seem to confirm that they no longer intend to compete on price. I assume that is how they fund Prime Video.
I don't know why people still believe that boycotts and individual consumer decisions are effective strategy for such things. All the evidence is against this. I suppose it's the propaganda of the "free market" and such.
If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, and all product manufacturers would negotiate with all the drivers and all the consumers would negotiate etc. It would be totally inefficient and impractical, but we'd have actual competition and supply/demand etc.
Reality is Amazon is a massive organization with a top-down power structure and massive power inequities. Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power. The idea that each individual consumer should make decisions that mediate the power of the massive corporation is a farce.
If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, and all product manufacturers would negotiate with all the drivers and all the consumers would negotiate etc. It would be totally inefficient and impractical, but we'd have actual competition and supply/demand etc.
Reality is Amazon is a massive organization with a top-down power structure and massive power inequities. Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power. The idea that each individual consumer should make decisions that mediate the power of the massive corporation is a farce.
"If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, "
No - the 'free market' is at work here. The workers absolutely do not have the power to set any terms at all.
The issue is that the 'free market' is ultimatley a game over power - and when one entity has a lot, and others are divided and weak - salaries would be basically zero for them: just enough to survive. It would be much below min. wage as an entire economy of 'sub-dollar store' communities would develop. Much like favelas in Brazil etc..
For most people, we have some market power because of our skills, but for manual labour, they have none, which is why worker protections and min. wage laws exist.
No - the 'free market' is at work here. The workers absolutely do not have the power to set any terms at all.
The issue is that the 'free market' is ultimatley a game over power - and when one entity has a lot, and others are divided and weak - salaries would be basically zero for them: just enough to survive. It would be much below min. wage as an entire economy of 'sub-dollar store' communities would develop. Much like favelas in Brazil etc..
For most people, we have some market power because of our skills, but for manual labour, they have none, which is why worker protections and min. wage laws exist.
Right, I agree with you.
What I meant really is that the premise of "free market" the way the propagandists push it is a farce. As long as there are power imbalances, then the ideas about how free markets lead to all this efficiency etc. don't hold up, i.e. as long we we're talking about reality, free market dogma doesn't hold up.
I was speculating that the source of the "each consumer should make decisions, we as consumers can hold Amazon accountable" is rooted in some naive free-market type of dogma. I'm not sure the original poster indeed came from that (whether subconsciously or not)
What I meant really is that the premise of "free market" the way the propagandists push it is a farce. As long as there are power imbalances, then the ideas about how free markets lead to all this efficiency etc. don't hold up, i.e. as long we we're talking about reality, free market dogma doesn't hold up.
I was speculating that the source of the "each consumer should make decisions, we as consumers can hold Amazon accountable" is rooted in some naive free-market type of dogma. I'm not sure the original poster indeed came from that (whether subconsciously or not)
Free market dogma usually does hold up.
Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everything will be fair - take stuff from rich people and give it to the poor!'.
Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox:
It's easy to understand an authoritative, centralized system that controls everything and 'maximizes efficiency'.
It's hard to understand how independent agents, working in a loosely collaborative 'free market' can actually provide much better efficiency in most scenarios.
Most nations had to go through some heavy duty socialism to realize that it doesn't work very well - and it will be ongoing: teachers and professors aren't a fan, and they push socialist ideals for the 20 years or so of your education, and it all seems cozy from inside an academic setting.
It's usually not until people have responsibility, i.e. children or management, or a small business (even consulting) do people start to clue in.
Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' but they are not that common. Even Republicans usually expand government. Since the dawn of the USA... government has really never receded - it's only grown it's share of the economy - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation', I think. And moral and benevolent leadership. Anyhow. I write too much :)
Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everything will be fair - take stuff from rich people and give it to the poor!'.
Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox:
It's easy to understand an authoritative, centralized system that controls everything and 'maximizes efficiency'.
It's hard to understand how independent agents, working in a loosely collaborative 'free market' can actually provide much better efficiency in most scenarios.
Most nations had to go through some heavy duty socialism to realize that it doesn't work very well - and it will be ongoing: teachers and professors aren't a fan, and they push socialist ideals for the 20 years or so of your education, and it all seems cozy from inside an academic setting.
It's usually not until people have responsibility, i.e. children or management, or a small business (even consulting) do people start to clue in.
Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' but they are not that common. Even Republicans usually expand government. Since the dawn of the USA... government has really never receded - it's only grown it's share of the economy - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation', I think. And moral and benevolent leadership. Anyhow. I write too much :)
Um, DOGMA usually does not hold up, period. Your straw-man argument there is
nothing more than: "you think MY dogma is stupid? Let me tell you how stupid
the opposing dogma is!" and expecting people to think that because other dogma
is bad that your dogma is good.
Now, if I was actually arguing or believed some anti-market dogma, it wouldn't be a straw-man here. But I fully agree that markets are valuable, are easy to over-regulate, and that there are many aspects of market freedom that are positive. I'm just not dogmatic about it. Dogma is what leads people to insist that things are a certain way because their dogmatic model says so rather than base their beliefs on evidence, etc.
But anyway, communist and socialist dogma may be wrong because they are dogmatic, but here's one thing I know for certain: your description of their dogma is completely wrong. Dogmatic communists and socialists don't believe what you just wrote in describing them.
Now, if I was actually arguing or believed some anti-market dogma, it wouldn't be a straw-man here. But I fully agree that markets are valuable, are easy to over-regulate, and that there are many aspects of market freedom that are positive. I'm just not dogmatic about it. Dogma is what leads people to insist that things are a certain way because their dogmatic model says so rather than base their beliefs on evidence, etc.
But anyway, communist and socialist dogma may be wrong because they are dogmatic, but here's one thing I know for certain: your description of their dogma is completely wrong. Dogmatic communists and socialists don't believe what you just wrote in describing them.
You are misusing the term 'straw man'.
Also, dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
There is not that much 'free market' dogma (i.e. free markets are perfect, and always good) in mainstream American society.
There is a lot of socialist dogma in mainstream society. Communist dogma would indicate that capitalism is inherently wrong (as an absolute truth) and this is promoted quite a lot. Socialist dogma would indicate that mostly free markets are incompatible with the wellbeing of society.
Socialist dogma pervades European elitist thinking and popular sentiment, so much so, that any contradiction of their 'dogmatic beliefs' is considered 'far right wing'.
Watch 5 Hollywood films: the 'evil bad guy' while be an old white banker or business man 3 out of 5 times. American pop culture goes out of their way to vilify business (unless it's startups). There are obvious hints of dogma in this.
Also, dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
There is not that much 'free market' dogma (i.e. free markets are perfect, and always good) in mainstream American society.
There is a lot of socialist dogma in mainstream society. Communist dogma would indicate that capitalism is inherently wrong (as an absolute truth) and this is promoted quite a lot. Socialist dogma would indicate that mostly free markets are incompatible with the wellbeing of society.
Socialist dogma pervades European elitist thinking and popular sentiment, so much so, that any contradiction of their 'dogmatic beliefs' is considered 'far right wing'.
Watch 5 Hollywood films: the 'evil bad guy' while be an old white banker or business man 3 out of 5 times. American pop culture goes out of their way to vilify business (unless it's startups). There are obvious hints of dogma in this.
I'm not misusing straw man. You argued against things I wasn't saying. That's a straw man. You tried to defend that free market dogma by attacked arguments about communism and socialism that nobody but your straw man was mentioning.
You are now continuing to make more straw men. None of the rest of your comment is actually addressing anything I was saying, just arguing with some image you have of people who you think believe certain things.
Note that I happen to think your perspective is really skewed here — the vast majority of power in our society is vested in capitalist interests, the media and government and lots more are very much capitalist or capitalist-apologist, and truly dogmatic free-market ideologies (it doesn't matter whether there's a great-man behind some dogma, just the idea that the authority is some idealistic free-market theory, that's authority enough to be called "dogma" — it's super rampant, enough that it's easy to run into believers constantly.
You are now continuing to make more straw men. None of the rest of your comment is actually addressing anything I was saying, just arguing with some image you have of people who you think believe certain things.
Note that I happen to think your perspective is really skewed here — the vast majority of power in our society is vested in capitalist interests, the media and government and lots more are very much capitalist or capitalist-apologist, and truly dogmatic free-market ideologies (it doesn't matter whether there's a great-man behind some dogma, just the idea that the authority is some idealistic free-market theory, that's authority enough to be called "dogma" — it's super rampant, enough that it's easy to run into believers constantly.
First of all, you're mostly spot on. Kudos for this.
>Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox
It explains why many people feel they're entitled to a job and government ought to 'create' jobs. It is incredibly perplexing just how many people don't understand that they aren't entitled to anything! The concept that you have to provide value for someone else so that you can get compensated eludes more people than it should. It is no wonder employers find themselves trying to explain such simple facts to fresh graduates that think they're entitled to jobs. Many of them (employees) don't understand that once they're on-boarded into a business, they immediately become liabilities until they can provide more value than they're receiving in form of compensation (heck, it isn't even compensation at this stage because compensation implies some form of quid pro quo).
>Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government'
Actually, the Chicago school isn't as 'hardcore' as you might think. We, the Austrians, are the ones who think that a society can exist without conventional government. It may come as a surprise to you but based on your statement - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation' - you yourself fit the description of what many would consider the Chicago school which essentially maintains that a government that is small in size, mildly favors laissez-faire, has minimal regulations and pumps in money into the economy in smaller doses would suffice.
If you're interested in learning more about these and more thoughts, check out a book called: Democracy, The god That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox
It explains why many people feel they're entitled to a job and government ought to 'create' jobs. It is incredibly perplexing just how many people don't understand that they aren't entitled to anything! The concept that you have to provide value for someone else so that you can get compensated eludes more people than it should. It is no wonder employers find themselves trying to explain such simple facts to fresh graduates that think they're entitled to jobs. Many of them (employees) don't understand that once they're on-boarded into a business, they immediately become liabilities until they can provide more value than they're receiving in form of compensation (heck, it isn't even compensation at this stage because compensation implies some form of quid pro quo).
>Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government'
Actually, the Chicago school isn't as 'hardcore' as you might think. We, the Austrians, are the ones who think that a society can exist without conventional government. It may come as a surprise to you but based on your statement - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation' - you yourself fit the description of what many would consider the Chicago school which essentially maintains that a government that is small in size, mildly favors laissez-faire, has minimal regulations and pumps in money into the economy in smaller doses would suffice.
If you're interested in learning more about these and more thoughts, check out a book called: Democracy, The god That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
It might not be an effective strategy, but it would be morally wrong to do otherwise.
> Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power.
Nobody said consumers have to be individuals, consumers can organize just like low wage workers should. They have just been sold individualism thanks to centuries of propaganda. Rich people have no problem organizing, that's what corporations are, but somehow when people at the bottom of the ladder do, it is a bad thing? This is puritan morals, "rich are blessed with wealth, poor people only deserve contempt" and it certainly defines America.
Nobody said consumers have to be individuals, consumers can organize just like low wage workers should. They have just been sold individualism thanks to centuries of propaganda. Rich people have no problem organizing, that's what corporations are, but somehow when people at the bottom of the ladder do, it is a bad thing? This is puritan morals, "rich are blessed with wealth, poor people only deserve contempt" and it certainly defines America.
Well, I think we agree completely. Citizens can organize, but powerful organizations of rich people have worked hard to keep regular citizens divided and helpless, and they spread the propaganda of "consumer choice" to try to insist that any situation can be blamed on the consumers themselves.
I agree that massive organized consumer groups or institutions can make a difference.
I agree that massive organized consumer groups or institutions can make a difference.
Companies like Amazon are more vulnerable than you think. The slightest disruption in flow impacts them hard.
You get a large bloc of people to act, they will notice.
You get a large bloc of people to act, they will notice.
Boycotts don't work, simply put.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak...
The fact is, if you want this service, you will create stress for drivers. Why is that bad?
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak...
The fact is, if you want this service, you will create stress for drivers. Why is that bad?
The article doesn't support that conclusion -- typical for Freakinomics fare.
A boycott is a powerful weapon in the context of a broader grassroots movement. We'll get there with Amazon soon -- they're too big to not step into a turd that generates sufficient discord.
A boycott is a powerful weapon in the context of a broader grassroots movement. We'll get there with Amazon soon -- they're too big to not step into a turd that generates sufficient discord.
They have literally half a dozen experts come on at various points in the podcast and explain that boycotts don't work, what do you mean "the article doesn't support that conclusion"?
Avoiding business transactions with those you dislike is a basic principle. It does not need to do anything other than allow you to say "at least I do not fund them".
That said, my post suggested that people would be better off if they purchased elsewhere because it is often cheaper to buy elsewhere than it is to buy off Amazon. That is an economic reality and one that naturally lends itself to people buying from Amazon's competitors. The suggestion of a boycott was the furthest thing from my mind.
That said, my post suggested that people would be better off if they purchased elsewhere because it is often cheaper to buy elsewhere than it is to buy off Amazon. That is an economic reality and one that naturally lends itself to people buying from Amazon's competitors. The suggestion of a boycott was the furthest thing from my mind.
If there's an economic incentive, fine, but you're just shifting your stress to other drivers. Delivering packages still happens, do you think the other companies don't follow industry standards?
Whether or not boycotts work, I just canceled my Prime membership.
...and the world continued spinning.
Why is it bad to create stress for drivers?? Is that a serious question?
Anyway, I listened to that podcast myself a while back. The conclusion was that boycotts rarely work, and when they do, it's mostly a bar PR issue rather than an economic per-sale issue.
Anyway, I listened to that podcast myself a while back. The conclusion was that boycotts rarely work, and when they do, it's mostly a bar PR issue rather than an economic per-sale issue.
Yes, that's a serious question. Why is there a goal of "zero stress" in this situation? It's a job, won't it always have stress?
When people talk about stress, they don't usually mean just the normal healthy sort of pressure and motivation, although yes, that's technically "stress". You've dropped to a silly semantic game if you read the article about people having totally unrealistic expectations and working overtime without pay and think "what's wrong with stress?" as your main take-away.
It is a semantic point I'm making, though not a silly one.
right, but organizing a large bloc of people is super hard, and I didn't see that sort of thing in the post pushing individual consumers to make individual decisions (which is how I read it anyway)
Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people. Buying from other stores because they are cheaper has nothing to do with the idea of a boycott. If you dislike how they conduct their business, then you have another reason to re-evaluate your expenditures with them.
> Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people.
I open browser, type amazon.com, search stuff, click 'buy with one-click'. I do not worry about delivery time, and I can just return without any hustle.
Compare with what you suggested, let's say we choose ebay (probably the 2nd-best online retailer): I open browser, search, found item, click through, buy the item, probably need to pay shipping, but the overall price is cheaper. I might get the item in time, or not. When I want to return, I might get a smooth transaction, or not. The customer service is guaranteed to be inferior to Amazon's.
In the process, I probably can save a few percentage on item price. But does it really make economic sense at all? If I buy one item on ebay, and for some reason I dont like it and could not return it; while with Amazon I am sure that I can always avoid this. Does the a few percentage saving actually save me? I don't believe that.
The plain trend of Amazon eating the retail market lends little credit to your claim "Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people".
I open browser, type amazon.com, search stuff, click 'buy with one-click'. I do not worry about delivery time, and I can just return without any hustle.
Compare with what you suggested, let's say we choose ebay (probably the 2nd-best online retailer): I open browser, search, found item, click through, buy the item, probably need to pay shipping, but the overall price is cheaper. I might get the item in time, or not. When I want to return, I might get a smooth transaction, or not. The customer service is guaranteed to be inferior to Amazon's.
In the process, I probably can save a few percentage on item price. But does it really make economic sense at all? If I buy one item on ebay, and for some reason I dont like it and could not return it; while with Amazon I am sure that I can always avoid this. Does the a few percentage saving actually save me? I don't believe that.
The plain trend of Amazon eating the retail market lends little credit to your claim "Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people".
Yes but you are ignoring inertia. Amazon is so ingrained into the shopping habits of people that it will take years before it impacts Amazon in any meaningful way.
I think right set of regulations is the answer. Companies should not be allowed to optimize people to such an extent.
I think right set of regulations is the answer. Companies should not be allowed to optimize people to such an extent.
Don't forget Google Shopping Express if you absolutely need it next day - which even passes on sales from local stores to delivery purchases.
Prime (free) Video could be seen as simply a sales channel for their paid video.
Prime (free) Video could be seen as simply a sales channel for their paid video.
I don't think you actually have Amazon prime account. The prime video itself now have very high-quality original/exclusive content. The most recent example is Grand Tour, google it you can see how it is welcomed universally.
You're incorrect, I do. I just didn't find anything good 1-2 years ago. Perhaps I should revisit, but the fact that it's not on the AppleTV makes it more difficult.
Enough to pay for $3 billion in original content spending with amazon's reporting margins?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/17...
They ought to be subsidizing it with higher prices.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/17...
They ought to be subsidizing it with higher prices.
In my european country Amazon is still usually the cheapest and fastet way to get stuff and i enjoy zero delivery fees and their generous return policies, however i don't really use Prime Now so all deliveries are by DHL anyway. I am not sure which service would come close and is equally convenient.
"Anyone upset with this could just cancel their prime membership and stop doing business with Amazon."
No, this is not quite reasonable.
Consumers do not realistically have this kind of power, especially vis-a-vis very large entities.
It would take a massive, massive informational campaign, massive awareness, coordination, coordination in the press etc..
For the same reason in the 19th century, before unions, people couldn't just 'not shop somewhere'.
Labour practices are best codified in law and policy.
I'm not a big fan of unions, where they are entrenched, they often have too much power ...
But where unions are 'possibly forming', it's usually for a very good reason.
Salaries for many working class jobs can't be left entirely up to the free market, otherwise they'd be earning next to zero.
It's really quite a paradox how benevolent Bezos and his ideological friends seem to be, all their charities blah blah blah and yet they treat many of their labour workers terribly. There are some real horror stories from the picking/packing plants.
No, this is not quite reasonable.
Consumers do not realistically have this kind of power, especially vis-a-vis very large entities.
It would take a massive, massive informational campaign, massive awareness, coordination, coordination in the press etc..
For the same reason in the 19th century, before unions, people couldn't just 'not shop somewhere'.
Labour practices are best codified in law and policy.
I'm not a big fan of unions, where they are entrenched, they often have too much power ...
But where unions are 'possibly forming', it's usually for a very good reason.
Salaries for many working class jobs can't be left entirely up to the free market, otherwise they'd be earning next to zero.
It's really quite a paradox how benevolent Bezos and his ideological friends seem to be, all their charities blah blah blah and yet they treat many of their labour workers terribly. There are some real horror stories from the picking/packing plants.
Seems like "it sucks to works for Amazon" has been added in a permanent spot on journalist's radars for "HR stuff to write about". I'm not saying these lawsuits mentioned in the article do not exist, but is it any better for drivers in DHL or UPS?
UPS drivers drive a UPS truck. UPS pays for the gas and maintenance. That's a pretty big difference.
UPS also has a union.
I worked trailers for UPS back in the day and from the sounds of things from the drivers is was just as hectic. I heard that you don't take a lunch break until about 2 years in once you've learned all the ins and outs of a route.
Yeah UPS is probably one of the better ones. If you want a comparison to Amazon maybe try FedEx
FedEx is non-union. They spend an insane amount of money marketing themselves as a good employer (all that, "Truck driver to pilot" bullshit).
I've have friends who were freight truck drivers talk about it. A lot of young kids get sucked up into non-union shops and are told about how much better it is; how they shouldn't want a union. Most of the unionised freight companies do pay better though; or if they don't, they make up for it with more benefits and lower road time.
I've have friends who were freight truck drivers talk about it. A lot of young kids get sucked up into non-union shops and are told about how much better it is; how they shouldn't want a union. Most of the unionised freight companies do pay better though; or if they don't, they make up for it with more benefits and lower road time.
I don't believe all FedEx drivers have to supply their own trucks but most freight oth drivers do. They also work pretty strict and tight deadlines.
Most delivery services in general work their employees hard. An ex of mine drove for different food and drink vendors driving truck doing ltl to grocery stores and gas stations and they would consistently exceed maximum hours cdl drivers are allowed to work.
Most delivery services in general work their employees hard. An ex of mine drove for different food and drink vendors driving truck doing ltl to grocery stores and gas stations and they would consistently exceed maximum hours cdl drivers are allowed to work.
> and they would consistently exceed maximum hours cdl drivers are allowed to work
Just a reminder, there exists no maximum number of hours CDL holders may work, they just can't drive after a certain number of hours without a sleep break. Many truckers will operate in such a manner that they drive to the destination legally, reach their max allowable hours driving upon arrival, and then continue working several more hours unloading. Grocery warehouses are notorious for this.
It's an important distinction because if you are a local driver with a 'day cab', you can't exactly take your sleep break in the truck and would be more likely to break the law to drive the truck back home (or the company yard). An 'over the road' driver has a sleeper berth and can take a proper break most anywhere they can legally park.
I did many FedEx loads as an over the road driver and I found them to be good runs. Many were overnight runs from one airport to another and I definitely had enough time, it wasn't as if I had to skip breaks or hurry. And the FedEx staff and load/unload procedures were very organised and easy. FedEx loads were seen as desirable and hassle-free.
Just a reminder, there exists no maximum number of hours CDL holders may work, they just can't drive after a certain number of hours without a sleep break. Many truckers will operate in such a manner that they drive to the destination legally, reach their max allowable hours driving upon arrival, and then continue working several more hours unloading. Grocery warehouses are notorious for this.
It's an important distinction because if you are a local driver with a 'day cab', you can't exactly take your sleep break in the truck and would be more likely to break the law to drive the truck back home (or the company yard). An 'over the road' driver has a sleeper berth and can take a proper break most anywhere they can legally park.
I did many FedEx loads as an over the road driver and I found them to be good runs. Many were overnight runs from one airport to another and I definitely had enough time, it wasn't as if I had to skip breaks or hurry. And the FedEx staff and load/unload procedures were very organised and easy. FedEx loads were seen as desirable and hassle-free.
FedEx is FedEx express (red label) and ground/home (green).
The green ones are contract drivers. In my areas a altmof guys who used to do bread routes bought FedEx routes.
The green ones are contract drivers. In my areas a altmof guys who used to do bread routes bought FedEx routes.
Are you saying that Amazon drivers have to bring their own cars and handle the maintenance themselves.
A news like that would be worthy of some major headlines.
A news like that would be worthy of some major headlines.
I am unsure of what to think of this. It sickens me. In Scotland, Amazon workers chose to sleep in tents near the warehouse. In the depths of winter.
1) Workers in the warehouse at Amazon are in pretty bad conditions but how does this compare to working in a warehouse in other companies? Not sure if things are rosy elsewhere
2) What I fear is the growth and normalization of this behaviour in the future. Crappy jobs and child labour were acceptable during the Industrial Revolution, it was always better then no job in the rural area. But now it feels like a step backwards. In the information age, when tech giants are changing/destroying entire industries to create this new (great?) future?
3) And then, what happens when delivery drivers are replaced by drones and autonomous car makes car ownership irrelevant? Cloud subscription has made hardware servers irrelevant. Will we have car subscription to Google, Tesla and Uber? How will we earn money to pay for those subscriptions and buy on Amazon?
:?
1) Workers in the warehouse at Amazon are in pretty bad conditions but how does this compare to working in a warehouse in other companies? Not sure if things are rosy elsewhere
2) What I fear is the growth and normalization of this behaviour in the future. Crappy jobs and child labour were acceptable during the Industrial Revolution, it was always better then no job in the rural area. But now it feels like a step backwards. In the information age, when tech giants are changing/destroying entire industries to create this new (great?) future?
3) And then, what happens when delivery drivers are replaced by drones and autonomous car makes car ownership irrelevant? Cloud subscription has made hardware servers irrelevant. Will we have car subscription to Google, Tesla and Uber? How will we earn money to pay for those subscriptions and buy on Amazon?
:?
I can't wait until drones and other autonomous deliveries are available because maybe people will start getting their packages when they are supposed to.
For example I ordered a small package from Amazon last week. I don't order a lot from Amazon but when I do, there seems to always be delays and problems.
They guaranteed it by yesterday but it's still not here and isn't scheduled to be delivered for another 2 days putting it 4 days past the "guaranteed" delivery time.
This was standard shipping which is treated in the same way as free shipping in terms of delivery times.
Reason? Who knows, all I know is it was very likely a human error out of my control.
- Amazon's dashboard tells me I requested an address change even though I didn't.
- Amazon's phone rep tells me the USPS screwed up by delivering it to the wrong zone's post office.
- USPS tells me Amazon tends to ship things in pallets of 100 parcels and the pallet for my zone was filled so they put it into a different pallet (clearly knowing it would delay the package).
- USPS won't compensate me (I was put into a 30min 3 way conversation with Amazon, USPS and myself).
- Amazon updates me today saying the item has been dropped from tracking and is tagged as "lost in transit".
- USPS tells me the package is on the other side of the state I'm in (NY).
- Amazon said they will ship a new item out with 2 day delivery which doesn't help me get the item when it was supposed to arrive.
I understand that every single US govt ran service tends to be horrendous in terms of efficiency and quality but Amazon is supposed to be one of the most efficient platforms in the world.
I'm guessing this entire issue was due to some over worked warehouse employee just saying "fuck it" and threw my box into the wrong pallet but a robot would haven't made this mistake and a drone would have likely gotten to my residence a few hours after ordering instead of closer to 11-12 days.
For example I ordered a small package from Amazon last week. I don't order a lot from Amazon but when I do, there seems to always be delays and problems.
They guaranteed it by yesterday but it's still not here and isn't scheduled to be delivered for another 2 days putting it 4 days past the "guaranteed" delivery time.
This was standard shipping which is treated in the same way as free shipping in terms of delivery times.
Reason? Who knows, all I know is it was very likely a human error out of my control.
- Amazon's dashboard tells me I requested an address change even though I didn't.
- Amazon's phone rep tells me the USPS screwed up by delivering it to the wrong zone's post office.
- USPS tells me Amazon tends to ship things in pallets of 100 parcels and the pallet for my zone was filled so they put it into a different pallet (clearly knowing it would delay the package).
- USPS won't compensate me (I was put into a 30min 3 way conversation with Amazon, USPS and myself).
- Amazon updates me today saying the item has been dropped from tracking and is tagged as "lost in transit".
- USPS tells me the package is on the other side of the state I'm in (NY).
- Amazon said they will ship a new item out with 2 day delivery which doesn't help me get the item when it was supposed to arrive.
I understand that every single US govt ran service tends to be horrendous in terms of efficiency and quality but Amazon is supposed to be one of the most efficient platforms in the world.
I'm guessing this entire issue was due to some over worked warehouse employee just saying "fuck it" and threw my box into the wrong pallet but a robot would haven't made this mistake and a drone would have likely gotten to my residence a few hours after ordering instead of closer to 11-12 days.
I suspect Amazon may be overloading their capacity to actually fulfill their promised delivery timeframe (the hotel industry does this a lot with overselling rooms) for the simple reason that most people won't complain or can be placated easily. In the past year or so I've noticed a big change with Amazon Prime in particular to that end. I still get the items ordered after 1-2 days in shipping, but it's increasingly common to not ship for a day or two after the order is placed.
Without prime it typically takes 4-5 days for the order to go into "preparing for shipment", then 1-2 days for it to be shipped, followed by 2-3 days to get here.
It's kind of sad really. It's like your item is being held hostage because you haven't bought into using Prime.
For the reasons you just mentioned (it takes a day or 2 for it to ship) is the reason I'll never buy Prime. I don't like the idea of paying for a service that says 2-3 day free shipping but rarely comes in time.
Back in the good old days of mid-2000 you could order stuff from NewEgg and you'd get your package in 3-4 days all the time for the same shipping price that takes Amazon 6-10 days.
It's kind of sad really. It's like your item is being held hostage because you haven't bought into using Prime.
For the reasons you just mentioned (it takes a day or 2 for it to ship) is the reason I'll never buy Prime. I don't like the idea of paying for a service that says 2-3 day free shipping but rarely comes in time.
Back in the good old days of mid-2000 you could order stuff from NewEgg and you'd get your package in 3-4 days all the time for the same shipping price that takes Amazon 6-10 days.
When an order is stuck in 'preparing for dispatch' it is easier just to cancel the order and try again. The same item magically gets dispatched as normal.
>a robot would haven't made this mistake and a drone would have likely gotten to my residence a few hours
Perhaps. But the multiplier effect of each of these is zero. We may have those awful humans to thank for our jobs.
Perhaps. But the multiplier effect of each of these is zero. We may have those awful humans to thank for our jobs.
> Seems like "it sucks to works for Amazon" has been added in a permanent spot on journalist's radars
It's not a narrative that was pulled out of thin air. It was earned.
It's not a narrative that was pulled out of thin air. It was earned.
I've said it before on here and I'll say it again. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart around 2009. I returned to the United States after leaving for four years and I feel more than ever that Amazon is now the new Wal-Mart. I no longer buy anything from Amazon; to the point of using services like Digital Ocean/Linode/etc over AWS for the open source projects I work on.
You're using the wrong phrasing - Amazon would never put it like that. Those drivers are Amazon associates, not workers.
UPS drivers have a union contract that caps the amount of hours a week they can work. Last I heard, that was 60 hours/wk.
Once they time out, UPS needs another driver. From what I hear in my area, they're way understaffed.
Once they time out, UPS needs another driver. From what I hear in my area, they're way understaffed.
UPS is better, but iirc they screwed the new guys a few years ago with benefits.
You still work super hard and are watched carefully.
The worst are the Amazon sweatshops and the post office. Letter carriers mostly got buyouts and the replacements make $12/hr and have awful benefits.
You still work super hard and are watched carefully.
The worst are the Amazon sweatshops and the post office. Letter carriers mostly got buyouts and the replacements make $12/hr and have awful benefits.
I guess it sucks if it's a full time job. The kind of job that works people to the bones and leaves them with anxiety and depression in their late 30's . I did shitty jobs too, working in corn fields and stuff like that. It just breaks you.
I only know one Amazon driver in Austin, so it's just an anecdote. He is a student and likes it better than driving for Uber. He makes $18/hr plus tips and can just pick up hour shifts whenever they are available. He makes good money and it fits perfectly with his school schedule. He avoids telling people about it because he doesn't want the competition for shifts.
People are tipping Amazon drivers? Or is this just for food delivery?
I am guessing he is referring to Amazon Prime Now where you are expected to tip. But generally I do not tip because I think Amazon should pay their drivers. And most of the time they didn't even come to my door, so they don't deserve any tip. Though, I don't use that service as much.
Though thinking back, I did leave $1 or $2 tips here and there, depending on their service.
Though thinking back, I did leave $1 or $2 tips here and there, depending on their service.
Tipping in general is a big deal to me. I usually overdo it because I'm just pro-labor.
But, at a certain point you do start to feel a little scammed by the companies simply underpaying their workers and expecting you to make up the difference.
More recently, this trend of tip jars for people just ringing you up and other minimal things is downright annoying. Extra money for <20 seconds of minimal effort wherein the service quality level is relatively unimprovable? C'mon.
But, at a certain point you do start to feel a little scammed by the companies simply underpaying their workers and expecting you to make up the difference.
More recently, this trend of tip jars for people just ringing you up and other minimal things is downright annoying. Extra money for <20 seconds of minimal effort wherein the service quality level is relatively unimprovable? C'mon.
If you think Amazon doesn't pay well, I think it's a better practice to just mentally add $1 or $2 to the price of what your ordering and call it the tip, rather than stiffing the drivers. If you can't afford it with tip, you can't afford it.
I think I'd be less annoyed if Amazon wouldn't just fill out the tip field automatically. I ordered a GPU last time for $400 and they wanted me to provide $30 tip. I changed it to $2 or $3.
I know they have Prime Now in the Dallas/Ft Worth area (Amazon has at least 5 or 6 warehouses near DFW alone) but I haven't seen any job openings for it. I did apply for Amazon Flex, but like many others, I simply never heard back from them.
A co-worker got a call back about it, but they declined him because his vehicle wasn't considered fuel efficient enough.
ryanobjc(3)
In Seattle the people driving Amazon trucks are maniacs, way worse than UPS and FedEx. OnTrac is pretty bad too.
Do they pay more for crunch times like this? Paying more often does wonders for motivation.
If only there were a way to bring multiple employees together to overcome the power imbalance between them and an employer. /s
It's amazing how much of the labor force itself is anti-union.
Not sure why this type of thing keeps on popping up as "news". The fact that jobs requiring no skill will be driven down to bad conditions/pay/whatever is sort of axiomatically obvious and inevitable given how capitalism and a more-or-less free labor market works.
Having held one of these shit jobs in the past to get myself through college, I understand how much it sucks, but complaining/negotiating when you have zero leverage simply does not work (in the sense it is very likely not the highest expected value use of your time -- IMO a good way is education, get yourself ready for a slightly better job, repeat until happy).
Having held one of these shit jobs in the past to get myself through college, I understand how much it sucks, but complaining/negotiating when you have zero leverage simply does not work (in the sense it is very likely not the highest expected value use of your time -- IMO a good way is education, get yourself ready for a slightly better job, repeat until happy).
Amazon is the new Walmart.
There will always be a new Walmart as long as most of us are primarily concerned about price and/or convenience above all else.
There will always be a new Walmart as long as labor law is not enforced and union-busting is not punished.
[deleted]
> He starts each day with about 260 boxes, which he has to drop off at maybe 200 addresses across up to 80 miles in Southern California. Factoring in the time needed to load and gas up his white van, which sometimes sports a magnetized Amazon logo on the back door, Echeverria has to hit one home every two minutes, on average.
> Prime Now orders — an Amazon service launched in 2014 that allows customers to get a product within hours of clicking on it. She says Amazon gave her up to 72 packages to deliver in four hours, meaning she had to deposit one package roughly every three minutes.
Remote tracking via Android app:
> Amazon gives him an Android phone with an app that scans packages and determines his route. He says it is also used to track how much of a dent he’s made in his delivery load that day. He has learned not to stop for lunch because, he said, Amazon employees will call his dispatcher at any point in the day if they notice that he’s behind schedule.
Complaint threshold of 0.2%:
> Amazon does not want any individual driver to exceed a ratio of two complaints for every 1,000 packages they’re tasked with delivering. But he said that Amazon does not instruct LMS to fire drivers who have had a trend of high complaints. LMS independently starts a disciplinary process, he said, starting with retraining, if a driver has a high number of citations for two consecutive weeks.