One company I worked for 10 years ago (as an engineer) had signs up in the call centre telling staff there not to pee in the bins. Apparently this is a common thing in call centres. This is in the UK.
Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
241–250 of 721 posts
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I do already own some of the robots. I have Amazon stock in my 401k. That's what "the people owning the robots" looks like. What you're getting at is that there are many people right now who are too poor (and are going to be too poor) to ever own any part of the robots. This century's great debate is forming up to be whether or not we should give them some anyway even though they can't "earn" it for whatever movi…
> But I do already own some of the robots. I have Amazon stock in my 401k. That's what "the people owning the robots" looks like. Is it though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't stock only generates value if it increases in price (or the company decides it wants to pay dividends), and not directly from the productivity of robots? To put it a bit more clearly, your stock only makes you money if Amazon keeps growing…
Yes it would.
This isn't a new problem you are talking about. Stocks have worked like this since they have existed.
Go take a look at any major company that "stopped growing" but is still making money, and see how it works.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#243It seems that everyone is assuming that the allegations in the article are true, and are commenting based on that assumption. But are they true? Can someone corroborate? p.s. the reason I ask is because things are often more complex than a simple narrative would have you believe, and it's worthwhile thinking about what's actually going on rather than just taking in a narrative without questioning it.
Moreover, Amazon is a global company with 500,000+ employees. Painting the entire company with this brush is poor analysis.
If this portrayal is representative of this distribution center, it could be the result of a general manager whose incentive bonuses motivate him/her to be strict about how pickers spend their time and grant strikes even for legitimate medical excuses.
Or it could be true that all of Amazon is this way. In that case, however, this one circumstance is insufficient to draw that conclusion.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#244What do the women warehouse workers do?
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#245I used to work in a factory floor. Having a job at this factory used to be one of the nice things in the town. For the fear of being driven to work too much, workers refused to increase the thru-put beyond a union limit. They used that as a tool for bargaining for more pay. Observing bathroom breaks became the responsibility of supervisor. There were many missed daily targets, which became a regular discussion point. But in the end the entire thing was pushed too far. This, coupled with the top management inability to run the factory at a reasonably profitable state, finally lead the shut down. Ultimately it ended up hurting the workers more than the top management. Majority of top management found jobs elsewhere, and most of the workers ended up not having any jobs. This story merely reflects the constant struggle we are witnessing for generations.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#246My fear is that the future of work for most people is not unemployment, but shitty jobs like this. My feeling is that in order to avoid this and prosper, the people need to own the robots that do all the work (Marxism heyy). If robots provide huge productivity gains, then they will provide those gains for their owners. If it’s the big corporations that own them, they will see the gains. But as long as people are trea…
That's a naive way of thinking about economics, finance, and business. Marxism will never work. You can have robots that increase profit and decrease costs for customers at the same time. Take autonomous driving, for example - it can be both profitable and affordable at the same time, meaning that the average person will be better off.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2017/1...
The average working class American is financing their car. The average car payment is now an insane $500 per month. Over the average working career, that type of monthly payment represents a multi million dollar net worth at retirement. So if people are afraid of shitty jobs, they should prioritize wise financial decisions over short-term spending so that they can build their wealth and get leverage over shitty employment opportunities.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When you own the machine, you can physically operate it yourself. Can I? I've got no clue how to run a Kiva, I just know that somewhere, there's one making me a few pennies right now being run and maintained by people who know what they're doing.
Following the car analogy, many people don’t know how to change their oil, but they could if they wanted. That is a freedom a piece of normal stock does not give you. If your stock truly represented an equal share of the operation, you could work with other shareholders and manage the local warehouse to your liking. It sounds like you’re satisfied with Amazon, so perhaps you won’t get involved. But it would give the…
I'm not exactly disagreeing. I'd absolutely explicitly dump my Amazon (the whole mutual fund its in actually) if a robot-owning stock with a "shareholder bill of rights" as you describe existed.
A product/brand independent "means of production" type investment is an interesting idea. It still doesn't fix the fact that there are people who are just never going to have the resources to buy into such a thing, which I think is really the core of the issue.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I do already own some of the robots. I have Amazon stock in my 401k. That's what "the people owning the robots" looks like. Is it though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't stock only generates value if it increases in price (or the company decides it wants to pay dividends), and not directly from the productivity of robots? To put it a bit more clearly, your stock only makes you money if Amazon keeps growing…
Due to population increase the revenues would grow. When a company stops growing and increasing revenue its not keeping up with population increase and may as well be dying. There are also stocks with high dividends, which are paid out based on profit and not by the stock increasing in value. This is obviously ignoring the fact many people either make horrible financial decision or are too poor to invest in stocks.
> Due to population increase the revenues would grow. When a company stops growing and increasing revenue its not keeping up with population increase and may as well be dying.
I'd like to retort this because I think it's important to have a bit of perspective here:
1. Population growth doesn't imply market growth.
If I sell polio treatment, my market are the number of people with polio, which thankfully hasn't been correlated with population growth.
2. Market growth doesn't imply revenue growth.
Competition.
3. Revenue growth doesn't imply profit growth.
Say, for example, I run a company building cheap computers for the children of low-income families. As I move into new countries and expand my revenue I might want to, instead of increasing profits, make my computers cheaper so more children have access to them.
2 and 3 are usually not true when companies are trying to maximize profits, but I don't think 1 should be at all rare.
Anyway, this is besides where the discussion was meant to go, but thought I'd share.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I do already own some of the robots. I have Amazon stock in my 401k. That's what "the people owning the robots" looks like. What you're getting at is that there are many people right now who are too poor (and are going to be too poor) to ever own any part of the robots. This century's great debate is forming up to be whether or not we should give them some anyway even though they can't "earn" it for whatever movi…
Around 80% of stock is owned by the top 10% wealthiest individuals[1]. More recent work[2] puts the percentage even higher. You might own some of the robots but most people don't. [1]: https://appam.confex.com/appam/2012/webprogram/ExtendedAbstr... [2]: http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-ric...
But you know what most people DO own? Unnecessary consumer debt that stunts their ability to save and invest. When the average car payment in America is around $500 a month, it's clear evidence that people have a spending problem rather than an income problem. Here's an idea: Teach people not to finance $500 worth of car each month (plus gas, plus insurance, plus maintenance, plus healthcare costs) and suddenly people will be able to amass multiple millions of dollars in investments over their working career.
Re: Amazon warehouse workers 'peed in bottles' fearing punishment for taking breaks
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other side of the coin, if they hadn't spent the money on reinvesting, they wouldnt be the size they are now or employ as many people. (This is not saying they shouldn't treat employees better, just that the reason they employ so many people in the first place is bc of reinvesting and expanding to more areas. It's not as simplistic as, 'if they have the money they should spend it on people instead of business'…
If you can't grow your business to be a monstrosity without treating your employees like slaves, your business should not exist.
You clearly completely ignored my second sentence. "That's not to say they shouldn't treat employees better'.
It is a simple fact I stated. Reinvesting in new areas allows them to employ more people in those areas. This isn't an opinion, it's just a fact.
> If you can't grow your business to be a monstrosity without treating your employees like slaves, your business should not exist.
Hardly any companies make it to be "a monstrosity" in the first place. Jeff Bezos did it by reinvesting and expanding. Apple did it with ridiculous margins and taking advantage of people in foreign countries (who literally jump off the roof of FoxConn to end the suffering). Microsoft did it with monopolistic business practices. IBM and Google as well. Giant clothing companies to this day still get caught with their hands in sweatshops. Banks milk people for fees and have the power to crash the stock market through stupid gambles, taking peoples savings down with them. Airlines take advantage of their employees by paying almost nothing and customers by merging until there is very little competition and then gouging fees from people. Same with ISP's.
The idea that "a business shouldn't exist if it can't get gigantic without unfair practices, taking shortcuts and hurting and taking advantage of people" is a moral one, but not realistic in today's world.
Should it be changed? Yes. Of course.
But all I did was state a fact. It's how the economy works. And Amazon would not employ as many people as it does now without the reinvestment in new areas and taking shortcuts in other areas, like how they treat their employees. Just a fact. A fact that is despicable. but a fact nonetheless.