I speak for myself and not my employer, past or present. More and more facilities are becoming robot centric. The only reason humans exist in the robot facilities is because they do something robots don't do well yet. Usually grabbing objects of varying shapes, sizes, and weights. It's unsurprising that these facilities are moving at such a pace that they're becoming increasingly dangerous and inhumane. I have, in th…
Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#12I speak for myself and not my employer, past or present. More and more facilities are becoming robot centric. The only reason humans exist in the robot facilities is because they do something robots don't do well yet. Usually grabbing objects of varying shapes, sizes, and weights. It's unsurprising that these facilities are moving at such a pace that they're becoming increasingly dangerous and inhumane. I have, in th…
I think you're right that in this mix the robots will win. Amazon is working to automate their logistics as much as possible --but I think they should do it in a way more human way. They should design their process with people in mind and keep people's well being and limits in mind when designing as well as when managing people. Unionization is not an answer, well it might be but only temporarily as most people in fu…
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#13I speak for myself and not my employer, past or present. More and more facilities are becoming robot centric. The only reason humans exist in the robot facilities is because they do something robots don't do well yet. Usually grabbing objects of varying shapes, sizes, and weights. It's unsurprising that these facilities are moving at such a pace that they're becoming increasingly dangerous and inhumane. I have, in th…
I also speak for myself, and there are tons of positions in my FC that don't involve robots at all. In the ship dock, we use conveyor belts, PIT machines, and pallet jacks. As you would imagine, it's quite crazy over there with tons of workers. But I wouldn't know how that area could be automated any further. Humans are needed to build pallets of packages and to build walls in trucks. Otherwise, we would lose money f…
Amazon deserves to have their say, and there's nothing wrong with your comments per se, but if you're really a social media ambassador be honest about it and don't pretend your comments are entirely independent.
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#14The article mistates a cause and effect. The injuries are not caused by Amazon's need to move packages they're caused by Amazon's unreasonable and apparently unsafe systemic requierements on employees. Amazon could move the packages it needs with more employees more safely but have chosen not to.
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#15The article mistates a cause and effect. The injuries are not caused by Amazon's need to move packages they're caused by Amazon's unreasonable and apparently unsafe systemic requierements on employees. Amazon could move the packages it needs with more employees more safely but have chosen not to.
If anything the problem, going by the story, has to do with Amazon's hiring practices. Anyone with a brain could guess that a 54 year old female new hire is at greater liability of injury when performing this sort of work. But I imagine she wouldn't have applied if she didn't need the money so is it better to 'protect' every worker because some chose to take a risk?
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right that in this mix the robots will win. Amazon is working to automate their logistics as much as possible --but I think they should do it in a way more human way. They should design their process with people in mind and keep people's well being and limits in mind when designing as well as when managing people. Unionization is not an answer, well it might be but only temporarily as most people in fu…
Unionization is only one component. The other is taxing automation.
Minimum wage you can think of as subsidizing automation—pay more or automate. That's not bad to the worker, and not a policy I'd complain about, but the tech industry doesn't deserve the subsidy.
UBI is more neutral, you pay more whether you automate or not, and the worker still has more negotiating power. This is better.
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unionization is only one component. The other is taxing automation.
No better to do a UBI. The jobs aren't good for the workers, only the money is. Minimum wage you can think of as subsidizing automation—pay more or automate. That's not bad to the worker, and not a policy I'd complain about, but the tech industry doesn't deserve the subsidy. UBI is more neutral, you pay more whether you automate or not, and the worker still has more negotiating power. This is better.
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything the problem, going by the story, has to do with Amazon's hiring practices. Anyone with a brain could guess that a 54 year old female new hire is at greater liability of injury when performing this sort of work. But I imagine she wouldn't have applied if she didn't need the money so is it better to 'protect' every worker because some chose to take a risk?
If anything?? There seem to be a few problems that are unrelated to hiring practices. These warehouses are deathtraps regardless of your age or other attributes.
Re: Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees
#19The article mistates a cause and effect. The injuries are not caused by Amazon's need to move packages they're caused by Amazon's unreasonable and apparently unsafe systemic requierements on employees. Amazon could move the packages it needs with more employees more safely but have chosen not to.
If anything the problem, going by the story, has to do with Amazon's hiring practices. Anyone with a brain could guess that a 54 year old female new hire is at greater liability of injury when performing this sort of work. But I imagine she wouldn't have applied if she didn't need the money so is it better to 'protect' every worker because some chose to take a risk?
It's unreasonable workload/productivity requirements that are the problem.