Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#61

Post by [deleted] »

mey wrote: post #27
random5634 wrote: post #21

I actually left an early job because it didn't offer a 4x10. 4x10 is amazing. Your work days are your work days, but the extra day off is amazing. You can actually go do stuff. My own view - everyone should switch to 4x10 or at least have it as an option. Now I'm working crazy hours so all a dream anyways these days. Note 4x10 shifts are not new in warehousing (or even in mfg).

Is that better/worse with manual labor? In software dev, I tend to fluctuate how productive I can be for an extended period, so being useful (instead of just ass in seat) for 10 hours seems rough. Granted some days I go for 12 but that's unhealthy and mostly because I get into a groove I am not interested in breaking.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#62

Post by efsavage »

mc32 wrote: post #5
ceilingcorner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article, employees previously not on the 3rd shift schedule were given a week to either agree to it or lose their jobs. I don't know about you, but if my employer said I had to start working 1:20am to 11:50am within a week or lose my job, I'd be pretty angry too. Especially if I was a warehouse worker making a low salary that couldn't afford to find a new job easily.

I think you’re both right. Some people love these schedules _if_ they don’t have other commitments (like a second job or child care, etc). But making it mandatory and not making it elective, usually with some incentive (like 25% premium), is a bit predatory, or at least strong arming workers.

Sounds like that's kind of the point, you impose a policy only a certain type of worker can manage. The fact that this type of worker skews cheaper and more flexible (younger, single, no kids, lower cost of living, etc.) is probably not a coincidence.

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#63

Post by ggggggt »

deeblering4 wrote: post #46
random5634 wrote: post #21

I actually left an early job because it didn't offer a 4x10. 4x10 is amazing. Your work days are your work days, but the extra day off is amazing. You can actually go do stuff. My own view - everyone should switch to 4x10 or at least have it as an option. Now I'm working crazy hours so all a dream anyways these days. Note 4x10 shifts are not new in warehousing (or even in mfg).

Sure, a 4x10 would be workable if the hours fit roughly into a traditional household schedule. But 4x 1:20a-11:50a shifts per week would make it impossible to get your kids ready for school. And you'd be sleeping when it's time for dinner, or homework. Not to mention having time for a relationship with your spouse. Etc, etc. The shift they outline in the article sounds miserable.

You shouldn't be raising a family if you are doing bottomtier warehouse work.

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#64

Post by sgpl »

khalilravanna wrote: post #56

From the article it sounds like the spirit behind this decision is to better serve the customer by hitting fast delivery times more. Is this really such an important thing for people? I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed. I’d be interested to see the percentage of people complaining about slow delivery times vs the percentage of people w…

Unfortunately customers don't have direct insight into what goes on behind the scenes to make the supply chains more efficient. They are shielded from the exploitation that exists and for the most part don't care after the initial shock of learning about such exploitation.

My simple understanding of why this happens is: they move on to other things, convenience trumps everything else, there's so much bad stuff happening in the world that we don't really have the cognitive bandwidth to think about everything, a lot of times we can't really affect change so that doesn't help matters either.

Eg: Cloth factories in India/China/Bangladesh; Electronic manufacturing factories such as Foxconn, etc.

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#66

Post by AlexandrB »

khalilravanna wrote: post #56

From the article it sounds like the spirit behind this decision is to better serve the customer by hitting fast delivery times more. Is this really such an important thing for people? I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed. I’d be interested to see the percentage of people complaining about slow delivery times vs the percentage of people w…

What makes me laugh about this is that the Amazon customer experience is degrading in so many other, more important (to me) ways.

* Reviews are no longer trustworthy - subject to spam, altered product listings, and "discounts" (read bribes) paid to purchasers for positive reviews.

* Counterfeits are still rampant.

* Products regularly arrive damaged because they're not packaged well (usually tossed in an envelope).

* Amazon Prime cancellation process is becoming Kafkaesque.

Given the above, even if Amazon could do 1-hour delivery, I don't want to buy anything from them. Maybe they should focus more on some of these other problems instead of running their warehouse staff into the ground.

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#67

Post by maerF0x0 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #18
exmadscientist wrote: post #13

Serious question: if these jobs are so awful, and they do sound awful, why are people taking them? I can think of several possible answers, but I haven't the faintest clue which ones are (most) right.

Because the American middle class has been eviscerated by globalization, pandemic, etc and these are the best, er least bad, jobs available to many of them. They don’t have any leverage or bargaining power, collective or individual.

+1 I have long been saying that part of why American jobs are so bad is because people keep taking them. Of course, this does ignore the realities of why they keep taking them.

Getting people to a place where they can say "No" to a bad deal should be a major goal for progressives and conservatives alike because it fits their model of how the world works -- progressives want people to have the stability of life and "good jobs" and conservatives like it when market forces are reasonably at play (enough workers are saying "no" to bad jobs and "yes" to good jobs)

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#68

Post by mc32 »

efsavage wrote: post #62
mc32 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re both right. Some people love these schedules _if_ they don’t have other commitments (like a second job or child care, etc). But making it mandatory and not making it elective, usually with some incentive (like 25% premium), is a bit predatory, or at least strong arming workers.

Sounds like that's kind of the point, you impose a policy only a certain type of worker can manage. The fact that this type of worker skews cheaper and more flexible (younger, single, no kids, lower cost of living, etc.) is probably not a coincidence.

When I was in my late teens I briefly worked in a warehouse. Work was okay. Pay for what it was was okay. I would _not_ have liked an abrupt no options policy like this imposed. At least make it palatable with a premium per shift as well as make it optional. Ramming it like this will only make people resent it. In a non surveillance world, I’m certain shrinkage would go up from either theft or from intentional mishandling/damage.

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#69

Post by lfowles »

ggggggt wrote: post #63
deeblering4 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, a 4x10 would be workable if the hours fit roughly into a traditional household schedule. But 4x 1:20a-11:50a shifts per week would make it impossible to get your kids ready for school. And you'd be sleeping when it's time for dinner, or homework. Not to mention having time for a relationship with your spouse. Etc, etc. The shift they outline in the article sounds miserable.

You shouldn't be raising a family if you are doing bottomtier warehouse work.

Are they fundamentally incompatible other than arbitrary restrictions applied by the business?

Re: Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

#70

Post by jjk166 »

> But labor experts say the move to consolidate shifts in the warehouse industry is a tactic long used by employers to cut back on labor costs; hiring and scheduling fewer workers for longer shifts means paying for fewer benefits.

It's still 40 hours per person per week, and they run 24/7, so the only way this could reduce the number of benefits they have to pay for is if people on this schedule legitimately work better. While this could very well be the case (doctors and nurses for example typically work long shifts to reduce the risks associated with shift changes), I don't really see that being the case here where it doesn't really matter who is handling a package.

Further, the alternative scenario with lots of shorter shifts is a frequent predatory practice which allows employers to hire lots of part time individuals who do not qualify for benefits as well as giving them leverage over their employees by threatening to give them bad shifts and insufficient hours. It would be one thing if day shift workers were being asked to switch back and forth between day and night shifts with short notice, but that's not what's happening here. They are being offered a different position with steady hours to completely replace their current one. It would be silly to say that once you've accepted a day shift position you're ineligible from being offered a night shift position.

The article also frames this as exploiting existing workers who will get fired if they don't comply. But would it have been better for either the employees or amazon to just lay off everyone at the closing location and fill the new warehouses with all new hires, thus forcing those who would have been fine with working there into a difficult job market and depriving Amazon of skilled employees? One might make the argument that the current warehouse should not have been closed in the first place, but the factors which caused that decision and its merits are beyond the scope of this discussion. Regardless, giving everyone the voluntary option to remain employed in some capacity when closing a facility is, at least in my opinion, good practice which should not be vilified.

Post reply on HN