81–90 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what do you expect them to do with their piss? Drink it? How jaded to human suffering must one be to report something as minor as this to a company known for having awful labor practices…
Keep it in the bottle until the shift ends? Dump it in the woods? Lots of choices that don't include dumping directly in front of a customer's home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You... ratted out the guy who delivers your packages to his corporate masters for doing the very human homeostatic requirement of urination? Seriously?
Peeing in a bottle wasn't the thing that was reported. Emptying a bottle of urine in front of the customer's home was the problem. The driver should have emptied the bottle into a toilet on his next break (or after his shift). Or, failing that, dump it in the woods out of the way.
If you'll notice, we're now heading down the path of playing out ever-more-elaborate strategies for individual delivery drivers to maintain homeostasis without offending the delicate sensibilities of the people they serve, instead of questioning why this is a problem in the first place.
We had a driver pour out a bottle of pee directly onto the street in front of our place from his open driver’s side van window on Saturday afternoon. My wife got a photo and then immediately after they delivered packages and left I went and took a photo because I couldn’t believe it. I had not heard about the controversy until then, but my wife had been following it. I read these tweets and I also didn’t believe they…
Somewhat off topic but this is actually pretty positive proactive approach to security in the finest spirt of due diligence. It should be ok for people to open tickets to look into curious things no matter how trivial. Tickets don’t have to become incidents. This is what triage is for. The real security incident here is how did the intercept learn of that ticket as that should really be classified.
Reminds me of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/media/the-interc...
> The Intercept scrambled to publish a story on the report, ignoring the most basic security precautions. The lead reporter on the story sent a copy of the document, which contained a crease showing it had been printed out, to the N.S.A. media affairs office, all but identifying Ms. Winner as the leaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you feel that lies are being spread about you and you try to correct the record, how is that a self-inflicted wound from ego? Isn’t that what anyone would do?
If you're a person, sure. If you're a business and you have a good amount of Congress in your pocket, have near infinite wealth, and get away with a myriad of abuses against your employees, why draw the ire of the public with rude comments against sitting Congressmen and Congresswomen? Do you think these comments serve to further Amazon's goals, or have they hurt? It's clear to me as well that Amazon's replies were o…
They're going to tell people what their version of reality is, and people will have to accept it; There will be no comeuppance, and alternate realities and truths are to be forcefully disregarded whenever that's more convenient than ignoring them.
Somewhat off topic but this is actually pretty positive proactive approach to security in the finest spirt of due diligence. It should be ok for people to open tickets to look into curious things no matter how trivial. Tickets don’t have to become incidents. This is what triage is for. The real security incident here is how did the intercept learn of that ticket as that should really be classified.
Is it, though? It strikes me as a sarcastic joke by burnt out security staff. Which would explain why we are hearing about it.
They very much favour proactive reports, and heavily emphasised that they'd rather have a ticket and resolve it as nothing, than not be ticketed at all because you're not sure. Unusual behaviour on a twitter account are most definitely things they'd expect to have reported to them for evaluation, or expect to report themselves if they saw it.
Somewhat off topic but this is actually pretty positive proactive approach to security in the finest spirt of due diligence. It should be ok for people to open tickets to look into curious things no matter how trivial. Tickets don’t have to become incidents. This is what triage is for. The real security incident here is how did the intercept learn of that ticket as that should really be classified.
Is it, though? It strikes me as a sarcastic joke by burnt out security staff. Which would explain why we are hearing about it.
Actually rereading it again I would say the source is the person that opened the ticket and not a member of the security team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peeing in a bottle wasn't the thing that was reported. Emptying a bottle of urine in front of the customer's home was the problem. The driver should have emptied the bottle into a toilet on his next break (or after his shift). Or, failing that, dump it in the woods out of the way.
Perhaps he had to urinate again, and did not have an additional bottle? What then should he have done? If you'll notice, we're now heading down the path of playing out ever-more-elaborate strategies for individual delivery drivers to maintain homeostasis without offending the delicate sensibilities of the people they serve, instead of questioning why this is a problem in the first place.
Workers need bathrooms, and employers have to pay for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% believe that drivers pee in containers - heck, my grandfather and I used to do the same when fishing - they make containers with handles specifically made for this. That said, given that the firestorm has become very public, I would expect disgruntled (or any driver, they are wage slaves) drivers to be acting more conspicuous to draw more attention to the problem, which may temporarily inflate its visibility,…
Why wouldn't you just pee into the water into which you are fishing?
A tin can / bottle works in more situations. You just pour it out over the side after then rinse it in the lake.
So you can have things like technical committees that analyse the basic facts of inflation adjustments of wages, wage changes in competing industries or economies and real wage increases. As well the unions in export-driven sectors negotiating first, and government and services employees falling in line, in order to continue to compete in the global economy.
I believe this trust also builds productivity, but looks like Jeff Bezos has a different opinion.