I've worked plenty of menial jobs, and the ones that just killed me inside were the ones that had extremely strict rules that eliminated my agency as a human. Unloading bricks for landscaping work? Hard labor, but mentally fantastic and I was only judged on how hard the other workers thought I was working, which as a human is easy to pick up on socially. Working on a food assembly line where I was judged on my placement & speed of a repetitive physical action? Almost debilitating stress and exhaustion.
Combining menial work with piles of stress is what creates physically & psychologically draining work that a night of sleep wont recover you from.
In fact, I'm surprised that none of the comments here have yet mentioned what I see as the worst, and tangibly different aspect of Amazon warehouse work: the gamification of the tasks.
> blue bars on the scanner count down the amount of time they have left to complete the task
> the company constantly sends messages to workers’ scanners telling them to work faster
> without warning, Amazon changed the amount of time workers had to stow an item from six minutes to four minutes and 12 seconds
This sound absolutely terrible. This would make any normal task stressful. The randomized changes and constant oversight strike me as borderline abuse/interrogation techniques. And while the article doesn't dig into it, I assume this is driven by AMZL software systems, operating on a global scale (using all workers and all warehouses as inputs), with machine-learning algorithms constantly tweaking the timers and count-down bars, and possibly even suggesting to managers "hey, worker A has slowed down in the past 15 minutes, would you like to send this pre-written message X to A? Tap [Yes] [No]". This sort of thing might sound like a brilliant idea to some rockstar developer in Seattle, and to the data science team, and the management team signing off, when in reality it creates a Hunger Games race-to-the-bottom mentality in your actual workforce.
And this is materially different from how Stater Brothers across the street operates (or any other warehouse job), presumably.
One more thing. Often people's argument around these issues seems to end with: "it's better than no job at all". We can frame the issues in more constructive ways, don't you think? We should aim to find ways to adjust the system to better achieve the goals we want: innovative technology, fast delivery, fair pay, good benefits, subject to the complexities of the world.
I think questioning this idea is the whole point of the article. It's a job, but does the job pay enough to improve the lot of the individual worker? Maybe that isn't fully obvious to the worker because they're worried about no job at all, but if the city of the business and residence of the workers isn't collectively benefiting, then maybe that's a hint that low-skill jobs don't pay enough. (Or are on a questionable edge).
Finally, if a business sets up with a portion of its employees earning subsistence wage, it's competition to other businesses which are more willing to pay better wages. These conditions are a potential drag on the progress of civilization if that's the case.
How long should we have kept them unemployed to wait for a new high-paying business to show up?
But still it's not an area you want to move forward with no introspection.
Edit: If low-workers are paid such a low margin that they have no personal buffer for uncertainties such as automation in warehouses, then we also guarantee that the government ends up paying for that transition (or we get unrest and/or economic malaise). If they're paid a higher margin, the economy ends up more efficient at flexibility transitioning from changes like warehouses becoming fully automated. (because offset workers can make individual transition choices that that make local sense instead of trying to apply slowly responding gov't policy).
I think a major difference you're overlooking is that in your late teens and early 20s, you can do pretty hard labor without much effect.
I'm only in my mid 30s now and when I do a hard day's physical labor, I feel it a lot more.
Someone in their 40s or 50s or 60s is going to have a much harder time doing that kind of stuff every day.
It doesn't paint the full picture to say this is a problem with Amazon or UPS or whatever...
The problem really seems to be lack of additional opportunity for people who are unable or unwilling (or not in good enough health) to perform hard labor.
The same kind of applies to other low-skilled minimum-wage jobs like food-service. There's not much opportunity, so you find mid-career people doing jobs that only require (and pay) at levels that are appropriate for highschool or college kids.
(Not criticizing your comment here just providing my own conclusion to your point)
What you describe is accurate, we use to get entire trucks of "Total Gym" boxes that weighed 70+ lbs each. Turn over was high and there was accountability similar to what I read in this article but with two key differences. Hourly workers at UPS were unionized and the carrot at the end of the stick seemed much more realistic as numerous guys were promoted to supervisors and drivers who could make 6 figures. I was promoted to my part time supervisor role after a couple of months in fact.
Even though many jobs might not be "grueling," at least in warehouses where the inventory tends to be lightweight, the repetition and requirement to meet rate will ensure that even relatively simple tasks can wear people out. Having to stand in one place for an entire shift, in the Kiva-enabled warehouses, can be more physically demanding on your lower back, knees and feet than the jobs that let you move around.
From my experience the managers at my warehouse are very open to moving people around to fill different roles if you request it. This is obviously anecdotal but from my experience people tend to want to stick to one specific job rather than move around.
Still, I don't think employees should have to ask at all - Amazon should regularly rotate their FC employees through various roles, even within a workday. Doing so would improve performance, attentiveness and morale across the board, reduce repetitive strain injuries, and give each employee an idea of how various roles interrelate.
I've done both. You may think picking and packing orders is less grueling, but it's not. Pick rate and pack rate expectations are high enough to ensure they're not. I'd take truckloading any day of the week.
From the disposable contractor workforce engineered to prevent unionization, to the Taylorist micromanagement to the lousy pay, its a nasty business. Walmart seems like a benevolent force in comparison.
It’s not better than no job at all. It’s a race to the bottom that is putting people out of work and hurting the wretches working for them.
Not knowing if your manager will give you 4 or 40 hours is stressful.
Amazon measures everything. Their incentive compensation plans should be rewarding employees that exceed quota with daily bonuses.
One-year of tenure should not be required to qualify for basic benefits.
In short, these employees need to unionize and collectively bargain.
I'm guessing you have never worked under the quota system. Guess what happens when one meets a quota? He or she gets a quota increased. Guess what happens when he or she no longer meets a new quota? He or she gets fired. In a quota based system the goal of every employee is to hit the quota on a nose
"Regression to the mean" occurs when there are no incentives for over-performers.
Lazy management will simply raise quota without assessing downside risk (higher turnover, more injury, more sick days).
Good management will constantly adjust a balanced quota using a gaussian distribution.
The job is mechanical, most of the grunts are temps and they don’t get sick days. You put you A team in a safer place, crank the volume and purge the rest.
There are more people able to do that job that doesn't require much skill. Additionally, for any given job (especially high-skill jobs), it also much more likely for able and unwilling people to become willing than it is for willing and unable people to become able.
If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend. People expect better of Amazon, as they should. The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet; there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.
Sure. No problem. They'll just have no job. And you can continue to believe that.
> The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet
Because of the value of his stock. NOT income from sales! Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with. Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse.
> there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.
That's not what short changing is. Short changing is not delivering what was promised.
There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money".
There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs.
You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.
Ahh yes, the old, "You must lick the boots of your corporate masters for seeing to bless you with a few crumbs!" argument. It has never, ever held water.
"Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with."
That is a complete and utter lie.
"Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse."
The business as a whole, which is built on top of the retail business, is quite profitable. Them deciding to run retail at a loss does not change things.
"That's not what short changing is"
Yes, it is.
"There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money"."
Nobody is asking for a "magic fairy." They're pointing out that it's extremely unconscionable that the richest man in the world cannot afford to pay his workers a living wage.
"There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs."
And the people who don't have much choice should just go to hell? Seriously, what is it with this idea that people who weren't able to get an education, for whatever reason, don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?
The value of the stock is supposed to be a reflection of the value of the company. If their retail business is worthwhile even if running at a loss, than they could run at a larger loss with the only downside being the company's value dropping.
>You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.
Better education takes more tax money, something Amazon has spent their entire history trying to avoid paying. And how many of them need better education before the necessary jobs at the warehouses get better conditions?
Compare that to an Amazon fulfillment center, where from what I've seen they walk a lot to pick packages (but even that's being automated away by Kiva robots), put the contents into boxes, and load the boxes into trailers. Amazon packages are relatively light compared to most business shipments of stuff that went through UPS (which are usually things packed in bulk). Maybe it's mind-numbing, but the horror stories about how physically grueling it is (save for maybe when they weren't properly air conditioning the facilities) seem overboard. Even then, there were days in the summer where I'd be unloading a trailer that was baking in the sun all day, and we didn't get AC in there -- we just sweated it out and drank a lot of water.
I don't really know what people expect when they work in a warehouse. It's not glamorous and it's not easy, and it doesn't require that much skill so it doesn't command that much pay. But it's better than no job at all.