Please don't break the site guidelines, regardless of wrong or annoying another comment is. "Did you even the read the article" is explicitly against the rules. So is downvote-baiting, and flamewar generally.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Will you be more specific on the moral aspect here? Because from the article, it seems like the individuals working in the warehouse are compensated at a rate they agreed to (not being cheated of wages), are safe (no unsafe work practices are revealed here), and are given clear guidelines about their work tasks and standards (not being fired for discriminatory reasons).

I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, so I will not make any flippant summaries of your post. I just want to know what Amazon would have to do to become moral: how long should the breaks be? How should they modify their performance policies? Etc.

> it seems like the individuals working in the warehouse are compensated at a rate they agreed to (not being cheated of wages)

This argument implies that workers are on equal footing with employers when negotiating for wages. You forget that not all industries are like ours.

We've created a world full of pointless cruelty. "How long should the breaks be" is the wrong question to ask. Progress, to me, would look like a lot more workers doing a lot less work, and being compensated at a level which gives them financial security. Unpleasant work takes a toll on people. 8 hours should not be the goal, it should be the maximum.

> I just want to know what Amazon would have to do to become moral

1. 8h/day max

2. double pay extra work and limit the maximum amount to +3h

3. not 'monitoring' bathroom breaks

4. not fire people on the spot, give them warnings and help them improve

5. don't use metrics as a weapon agains them, instead build programs that help improvements

6. let workers to pack seated as well (to not stay 8h on their feet)

7. hire more occasional workers for very peak days (ie: BF, CM)

8. Not fire for sick leaves nor holidays leaves

9. Not fire for taking holidays during BF

This are the first 9 thing that i can come out with.

It's interesting for me anyway how many of the things related to Unions and workers rights the are at the center of the debate in the US now, are either illegal or totally unacceptable in EU.

18 hours of work is unsafe whatever the job is.

when people are tired, stressed, and rushed, unsafe situations naturally arise.

I don't know that its specific to Amazon but more generally comes from a core ideology of abiding by concepts of free market rules to the exclusion of concepts of humanity.

Just to be clear, in this case "free market rules" include:

1. Most customers choose to buy from the seller with the lowest price.

2. Employees are free to leave their employment if they find the conditions intolerable.

Which of these rules do you want to change?

I'd like to indirectly change:

> 1. Most customers choose to buy from the seller with the lowest price.

By setting a floor for the lowest operational cost, defining such basic concepts as:

1. Maximum work schedule (12h/day mandatory is not acceptable);

2. Minimum wage.

If every seller must abide by the same rules, the market is fair. Costs won't be absurd and no worker will work under medieval conditions. I know costs won't be absurd because I live in Europe, where these rules are in place, and we can still buy gadgets and books.

Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

> Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

That is not a bug, it is a feature. I prefer to never have people in medieval working conditions. Pushing society to evolve past that need is a good thing.

So far, we have been able to reallocate jobs so that automation does not cause widespread unemployment. When[1] that is no longer the case, we can as a society find another stable working model.

[1] It is possible that automation is already exceeding society's "job reallocation rate". It is still difficult to tell, but something to be vigilant about.

> Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

You are describing one of the large flaws of globalization, which we should, as a society, have already tackled. It is not acceptable, for example, that Chinese or Indian workers get poisoned by producing chemicals without proper hazard protection in place.

That it is possible to circumvent regulation is not a justification to abolish regulation. It is a justification to close the circumvention loopholes.

Hmmm. Lots to unpack here, but I'll focus on your comments about globalization. I suppose you could implement regulations to prohibit importation of goods/services from jurisdictions that don't have acceptable standards in place. By doing so, you would probably destroy the economies of India and China. Without a cost advantage (due to lower labour and environmental standards), the shipping costs would pretty much ensure that you would always buy from local suppliers. Wouldn't the destruction of emerging economies result in more victims than would poor labour/environmental standards?

>but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

Their job is going to be automated out of existence anyway, so the choice is between being paid less, or being paid more, until it is.

Sure the issue is when employees don't feel like they can leave, because they can't afford a period of unemployment and don't have the time/energy to seek new employment whilst working 12 hour shifts and potentially supporting a family.

How is that Amazon’s fault or problem?

Is your issue with Amazon, or with the system of capitalism in general? If the latter, why are people criticizing Amazon specifically?

It's a general criticism of the system. Highlighting Amazon's particular behaviour is useful as a demonstration of how/where the system fails, and may produce short term wins if it incentivises amazon to stop being inhumane.

I sincerely don't want to oversimplify your argument, but it seems like the logical end-point would be a global socialist/communist society. Is that your desired/intended outcome?

What...?

You get a more functional labour economy by having labour able to access better opportunities. If there's a killer sales agent that won't apply for my sales position because Amazon is dunking him with 14 hour days repeatedly, no one benefits besides Amazon.

I agree, and I would not want to see regulation or laws that prevent labour access to other opportunities. But asking people to work overtime for specific reasons/period doesn't prevent them from looking for other opportunities. That seems like a straw man.

That's a deceptively complex question. I don't necessarily agree that that's the logical endpoint to my reasoning: it might be that we have to continue to appeal to basic human greed/power drives - in a regulated way - in order to progress and develop as a species. It might be that a global socialist society can't do that. I'm not sure. I just think that right now, many developed countries could certainly do with reinforcement of labour rights.

To answer from another perspective, a society resembling something like socialism or anarchism is what I personally would prefer to live in. I have doubts about whether we can move towards that from the current situation or whether it's workable, full stop. But it sure would be nice.

As a side note, I'm curious about what down votes mean in this context. Are people registering their feelings about the free market? Are they suggesting that the content of my comment is in some way inappropriate or offensive? Or that I have not followed the rules of HN?

Personally, I'm not too concerned about HN karma, but I'm curious about the incentive system that it creates. Does the karma system simply promote adherence to the majority/popular view, or does it improve the quality of discussion?

You make good points, but accuse the gp of not reading the article and talk about post scoring, both of which are against guidelines.

And this too:

> I'm quite sick of the average HN commenter's attitude towards Amazon.

Which is a bit insulting, as there is no "average HN commenter." We are all individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

From what I understand, many hourly workers look forward to the rare opportunity of getting paid 1.5x to work overtime. Also, a lot of the workers in these industries are hired as seasonal temps for the holidays. The salaried managers sound like they have it pretty rough, but I'm guessing that this is actually a pretty good job in the hourly category.

>From what I understand, many hourly workers look forward to the rare opportunity of getting paid 1.5x to work overtime.

Nobody looks forward to working extra hours at a job that is already tiring. What they look forward to is the chance for a brief respite from the constant stress of poverty, even if it comes at great cost to everything else in their lives.

Source: worked as a welder in a shipyard after the first dotcom crash. Took all the overtime I could get, because bills don't pay themselves. I enjoyed the work in a general sense, and my coworkers, but a human body can only push itself so hard before there are long-term consequences, and that is something that most hourly workers have to deal with over their entire careers.

tl;dr- "Looking forward" to overtime is like saying that someone who is drowning is "looking forward" to breathing.

Still, Amazon is probably treating their workers better than the average Chinese electronics factory or Indian textile company.

And every employee is being treated better than chattel slaves, but that doesn't mean only chattel slaves have a reason to complain.

I didn't mean to imply anything like that, but instead that we shouldn't fool ourselves when we use our electronic devices or put on our clothes. It's not like bad work conditions are a new thing. We have been profiting from them for a long time. It's always easier to look the other way and find a scapegoat.

Yeah, I think this is perfectly acceptable. If you don’t, don’t work for Amazon. Easy. I worked 12 hour days with a horrible boss as a fresh grad and only made $65k a year with a CS degree. This cat made $80k with a high school qualification, yet he still complains about a job he knowingly accepted.

I’m very interested to learn about Amazon tech, but instead I see an article just about everyday about how Amazon is some horrible sweatshop.

Your post is false. This guy had an MBA. And he is not complaining about his salary.