
I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine - brownie
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
======
lukifer
These conditions aren't unique to warehouse jobs; the customer call-center
industry is similar in many ways. Time is tracked down to the second, you are
being recorded and/or monitored at all times, tardiness and absenteeism are
ruthlessly enforced with no excuses, and there is relentless pressure to "hit
your numbers", which are often nearly impossible. And of course, you're still
expected to "always put the customer first" under these insane conditions.

If you don't live up in any respect, they're happy to let the next batch of
trainees have your job. In fact, they prefer it; those with 5+ years of
experience have the most to fear, as they acquire raises and cushier benefits
over time, and so are often fired for the same infraction that gets a newbie a
write-up.

I suppose that call centers are preferable to warehouses, in that there is
little risk of injury, and there are more opportunities to move up or transfer
careers. Still, this is one of the human costs of corporate capitalism in
general: if you don't have rare or specialized skills, you have no negotiating
power, and have to take whatever you can get. And don't even think about
uttering the word "union".

~~~
temphn
> costs of corporate capitalism

But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned
or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with the Kronstadt Rebellion and
ending with Solidarity), and had no option to quit or leave the country.

Capitalism hasn't yet completely eradicated _all_ drudgery from the world, but
Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal
workers have jobs than not. It is horribly oppressive for a software engineer
to imagine a job where you have to come in on time, but now remember your
frustration at closed stores or unavailable phone support/customer service.
For stores to be open at normal hours, for people to pick up the phone, for
emergency rooms to be open when you need them, _somebody_ has to care about
punctuality.

~~~
guelo
Another less extreme alternative to soviet communism is a unionized workforce
similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the
fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to
break up unions.

~~~
winestock
Why is this guy being downvoted? If automation were so imminent, then why
weren't the robots brought in five or ten years earlier? Why did business
interests work so hard for China to get "most favored nation" trading status
during the Clinton administration? Why do people go on and on about the human
capital of China (iPhone factories and so forth) if not for the assembly-line
grunt work?

~~~
cynicalkane
He's being downvoted because knee-jerk unionism is bad for discussion, just as
any other kind of knee-jerk politics is bad for discussion.

~~~
Steko
There's nothing knee jerk about his comment, he's pointing out that there's a
middle ground between these warehouses and Soviet bayonets.

~~~
cynicalkane
> a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before
> Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs
> overseas in order to break up unions.

This post is almost content free and to the extent it has content, it's
somewhat inaccurate. Unions are just one part of why globalization saves
costs. Worse, it's an inaccuracy committed for the sake of injecting politics.

~~~
intended
Look I get that HN has a pretty homogenous view on politics and a strong
libertarian bent, but if its come to a point that this guy is getting called
out for injecting politics, then I have to say that for me the rest of the
comments also are infused with politics.

Its just that those other comments are infused with politics which match the
dominant frame of thought on HN.

The OP may not have had the subtlety as other posters, that doesn't mean that
there isn't value to be taken from his point, which can be discussed further:

\--------------

China is eating jobs because it can afford to undercut labor prices around the
world. That is their competitive advantage, and it makes their country better
and stronger for it.

While their work conditions degrade human beings but that IS better than what
was there before.

Countries like India lose jobs to China, because their workforce is better and
the final products cheaper. American jobs at the bottom of the pyramid are at
risk because they competition at that level is fierce.

How would you employ people at the bottom of the pyramid, who don't have the
jobs/education/ or ability to get into tech, while giving them decent working
conditions and the chance to go up the ladder?

------
nostromo
It strikes me that these sort of manual warehouse picking jobs will be
completely gone in a few years as robots automate the picking process (as seen
here with Diapers.com: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXOW6v0c8s>)

~~~
jfoutz
Indeed. 4000 people @ 11/hr for a month? even without overtime that's 1.7
million. The automation can't be nearly that expensive.

~~~
scarmig
Let's assume that you would need 1000 machines to have as much throughput as
4000 people.

WAG, but I'd wager that each of those machines would cost $500k.

That means 100 million in immediate outlays. WAG 2:
fuel/electricity/maintenance is $200/month, and you need a team of 20
engineers to watch over them at $10k/engineer/month. So recurring costs come
to $400k.

Which brings us to: 100M/1.3M = 77 months, or between 6 and 7 years.

That, however, doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of the initial
$100,000,000 outlay. That brings it up to around a decade.

So, a decade to break even.

~~~
jfoutz
Labor costs are likely double, if not more, than what i've estimated. overtime
+ insurance + drug testing + security + all the other crap i'm forgetting.

~~~
intended
Well if you treat people as human machines, remove unionizing ability and what
have you, then you can bring yourself to competitive levels with China, which
has kinda made a very persuasive point that human robots are cheaper than
mechanical ones.

The only issue with labor of course is the so called 'managing' aspect of it,
which covers things like quality of life. Robots don't have and will never
complain about, while being able to do tasks at a level that most humans wont
ever be able to.

~~~
ghshephard
Re: " China, which has kinda made the point that human robots are cheaper than
mechanical ones."

Not for long.

"The China Business News on Monday quoted Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou as saying
the company planned to use 1 million robots within three years, up from about
10,000 robots in use now and an expected 300,000 next year."

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-
robots-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-
idUSTRE77016B20110801)

~~~
intended
The point still stands. It may (should) change in the future as people start
asserting their rights. (I have seen the article before, its Foxconn
currently, but labor prices and further opportunities haven't reached a point
where you can safely bleed off the population away from manufacturing just
yet.)

At the same time though, it shows that as long as you have people who have no
option, you can use them to easily produce more value than robots at similar
costs. Which is what the Mother Jones article is basically about.

Also, its worth remembering that those robots are also going to be used for
capacity expansion, while keeping cheap tractable labour.

TLDR: Improving standards of living will make robotics more competitive,
unless there are sufficient people who have no other option but to compete
with machines.

------
skurry
I spent the first five years of my professional life developing software for
these places. I've seen lots of warehouses and even worked in them briefly to
test our software. Not the most glamorous work, but I could do fun stuff like
use genetic algorithms for optimization problems or create a dynamic 3D
visualization of the warehouse space.

It took me a while to realize that my work is making other people obsolete and
replaceable, but I guess so does a big portion of software and technology in
general. But it was surprisingly refreshing to switch off your brain for a few
hours and do whatever the scanner tells you to do. Though of course I didn't
have any pressure to do more than 1,000 picks a day, that is insane!

This was in Germany though, so the unions and worker's council made sure that
the working conditions were more humane than described in the article.

------
noonespecial
If you ever find yourself in a situation where static electricity is a problem
as in this article, find a regular wooden pencil, break it in half, sharpen
both ends and then blunt them a bit so they don't poke you. As you approach
the metal object, touch the end of the pencil to it first. Make sure you are
in good contact with the other end. The graphite "lead" is a conductor. You
won't feel the shock.

~~~
onemoreact
Works with any conductor like a ring or tape a paperclip to your index finger.
I often touch the metallic part of my keys then use the key's to touch your
door.

~~~
noonespecial
The pencil seems to work better, perhaps because the graphite has some
resistance. I usually feel it a bit when I use a key.

In this case, the people in the warehouse were unable to carry metal in
because the delay at the metal detectors would mean they got no break time.
The nub of pencil would be ideal.

------
ck2
It's interesting how we put down companies for their abusive labor conditions
in China but at least 50% of the population will rally behind forces that
prevent any sort of government regulation or unions that help prevent this
kind of abuse "in the homeland".

Oh and I don't just mean the right wing, fun fact, Hillary Clinton was a
bigtime lawyer for walmart to help them prevent unions. Walmart even has a
swat-like team to respond to possible union formations.

~~~
ericd
Unions are disastrous for the competitiveness of a company on the global
market. We do need worker protections of some form (perhaps greater
informational transparency about working conditions would help?), we don't
need the techniques that unions use to obtain unsustainably high wages for
their workers.

~~~
scarmig
Just because it's hard to monetize and profit from concepts like the health
and well-being of employees doesn't mean that we as a society should put that
value at zero.

The "competitiveness of a company on the global market" isn't the be-all, end-
all. The phrase itself belies your point: if we as a society wanted to, we
could place tariffs equivalent to the cost of providing a humane workplace for
packaging workers, while also requiring our own companies to do so. This would
eliminate the competitive edge issue, while also allowing other countries to
engage in free trade with us if they pass laws protecting their own laborers
from workspace exploitation.

We simply choose not to, for certain values of we (read: members of the
finance capital rentier class that dominates American political discourse).

~~~
ericd
Competitiveness is extremely important, and you highlight a way to sort of
obtain that, but you can only control competitiveness in the domestic market
with tariffs unless you basically oppress third worlders (how it will be
viewed, anyway) by strong-arming nations to pass similar tariff laws.

The value of domestic manual labor simply isn't that high anymore except in
hard-to-outsource cases, and unless we change our society to involve more
wealth redistribution, those who can only perform manual labor will not enjoy
a similar standard of living to those with greater leverage.

~~~
Retric
The US economy has no need to export anything into third world countries their
economy's are simply to tiny accept much in the way of imports. In-fact we
have long flooded most of them with cheap food which we lost money to create
so balance of trade is even less valuable than you might think.
<http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/>

Canada, is another story we really need to keep them happy:
<http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html>

We export half as much stuff to China: <http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/balance/c5700.html>

And Ethiopia is next to nothing: <http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/balance/c7740.html>

------
fleitz
Honestly, the article sounds pretty good for warehouse work.

About 12 years ago I was working in a warehouse at -25 C slogging sides of
beef at 25 to 50 Kg for at least 10 hours, my record shift was 26 hours. The
pay was even less, $10/hr. It had to be -25 in the freezer because there was
ice cream in there too and if it didn't leave at -25 it would melt by the time
it got to the destination.

The only odd thing about the job was the look I got like I was crazy when I
left to work tech support in the city for a dollar an hour less.

------
JohnnyBrown
>Temporary staffers aren't legally entitled to decent health care because they
are just short-term "contractors" no matter how long they keep the same job.

This to me actually sounds illegal. I've worked in other industries where
significant hoops were jumped through to make it possible to call workers
contractors. If I recall one test often used is whether the worker is on a set
schedule, which the situation described would utterly fail.

IANAL

------
to_jon
More than call centers, this industry reminds me of the meatpacking industry.
Warehouse workers fill a crucial step in a larger fulfillment model that
unnecessarily imposes harsh conditions on its workforce. The writer mentions
picking 500 items during her last morning on the job, which probably
represents anywhere from 200 to 300 orders (assuming the average book or dildo
order is small). Over a 5 hour period, that represents 40 to 60 orders per
hour, picked at real hourly cost of perhaps $14. In other words, a slower
picking rate and higher wages might cost consumers several extra dimes per
order. It's reasonable to say that passing this additional cost to consumers
would have a trivial impact on shopper's wallets, while fueling a strong
wealth creation effect in the community where the warehouse is located as its
workers can actually afford to spend their way into a middle class lifestyle.

Likewise, the meatpacking industry is infamous for its brutal working
conditions and low wages. It has bred many low income, working poor
communities plighted by gangs, crime, and despair. The solution to righting
the industry and its communities is obvious- pay employees real, middle class
wages. But the industry has been fighting a race to the bottom, as the
wholesalers of meat products will obviously pick the meatpacking company that
can sell at the lowest cost. Because better wages would only increase the
price supermarkets pay for meat by several cents per pound, one meatpacking
company CEO has openly called for imposing higher wage levels across the
entire industry (easier than done). The introduction of higher wages would
boost local economies and in aggregate that contributes to the nation's
prosperity.

The industries are examples of capitalism at its most efficient and of
capitalism utterly failing society as well.

------
tsotha
I worked at a company developing the warehouse management software. This was
back in the mid '90s, but we didn't have a single customer that ran his
warehouse like the one in the article. Picking is a crappy job, and everyone
knows it, so pickers weren't expected to move too fast. If you showed up to
work for a few weeks as a picker you'd get promoted to another position. Most
of the people who got hired were ex-cons and drug addicts, so only about one
in three lasted more than a day or two.

I don't know if the industry as a whole has changed, or if the place the
author worked is far on the bad end of the spectrum.

~~~
DanI-S
I would guess that the current economic climate provides an incentive for
management to push workers harder than before, since there's a greater pool of
replacements and a worse fate awaiting those who can't keep up.

~~~
winestock
Some time ago, a commenter on a blog called Advice Goddess wrote something
apropos to what you've written:

"Competition isn't always an impetus to improve. Sometimes it's just impetus
to fuck harder."

------
winestock
Mike Daisey's book, 21 Dog Years, briefly discussed conditions at Amazon's
warehouses even though cube farm hell was the focus of the book. I don't have
the book, anymore, but, going from memory, Daisey's account matches those of
the author of the Mother Jones article.

[http://www.amazon.com/21-Dog-Years-Doing-Amazon-
com/dp/07432...](http://www.amazon.com/21-Dog-Years-Doing-Amazon-
com/dp/07432..).

That's right; it's an Amazon link. Ironic, I know.

------
rw
This reminds me of the novella "Manna":

> He looked at me for a long time, "A computer is telling you what to do on
> the job? What does the manager do?"

> "The computer is the manager. Manna, manager, get it?"

> "You mean that a computer is telling you what to do all day?", he asked.

> "Yeah."

<http://bit.ly/xP6sLk>

~~~
wladimir
Yes, that dystopia (at least in the beginning of the novella) is becoming
reality for a lot of people. And I don't think it's getting better soon. We
should consider ourselves lucky that we are the ones that program computers
instead of the ones programmed by them.

------
SurfScore
It always comes down to price. The vast majority of people in the world aren't
so self-righteous that they'll pay $10 more for something that was produced
"the right way."

This has always been the nature of these kinds of businesses, and until robots
and technology take those jobs away completely (which opens up a whole other
can of worms), it will just keep happening

~~~
DanI-S
The author mentions that picking 800 items filled 52% of her daily quota. An
extra 5c shipping cost per item could thus double her salary, or pay for an
entire extra employee.

There's no need for this kind of brutal efficiency. It is detrimental to our
society and our economy. Workers who develop crippling health conditions and
can never afford to retire are a massive burden on our systems of welfare.

~~~
intended
Or ironically get called dead weight later.

------
jrockway
Sounds about right. Amazon is great for their investors and customers.
Employees? Not so much, it seems.

In this case, it doesn't seem unreasonable. The pay rate and overtime they get
means they make around $40,000 a year. In rural America with no skills other
than the ability to walk and use a barcode scanner, that's not bad money. I'm
all in favor of educating people so they can work 8 hour days behind a desk,
but the reality is that that won't work for everyone. So having jobs available
that let people good at manual labor have a decent life doesn't seem that
horrible to me. I may be wrong, though.

------
pmorici
"I probably look happier than I should because I have the extreme luxury of
not giving a shit about keeping this job."

Great quote there. That's really a key to being happy in any job. Her
description of this job doesn't sound all that bad you get exercise and paid
above minimum wage plus overtime.

~~~
fmx
I was going to upvote you for the quote, but then I got to "her description of
this job doesn't sound all that bad"... It sounds pretty bad to me, at least
for a first-world country.

~~~
alan_cx
Well, there's your problem. First World countries now need to compete with
Third World countries. Its what unregulated capitalism does.

It cant happen and wont happen, but this downward spiral of competing to the
floor can only be stopped if the entire world sets minimum standards of
employment. Even them places like the US and EU will need to revise _down_ ,
while the likes of India and China will have to revise up!!!

Best bit, is we all cause this, no, we demand it when we are purchasing. Free
shipping, lowest price for highest quality, etc.

Are "we" willing to pay more to get less, so that people don't get exploited?
Nope...

~~~
liber8
>> _It cant happen and wont happen, but this downward spiral of competing to
the floor can only be stopped if the entire world sets minimum standards of
employment. Even them places like the US and EU will need to revise down,
while the likes of India and China will have to revise up!!!_ <<

This is preposterous. The "downward spiral" as you call it is already slowing,
as can readily be seen by many US companies "reshoring" jobs now that China's
labor costs have risen so dramatically.

India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc., are all following suit because as demand for
labor in those places increases, so does the price of that labor. No
government intervention necessary.

------
bostonvaulter2
I'm actually surprised that the workers are getting so much over minimum wage
yet are being so poorly treated. Why not just pay them closer to minimum wage
since there are so many willing workers?

------
b1daly
People are making comments here about how unions diminish competiveness. What
about incompetent CEOs who make big decisions that wreck a company and still
get paid millions. Why is it always the lowest paid workers who are expected
to take a pay cut to make the company viable? I'm thinking of high profile
CEOs who brought havoc and failure to theieto company: Stephen Elop, Leo
Apotheker, Carol Bartz,Carly Fiorina... But really, the insistence that the
peons take the hits, I don't get it.

~~~
3pt14159
Because unions have government protection, CEOs don't, and it is up to the
shareholders to maximize value.

~~~
dalke
That's a meaningless blanket statement. Yes, unions have government
protection. So do CEOs, since a corporate entity exists to protect CEOs and
others in the company from personal liability.

Unions in the US also have government restrictions on what they can do. As one
example, the Taft–Hartley Act prohibits a number of union actions, restricts
First Amendment rights (eg, union offers must sign non-communist affidavits),
and expressly allows a company to fire supervisors which support union rights.

The title of this essay uses "Wage Slave." The point is that "maximizing
value" is not necessarily aligned with human rights. Is it your view that
those two principles never be out of alignment, and if not, what happens in
that case?

~~~
3pt14159
It isn't a meaningless statement. Unions, at least where I am from, are
legally allowed to force individuals to join the union. Corporations are not
legally allowed to fire everyone from the union, or demand non-unionship from
their employees.

Corporations are the way that contracts can exist between parties without
relying on the location or livelihood of individuals. Corporations are the
reason you can sue, 40 years after the fact, the organization that polluted
the river that brought about your colon cancer.

The Taft-Hartley Act was fucking retarded, but that isn't anymore reason to
create further law against corporations (besides banks, since the fractional
reserve system is moronic and introduces huge risks into the system.

I wasn't directing my comment at the article I was answer the person's
question: Why are there negative sentiments against unions. The reason is that
many of us have dealt with them at one point or another and they artificially
aided by government law. All of them.

Most CEOs are not.

------
click170
I've worked at one of the warehouses for an electronics retailer, and I rather
enjoyed it.

They didn't outsource to a temp agency, instead they had their own HR
department. The starting pay was far above average for similar jobs with other
companies and they readjusted for cost of living increases every few years,
and the employee discount was wicked.

It's interesting to read about perspectives from employees of other
warehouses, it sounds like I had it good.

------
jennya
Contrast this with the comments for the Amazon Prime article a few stories
down :(

------
Jinzang
I've got a modest proposal. Let's bring back slavery. Then employers would
worry about employee injuries, have work for them year round instead of only
hiring during peak season, and in general treat their slaves with the concern
that posters here seem to reserve for robots.

------
ontIgnoreRealit
It's a shame that there aren't unions in China and the United States.

------
namidark
More ads and I wouldn't even have to read the article! Popup's and unders
included!

------
cynwoody
Would you rather be idling excess machines or firing workers?

------
VMG
Were you able to leave?

Yes?

Then you weren't a slave.

------
paulhauggis
Amazon is the worst e-commerce company I've ever dealt with. They treat their
marketplace sellers like garbage.

I have been selling for the past 5+ years. They put a review on my account and
when I called them to find out some more information about it, I was met with
a call center rep in India who gave me absolutely no help.

They don't actually have call support for marketplace sellers. You have to
email them. When you do, you get mostly automated responses.

After this ordeal, I finally left them for good. I still can't believe people
are giving Amazon this much money (most categories are between 8-16%
commission) to sell their goods (plus $40/month if you have a pro-account).

It's a slap in the face when you can't even talk to someone when you have any
sort of account issue. On top of this, Amazon doesn't even abide by the same
harsh rules they expect all of their 3rd-party sellers to follow.

