
Amazon's Surveillance Infrastructure and Revitalizing Worker Power - 0xmohit
https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/01/amazon_staff_spying/
======
MereInterest
> At the end of the day, warehouse employees are required to go through
> mandatory screening to check they haven't stolen anything, which "requires
> waiting times that can range from 25 minutes to an hour" and is not
> compensated, the report said

I'm surprised that the article doesn't also mention the absolute joke of a
Supreme Court decision, ruling that Amazon's mandatory security screening does
not need to be compensated. Legalized wage theft is what that is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk)

~~~
purple-again
This goes so against what I previously believed that there must be some
critical underlying fact I am missing. Are the facts below correct?

1) This is stating that Amazon requires its warehouse workers to go through a
security screening before they can leave at the end of every shift.

2) This daily process takes 25 minutes to 1 hour

3) Employees are NOT paid for this time

4) Employees are hourly and not salary

5) The supreme court UNANIMOUSLY agreed they do not have to be paid for this
work.

6) Their reasoning for this is that the security check is not a critical part
of the job and _could_ be eliminated.

Those 6 facts either cant be right or I must be missing some critical 7th fact
that ties this all together. Can anyone help out?

~~~
tokai
> the security check is not a critical part of the job and could be
> eliminated.

lol, scores of work assignments and whole jobs shouldn't be compensated with
this line of reasoning.

~~~
Red_Leaves_Flyy
Stocking shelves isn't critical. Get rid of the shelves and park the pallets
on the floor.

~~~
vetrom
While not identical, the warehouse store model is essentially this, with
different examples of execution more or less close to the exactly this.

------
bovermyer
I'm now going to other sources whenever I need anything I would normally get
from Amazon.

If it's buying retail products, I look at Etsy or Walmart, or smaller sources
if possible.

If it's digital infrastructure, I opt for Digital Ocean most often.

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with everything about Amazon and its
subsidiaries.

~~~
badRNG
I am increasingly skeptical that "voting with your pocketbook" is anything
more than an expression of one's moral values (though there is certainly value
in that.)

Choosing not to do business with the Carnegie Steel of online shopping just
isn't going to change Amazon's market position. There will never be enough
people boycotting Amazon due to its inhuman treatment of its workers to offset
the value Amazon receives from doing so.

The only solution that I think has a chance of working is public policy, which
seems increasingly less likely as political parties are ever further beholden
to the interests of their corporate benefactors. It's a bleak outlook, but as
the allusion to Carnegie Steel suggests, it isn't the first time the US has
found itself in this position. In fact, the parallels between the political
economy of the early 20th century and today seem increasingly more aligned.

~~~
bovermyer
I don't disagree with you. However, choosing to go elsewhere isn't meant to
sink Amazon - it's meant to support alternatives, to encourage others to
support alternatives or at least think about the situation, and yes, to make
me feel better about my choices.

~~~
NoOneNew
Yup. Also, while supporting the "competition", you allow them to play the long
game to find and fund ways of taking ground from Amazon when there are
missteps.

But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for
a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted
company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."

~~~
badRNG
>But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand
for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted
company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."

I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I
wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse
of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a
political problem, not a consumer problem.

Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly
we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their
workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity
of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the
globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer
simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent
ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no
ethical consumption under capitalism."

~~~
NoOneNew
That phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption". To pretend capitalism
is the sudden problem to the world is a feat of self delusion and dodging
having any form of self-accountability. Because the world was a perfect place
prior to modern capitalism? I'm not saying it's perfect, but seriously, quit
pretending like it's the cause of the world's problems. The cause of all our
problems is the fact we are human.

That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person,
you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be
a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you
believe in your own ethics.

~~~
badRNG
>the phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption

I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically
neutral.

After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each
others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures
approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need
or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't
unethical.

There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in
economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs.
Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position
that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.

------
LatteLazy
I always feel like these articles are either very badly informed or relying on
readers being. Anyone who's worked in a call center or as wait staff will
recognize all of these techniques in one form or another. Amazon are just the
first ones to apply it to warehouses and delivery staff. Welcome to the shitty
end of the employment pool. If you don't want to get stuck here, stay in
school kids!

~~~
coldtea
Or, you know, that it happens elsewhere too is (pun intended) neithe here, nor
there.

"Welcome to the shitty end of the employment pool. If you don't want to get
stuck here, stay in school kids!"

Is not a solution, it's a personal escape hatch for the few that can follow
the advice. Even if everybody "stayed at school" there would still be a need
for these jobs, so it would just be that degrees would devaluate so that
people are still working those. At worse, they would be done by immigrants who
don't have the means or support to "stay at school" anyway.

In other words, as long as there are people working those jobs, the answer is
not "stay in school to avoid them", but in fixing the horrible conditions.

"Stay in school" is a quinteseential individualistic "each to their own"
answer.

A civilized answer would be legal changes...

~~~
LatteLazy
What you're talking about is redistribution. And I'm in favour of that. But
who are you going to redistribute from? Me? No thanks, I'm already supporting
a crowd of boomers and farmers and a bloated military sector and billionaire
bailouts etc. So you'll have to cut some of those. But good luck doing that
under the current politically system.

This is why it's so hard at the bottom of the labour market: we spent all our
money on corn subsidiaries and free shit for people over 65. There's nothing
left for working people. And that includes me. I had to struggle through a
shitty under funded school, take poorly paid jobs, pay off a huge student loan
and now I'm facing higher income taxes and bloated artificial house prices and
a national debt built to record levels giving other people tax cuts for
nothing.

We can't solve issues like this in isolation because the real issue is that
there are no resources left. You have to solve resource distribution. And
that's gonna be very very hard. Until then, all any of us can do is try to
avoid being in a group that isn't politically important.

------
vemv
Needless to say, it's inhumane to let staff work to exhaustion, which is the
only sound strategy when the targeted rate is kept secret.

------
tgv
The corporate bullshit (quotes at the end of the article) is again off the
charts. Who are they trying to fool?

------
badRNG
This seems strange, since Amazon's arguably exploited warehouse employees wait
30 minutes to leave due to screenings (to ensure they haven't stolen
merchandise.) [1] This was affirmed by the current SCOTUS. [2]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24340272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24340272)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk)

------
throwaway0a5e
The extra $2-$3/hr that the Amazon warehouse pays that loading trucks for
"Bill's LTL Freight" doesn't isn't for nothing. Putting up with bullshit like
this is exactly why they have to pay more. This is the classic trade-off you
have to make when choosing between crappy unskilled jobs. BigCo can pay you
better but they also can afford to not treat you like a human. It sucks but
BigCos are always gonna use their scale advantage to try and come up with
process that try to wring out every last penny. It's just what they do.

~~~
iwasakabukiman
> It’s just what they do.

Then we should work to change that. As a society, we should find this kind of
stuff unacceptable. There should be some baseline level of transparency and
dignity employees are treated with.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
It's an infinite game of whack-a-mole. BigCo can walk right up to the legal
line and not cross it. Look at the factories of the early 20th century and it
was the same. BigCo paid better (e.g. Ford's famous wage increases) and you
had to put up with more crap (everything else Ford did). You can progressively
tighten the law but in a democracy the law is always going to lag social norms
and social norms are a reflection of what a society can afford. Not that we
shouldn't talk about this stuff but a pro-worker special interest group
getting some legislators in their pocket is no long term solution here.

~~~
Thlom
The long term solution is of course a strong labor movement that can fight
this shit every step of the way. There is no quick fix that solves everything.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
Frankly I think you are just plain wrong. The "strong labor movement" you
speak of simply doesn't exist in the parts of any given economic niche where
these changes must first take root (because those parts are not trying to
wring every cent out of their labor because they don't need to).

For any particular scrap of ground the "labor movement" (in italics because
there is no such coordinated movement on the timeline and scale by which these
things happen) wants to fight for the fight for that scrap _ends_ at low
margin BigCos like amazon who will not give it up until legislated (or until
it looks like they might be and they can get brownie points by biting the
bullet ahead of time). In unionized industries the BigCos are also the
unionized workplaces where change happens at the glacial pace of contract
negotiations. Changes come about in higher margin and smaller scale parts of
the economy first. If you want Amazon and Walmart workers to have an hour
break for lunch (or some other particular policy goal) then you are not going
to get that until so long after the workers in the Coors warehouse and the
McMaster warehouse have had it that the legislators can feel secure in
legislating it.

Here's an example. Say the UAW manages to negotiate with GM that every third
Friday should be pajama Friday. Farcical, right? Of course because it's not
within the bounds of what we consider reasonable right now. It has to become
reasonable first. If you want pajama Friday or any other specific policy goal
it has to be within the bounds of what is reasonable. Before the UAW can even
broach the subject there needs to be acceptance elsewhere. The UAW isn't gonna
ask for pajama Friday at GM unless they think the policy is not crap and
they're not gonna think that unless they've done that at the smaller Ford
plant and they're not gonna do that until they've piloted it at the tiny
Peterbilt factory where they have a better position in negotiations and can
afford big reaches. And they're not gonna try it there unless they've seen the
policy play out successfully somewhere else first, say the non-union Cat
mining shovel plant down the road where they have the fat margins per worker
to do that kind of thing. And the Cat plant isn't even gonna entertain the
possibility (and the workers won't push for it) unless it's been proven to
work in the even higher margin and smaller scale RV industry plant in the next
state over.

I'm not going to repeat myself but if you wan workers to have a generous (by
our current frame of reference) paid hour lunch break at Amazon's warehouses
then the process by which the idea is normalized is basically the same. You
can't change policy at BigCo or at the legislative level until you've made
that policy = normal and reasonable by doing it other places first. The
strength of the "labor movement" is completely and totally tangential to that
process and a good argument (though I don't necessarily agree with it) could
be made that strong labor institutions (unions) actually hinder the process
because they reduce the agility with which decisions can be made by the bigger
players.

So if you want pajama Friday at GM or you want a paid hour long lunch break
legislated upon Amazon and Walmart, or any other change that looks to be big
and unprecedented from our vantage point here today, then you're gonna need to
plant the seeds of those changes in workplaces of a completely and totally
different setting so that when the change does finally come to the GMs and
Amazons of the world it comes at the end of a long bunch of incremental steps
because that's the only way change comes to those big places that are deeply
invested in and optimized for the status quo.

Costco, Ocean State Job Lot, and other small scraps of the consumer goods
retail economy known for treating their workers well and proving you can make
money doing so are doing far, far more for the future of workers in Amazon's
warehouse than and "labor movement" can do because what those "generous"
employers are doing today is what Amazon will be doing in time.

~~~
Spooky23
> Say the UAW manages to negotiate with GM that every third Friday should be
> pajama Friday. Farcical, right? Of course because it's not within the bounds
> of what we consider reasonable right now.

It's not as farcical as you think. I worked at a place in the 90s as an intern
where the union negotiated "casual Fridays" where jeans and open toed shoes
(how scandalous) as a work rule.

------
losthobbies
This is sickening.

------
pentae
I wonder if those parading their virtuosity in here could come up with a
better system.

I'd love to see some of the negative commenters made staff manager of just one
busy warehouse for a few months and made responsible for a 500 low skilled
workers with no prior systems in place such as these and see what kind of
solutions they can come up with on their own that are any better.

~~~
tokai
Treating workers properly is not at all hard or elusive. It just costs money.

