
Amazon's on-site emergency care endangers its employees - AndrewBissell
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/amazon-warehouse-workers-safety-cyber-monday/
======
Someone1234
As an outsider it is kind of "creepy" (cannot think of a better word) that
employers are involved in their employees healthcare at all. As this article
makes clear there's a huge conflict of interests that will result in employees
health needs being placed relative to what best serves the employer.

But this isn't isolated just to "on-site clinics." Employers also have a
motive to fire employees that are costly on self-funded insurance schemes
(even if it is illegal), or to send employees to employer contracted "workers
comp clinics" who seemingly exist to protect the employer from liability
rather than treatment.

Why is employment and healthcare intermingled at all in the US? It has caused
nothing but problems, hurts competition ("free market" where you cannot pick
your own insurance provider), hurts people, and adds needless complexity to an
already needlessly complex system.

~~~
Kalium
> Why is employment and healthcare intermingled at all in the US? It has
> caused nothing but problems, hurts competition ("free market" where you
> cannot pick your own insurance provider), hurts people, and adds needless
> complexity to an already needlessly complex system.

In the WWII era, the federal government handed down strict wage controls.
Companies still had to compete with one another for workers, but they couldn't
offer to pay more. So companies looked for other things they _could_ offer.
Health care, and health insurance, was one such.

In at least one case this wound up taking over the whole business. Kaiser
Permanente used to be an aluminum and shipbuilding concern with a sideline in
healthcare to provide for its many workers.

~~~
ragona
Wow, that is fascinating. I really like the anecdote about Kaiser, thank you
for sharing that.

------
benatkin
With hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors, there are going to be
mistakes made by medical staff. It seems Amazon's emergency care is a cheaper
and more convenient alternative to UrgentCare, which is commonly used for
handling workplace injuries (which usually aren't covered by personal health
insurance plans). This article fails to show that it's worse than a typical
UrgentCare facility. It's obvious to me that it wouldn't be as good as an
emergency room. As with any job, it's important to get yourself to the
emergency room if you don't get referred by the UrgentCare or on-site medical
staff and think you need a second opinion.

~~~
ceejayoz
The article details substantially more than mere mistakes.

It alleges, among other things, employees' care being delayed to hide the
injury from on-site auditors.

------
ceejayoz
> The most serious allegation, according to Fagan, involved a temporary worker
> who suffered a cut to the head while a corporate audit team was inspecting
> the building. Instead of taking the injured worker to Amcare, managers
> attempted to hide the person from the auditors. By the time this person was
> treated, blood had collected into a golf ball-sized protrusion on the
> worker’s head.

Ooof.

------
Aloha
I wonder how much of this is known by the home office or not. Often a pressure
to reduce accidents to a floor manager results in a pressure to not report
floor accidents.

~~~
jdkee
And where does the “pressure to reduce accidents” arise from?

~~~
Aloha
The home office of course - but working safely has been an ever-present
pressure at every company I've ever worked at.

------
antoinevg
“Amazon could be a leader, and they have the resources,” Fagan said. “They
could be a leader in providing good occupational health care to their
employees. And they are not doing that.”

BEZOS, YOU HAVE FAILED YOUR PROFESSION!

