Working conditions in Amazon

gaffer91

I look at this as a textbook case where government regulation of the economy is absolutely needed. Conditions in Amazon warehouses in the US seem to be decidedly third world. I'm shocked that such lax regulation occurs in the 21st century. Read the articles below and come to your own conclusions but I personally think that while it is important not to stifle entrepreneurialism, workable temperatures, safety and the ability to retain your job if you get sick or injured should be mandated by the government as standard.

Links-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/amazon-allentown_n_971851.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018185023_amazonlaborrallly11m.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/business/la-fi-1001-amazon-allentown-20111001
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/26/sweatshop-work-conditions-alleged-at-amazon-com/

N.B these two are particular long-
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-allentown-amazon-complaints-20110917,0,7937001,full.story
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

nagilum2

No worries. Amazon just bought warehouse robot manufacturer Kiva systems for $775 million. Soon its warehouses will be filled with robots instead of human employees, so the human workers can look for other jobs where the summer heat is less of an issue: http://www.geekosystem.com/amazon-kiva-robots/

The entire upshot of the Kiva system is delivering customers — now Amazon — a highly efficient and low overhead warehouse and fulfillment system. Warehouses are, by their nature, enormous spaces, and enormous spaces generally mean high costs. Simply lighting the space and keeping it at a pleasant — or at least workable — temperature is not an insubstantial cost.

For example, Amazon spent $2.4 million installing air conditioners in four of its fulfillment centers after record temperatures caused over a dozen workers to collapse from the heat. In a Kiva warehouse, the pick areas could be placed separately from the stock area, meaning that only a tiny fraction of space would need to be kept habitable for human workers. Reporter Alexis Madrigal reports that Kiva warehouses can be kept dark, as the robots have no need for overhead lighting — another cost-cutting measure.

Overheal

There are plenty of ways to operate and design warehouses that aren't death traps. In my last job I had to visit several for deliveries and even when outside in SC we had the same kind of conditions with indexes above 110F, inside these warehouses an open floor plan and a handful of well placed fans - not HVACs, fans - kept most warehouses surprisingly comfortable and temperate. Might have been 90 in the warehouse itself with regular breeze running through. Contrast that with emptying a cargo container in the middle of august full of chinese peel n' stick floor tiles - that thing was an oven.

Can't tell me Amazon can't design warehouses. They can. Just sounds like in the rush to erect some of their facilities they failed to design for those considerations.

Isn't this story about 9 months old either way? Why are we reading this now and where is the follow-up?

gaffer91

Overheal wrote: »

Isn't this story about 9 months old either way? Why are we reading this now and where is the follow-up?

Yeah, it just came into my mind for some reason and I did a quick google to see had things improved- the 2nd link suggests they haven't. Searched boards and there was no debate on it either. And like I said, it does not just apply to amazon, it is a good example of why a lot of government regulations are absolutely necessary (i.e to ensure workers are looked after).

Overheal

one of those links did say they faced some litigation over it.

I agree there shouldn't be a No Regulation environment and Im not sure anyoe seriously is suggesting that.. campaign trail politics is all about sounding radical, but in reality most of them act moderately. Look for instance at the budgets. Republicans talk a good game about all the cuts they should be making, but aren't being really definitive about what needs to be cut in order to balance the budget. Because if they did they'd have to get real harsh looks at social security and unemployment beneficiaries, or harsh looks for slashing defense spending. There's no easy win for them. Same thing in regulatories, its easy to say Cut the Regs and create jobs but in reality they know if they cut some regs its just going to bite their ass later. Not that carbon credits aren't quite a stupid concept.. But, my favorite example there is Clean Coal initiatives - all it does is move the pollution from airborne to waterborne, since coal companies now spend more time washing the coal before it gets fired so fewer pollutants reached the air. As a result though slurry is destroying the landscape around those facilities. The end result is a net zero loss or gain in pollution loss imo you're just pushing paper around to create the illusion of progress.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

But, my favorite example there is Clean Coal initiatives - all it does is move the pollution from airborne to waterborne, since coal companies now spend more time washing the coal before it gets fired so fewer pollutants reached the air. As a result though slurry is destroying the landscape around those facilities. The end result is a net zero loss or gain in pollution loss imo you're just pushing paper around to create the illusion of progress.

Sorry, but I don’t buy your "net zero loss or gain in pollution loss regarding coal washing" (a process that reduces the ash content over 50%, lowers sulfur dioxide emissions, and improves thermal efficiencies, which leads to lower carbon dioxide emissions). I know legislation exists that requires the sludge to be discharged into lined ponds, and then treated with lime, to prevent contaminants from polluting underground water. Although I agree there remains problems with the process, and some environmental damage is done, I need to see proof before buying into a zero pollution impact claim for coal washing.

Overheal

legislation might say lined pools but in west virginia the environmental damage is pretty severe and from video evidence I've seen it's not always that way in practice. There have even been instances where coal companies were so far behind and adhering to environmental regs that rather than fine them or shut them down, those regs were simply repealed. in my opinion, you're just exchanging one type of pollution for another.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

legislation might say lined pools but in west virginia the environmental damage is pretty severe and from video evidence I've seen it's not always that way in practice. There have even been instances where coal companies were so far behind and adhering to environmental regs that rather than fine them or shut them down, those regs were simply repealed. in my opinion, you're just exchanging one type of pollution for another.

Are those instances you refer to in WV the exception or the norm?

Overheal

Can't tell you without further research but I do think it's ****ty that one such company was about to be sued under the clean water act but during the litigation the section of the law banning them from dumping filler material into a stream was revoked - meaning they were legally then able to do so, but I'll try to find sources beyond a documentary for that