Hacker News Reader

I think they aren't stating well what makes the work grueling. It's not about the weight of the items, it's about the systems amazon uses to grade/rate the workers.

I've worked plenty of menial jobs, and the ones that just killed me inside were the ones that had extremely strict rules that eliminated my agency as a human. Unloading bricks for landscaping work? Hard labor, but mentally fantastic and I was only judged on how hard the other workers thought I was working, which as a human is easy to pick up on socially. Working on a food assembly line where I was judged on my placement & speed of a repetitive physical action? Almost debilitating stress and exhaustion.

Combining menial work with piles of stress is what creates physically & psychologically draining work that a night of sleep wont recover you from.

I wish I could upvote this more as I think it's an important point. When evaluating quality of jobs (not matter blue collar or white), agency is one of the important points behind job satisfaction.

I don't think physical labor is a big deal -- indeed us computer-and-desk workers think a lot about how to stay active -- and I don't take that to be the crux of the article at all.

In fact, I'm surprised that none of the comments here have yet mentioned what I see as the worst, and tangibly different aspect of Amazon warehouse work: the gamification of the tasks.

> blue bars on the scanner count down the amount of time they have left to complete the task

> the company constantly sends messages to workers’ scanners telling them to work faster

> without warning, Amazon changed the amount of time workers had to stow an item from six minutes to four minutes and 12 seconds

This sound absolutely terrible. This would make any normal task stressful. The randomized changes and constant oversight strike me as borderline abuse/interrogation techniques. And while the article doesn't dig into it, I assume this is driven by AMZL software systems, operating on a global scale (using all workers and all warehouses as inputs), with machine-learning algorithms constantly tweaking the timers and count-down bars, and possibly even suggesting to managers "hey, worker A has slowed down in the past 15 minutes, would you like to send this pre-written message X to A? Tap [Yes] [No]". This sort of thing might sound like a brilliant idea to some rockstar developer in Seattle, and to the data science team, and the management team signing off, when in reality it creates a Hunger Games race-to-the-bottom mentality in your actual workforce.

And this is materially different from how Stater Brothers across the street operates (or any other warehouse job), presumably.

The biggest problem, I am willing to bet, is that the gamification and the parameter changes are being done by desk jockeys who have never worked the floor at one of these warehouses.

They aren't making these moves out of ignorance, they have far too much data for that. Those desk jockeys' jobs are to maximize profits, and this strategy is working.

Also, if it’s anything like my experience at call centers, there are some workers who hit all the goals and receive just enough reward from the higher ups to be insufferable. I wouldn’t be surprised if that type of group psychology element is gamed by these work places.

I've worked for UPS delivery before, a long time ago, though only briefly. I liked the physicality of it. I can't speak to an Amazon fulfillment center, but I will say this: stress isn't only about physical demands. I think many people would prefer pure physical exertion (within limits) to long-term stress about job security. I think medical professionals can back this up.

One more thing. Often people's argument around these issues seems to end with: "it's better than no job at all". We can frame the issues in more constructive ways, don't you think? We should aim to find ways to adjust the system to better achieve the goals we want: innovative technology, fast delivery, fair pay, good benefits, subject to the complexities of the world.

> But it's better than no job at all.

I think questioning this idea is the whole point of the article. It's a job, but does the job pay enough to improve the lot of the individual worker? Maybe that isn't fully obvious to the worker because they're worried about no job at all, but if the city of the business and residence of the workers isn't collectively benefiting, then maybe that's a hint that low-skill jobs don't pay enough. (Or are on a questionable edge).

Finally, if a business sets up with a portion of its employees earning subsistence wage, it's competition to other businesses which are more willing to pay better wages. These conditions are a potential drag on the progress of civilization if that's the case.

If they're more willing to pay better wages, why wouldn't the employees go and work there instead?

You can't work for a business which has been driven out of the market. And that is how markets can work for good, by selecting efficient businesses (but also bad - the market itself doesn't care), but if you look at businesses in the market, if they all race to subsistence wages then businesses willing to pay more can't operate and the city around the market declines. If the wages stay higher, the cost of goods are higher, but other opportunities rise, and the city as a whole can prosper. If the wages are way too high, then that can also be bad that can also cause a decline.

Right, but this doesn't seem to describe what happened here. Before Amazon moved in, people in San Bernadino weren't working for efficient businesses paying great wages; they just didn't work.

How long should we have kept them unemployed to wait for a new high-paying business to show up?

If we systematically select businesses that pay subsistence wages, the concern is that better employment may never show up, and the overall economy becomes more and more unstable over time. But it's hard to know for sure and that is one of many different outcomes.

But still it's not an area you want to move forward with no introspection.

Edit: If low-workers are paid such a low margin that they have no personal buffer for uncertainties such as automation in warehouses, then we also guarantee that the government ends up paying for that transition (or we get unrest and/or economic malaise). If they're paid a higher margin, the economy ends up more efficient at flexibility transitioning from changes like warehouses becoming fully automated. (because offset workers can make individual transition choices that that make local sense instead of trying to apply slowly responding gov't policy).

Not everyone can up and move like that.

Because they're too busy working their current jobs to spend time looking, applying, and interviewing for other jobs.

I worked some hard-labor jobs when I was in college, too.

I think a major difference you're overlooking is that in your late teens and early 20s, you can do pretty hard labor without much effect.

I'm only in my mid 30s now and when I do a hard day's physical labor, I feel it a lot more.

Someone in their 40s or 50s or 60s is going to have a much harder time doing that kind of stuff every day.

Right - hard labor is hard.

It doesn't paint the full picture to say this is a problem with Amazon or UPS or whatever...

The problem really seems to be lack of additional opportunity for people who are unable or unwilling (or not in good enough health) to perform hard labor.

The same kind of applies to other low-skilled minimum-wage jobs like food-service. There's not much opportunity, so you find mid-career people doing jobs that only require (and pay) at levels that are appropriate for highschool or college kids.

(Not criticizing your comment here just providing my own conclusion to your point)

I too worked at UPS during college. First as a loader and then as a part time supervisor managing loaders. I made about $1500 a month in the early 2000s for working about 20-30 hours a week. Not bad for a student.

What you describe is accurate, we use to get entire trucks of "Total Gym" boxes that weighed 70+ lbs each. Turn over was high and there was accountability similar to what I read in this article but with two key differences. Hourly workers at UPS were unionized and the carrot at the end of the stick seemed much more realistic as numerous guys were promoted to supervisors and drivers who could make 6 figures. I was promoted to my part time supervisor role after a couple of months in fact.

The thing with fulfillment center work is, you tend to do one specific job all the time. If you stow, pick, move carts around, move stuff from a cart onto a conveyor belt, you do that all day, every day, until you're told to do something else.

Even though many jobs might not be "grueling," at least in warehouses where the inventory tends to be lightweight, the repetition and requirement to meet rate will ensure that even relatively simple tasks can wear people out. Having to stand in one place for an entire shift, in the Kiva-enabled warehouses, can be more physically demanding on your lower back, knees and feet than the jobs that let you move around.

Disclaimer: I work at an Amazon delivery station and briefly worked at a FC prior.

From my experience the managers at my warehouse are very open to moving people around to fill different roles if you request it. This is obviously anecdotal but from my experience people tend to want to stick to one specific job rather than move around.

Fair enough, the logistics of different facilities might allow more leeway in some than others - but in the FC where I work now, they're not very flexible about moving people around unless immediate business needs and stow rates allow it (for indirect roles at least.)

Still, I don't think employees should have to ask at all - Amazon should regularly rotate their FC employees through various roles, even within a workday. Doing so would improve performance, attentiveness and morale across the board, reduce repetitive strain injuries, and give each employee an idea of how various roles interrelate.

I'm in compete agreement with you regarding moving people through different roles. This is actually what I've requested and now have varying duties on my different shifts, it makes the work much more enjoyable to me. With that being said I personally probably wouldn't enjoy being moved to different roles throughout one shift on a regular basis. I've had that happen to me before when we were short on staff and it can be more stressful.

Amazon does most of the loading, unloading, and sorting the contents of the their carriers' trailers because they've negotiated rate benefits in exchange for doing it themselves.

I've done both. You may think picking and packing orders is less grueling, but it's not. Pick rate and pack rate expectations are high enough to ensure they're not. I'd take truckloading any day of the week.

Every aspect of the operation is dehumanizing.

From the disposable contractor workforce engineered to prevent unionization, to the Taylorist micromanagement to the lousy pay, its a nasty business. Walmart seems like a benevolent force in comparison.

It’s not better than no job at all. It’s a race to the bottom that is putting people out of work and hurting the wretches working for them.

Grueling is one issue. Financial security is another.

Not knowing if your manager will give you 4 or 40 hours is stressful.

Amazon measures everything. Their incentive compensation plans should be rewarding employees that exceed quota with daily bonuses.

One-year of tenure should not be required to qualify for basic benefits.

In short, these employees need to unionize and collectively bargain.

> Amazon measures everything. Their incentive compensation plans should be rewarding employees that exceed quota with daily bonuses.

I'm guessing you have never worked under the quota system. Guess what happens when one meets a quota? He or she gets a quota increased. Guess what happens when he or she no longer meets a new quota? He or she gets fired. In a quota based system the goal of every employee is to hit the quota on a nose

I've developed quota systems. It's not that dire. Under performers receive coaching.

"Regression to the mean" occurs when there are no incentives for over-performers.

Lazy management will simply raise quota without assessing downside risk (higher turnover, more injury, more sick days).

Good management will constantly adjust a balanced quota using a gaussian distribution.

What is the downside risk?

The job is mechanical, most of the grunts are temps and they don’t get sick days. You put you A team in a safer place, crank the volume and purge the rest.

Reminds me of Manna [1].

1: http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

I don't think it's the physical labor that is most complained about, it's the tyranny of the system. It seems like you're treated like a cog. The fact that many people quit after not very long is a strong indication of the poor work conditions.

The reason it doesn't command much pay is not because it doesn't require much skill. It's because either there are more people willing to do that job that doesn't require much skill, or there are fewer jobs available to those that don't have skills (in a given area).

>> there are more people willing to do that job that doesn't require much skill

There are more people able to do that job that doesn't require much skill. Additionally, for any given job (especially high-skill jobs), it also much more likely for able and unwilling people to become willing than it is for willing and unable people to become able.

Mine wasn't as taxing as that but I worked in a university textbook store receiving area one summer (usually in cafe or register during the school year). Just me and this much middle-aged guy that was usually down there on his on. We'd come in, he'd put on his gospel music and we'd get to it. The work went fast and it kept me in shape. Good times but not something to do forever.

"But it's better than no job at all."

If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend. People expect better of Amazon, as they should. The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet; there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.

> If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend.

Sure. No problem. They'll just have no job. And you can continue to believe that.

> The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet

Because of the value of his stock. NOT income from sales! Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with. Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse.

> there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.

That's not what short changing is. Short changing is not delivering what was promised.

There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money".

There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs.

You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.

>Because of the value of his stock. NOT income from sales! Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with. Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse.

The value of the stock is supposed to be a reflection of the value of the company. If their retail business is worthwhile even if running at a loss, than they could run at a larger loss with the only downside being the company's value dropping.

>You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.

Better education takes more tax money, something Amazon has spent their entire history trying to avoid paying. And how many of them need better education before the necessary jobs at the warehouses get better conditions?

"Sure. No problem. They'll just have no job. And you can continue to believe that."

Ahh yes, the old, "You must lick the boots of your corporate masters for seeing to bless you with a few crumbs!" argument. It has never, ever held water.

"Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with."

That is a complete and utter lie.

"Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse."

The business as a whole, which is built on top of the retail business, is quite profitable. Them deciding to run retail at a loss does not change things.

"That's not what short changing is"

Yes, it is.

"There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money"."

Nobody is asking for a "magic fairy." They're pointing out that it's extremely unconscionable that the richest man in the world cannot afford to pay his workers a living wage.

"There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs."

And the people who don't have much choice should just go to hell? Seriously, what is it with this idea that people who weren't able to get an education, for whatever reason, don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?