Hacker News Reader

Yup. I have no knowledge of Amazon specifically, but I've seen this pattern repeatedly in companies that use contractors:

"We don't tolerate any lawbreaking, but you need to fulfill these performance metrics (which can't be achieved except by lawbreaking)."

I'm of the opinion that, as a general practice, this needs to be addressed by legislation. I don't know what the specific workable solution looks like, but essentially: if a company contracts work out that any reasonable person could determine would require violating laws or regulations to accomplish, that the company is held directly legally responsible for those violations.

Whether it's delivery drivers speeding or illegally parking or not making minimum wage or whatever.

I think part of the problem is that it’s hard to quantify what a reasonable person can do in an hour. My fellow cross-country running teammates and I could form a delivery company and jog to and from every house. Or I might figure out that it’s actually more effective to put two people in every truck and have one of them be sorting and dropping while the other one drives. The companies that make these kinds of innovations SHOULD be rewarded. It’s not immediately obvious how to sort those from the ones who push their employees to just work longer shifts.

It's definitely not easy, but it's what companies do all the time, and courts are pretty used to getting access to internal documents that model cost structures, as well as bringing in expert witnesses from the industry.

But basically, any company (like Amazon) does cost modeling of every step involved in a process long before they decide whether to hire employees to do it, or contract it out. In fact, that's precisely how they can determine how much they're willing to pay to contract something out.

So it's not really that hard for a court to demand that a company produce its modeling estimates, and then compare with the actual service provided, and show that the company either a) knew that corners would need to be cut illegally, or b) made negligent assumptions.

Remember, I'm not talking about mom and pop shops who are all sharing a single huge contractor like UPS or FedEx. I'm talking about huge companies like Amazon or Uber who use a large number of subcontractors. They have entire teams of people who model this stuff. They know exactly what they're doing.

> The drivers get a route of 200-ish packages and follow the step-by-step navigation Amazon's provided app tells them[0] to do. The drivers are supposed to work for up to 10 hours then bring back whatever is leftover.

I've heard that FedEx Express's system will forcibly go blank for the 30 minute mandated lunch break. Can't scan any packages, etc. Seems like something software that tells you what to do (and demands input) could also do. Might need followup effort to avoid gaming by spending some of lunch driving to the next stop, but still allowing driving to a restaurant.

Enter software optimizing routes chaining together restaurant stops for that extra competitive edge.

At the end of the day, you've got to accept that just because you can write software to do $thing, doesn't mean you should. If you're going that far into the tails to innovate, there's probably something more fundamental you've missed.

I looked into participating in the DSP program when it was announced; it was obvious at the time that it was a "buy yourself a job" type of situation, where an individual DSP provider would require a lot of volume/trucks/routes/employees to even make a living for themselves. What you describe makes complete sense.

you should talk to a journalist

Thanks for sharing.

"And Amazon's senior leadership has rewarded these sociopaths"

I'm too small to make a dent, but rest assured, I am "rewarding" them back with my wallet. Never again shopping on Amazon. I simply can't justify saving a few £ knowing that the people delivering / manipulating what I buy are abused. I read quite frequently about the issue and unless we protest with our wallets this abuse will continue.

I saw myself buying more and more from EBAY.

It is not perfect but mostly shipping is done by postal service that is ok for me and As Amazon there is no guarantee about products being genuine then E-bay is as good or more than amazon.

The trouble with that is the eBay sellers that are listing directly off Amazon (with a mark up obviously) and essentially ordering the goods from Amazon as gifts. They keep this quiet as it's cheaper to buy it yourself on Amazon directly. It's becoming harder and harder to avoid the de-facto monopoly that is Amazon on ethical grounds.

It turns out you can buy most things from nearby retail stores. Not everything, but I haven’t needed to buy something online that often this year except niche or small publisher items

I had the same thing in mind when I ordered a gift recently, thought I'd see how Newegg matches up. I got my package 2 days later, the whole order had Amazon shipping slips/boxes, delivered by Amazon.

Interesting here.

If I go to a market and look for the best quality for the best price, I suppose I'm encouraging sociopaths, too.

There may be some argument for the scale of Amazon needing to take a deeper look. But requiring that a buyer of a good or service must know how the sausage is made would break our system.

Instead, the vendors do need to be held accountable.

For the record, I think these tech monopolies are a bad thing as a whole for the overall market but not because they're trying find the best deals on goods and services. More because they monopolize, and set the rules for the largest marketplaces which only governments should do.

> requiring that a buyer of a good or service must know how the sausage is made would break our system

In that particular case Amazon knows what’s going on because they have engineered the system, buys services anyway.

For purchases of some illegally obtained goods U.S. Code §2315 is there since 1948, has not broken the system: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2315

You are part of the problem

This feels a bit flippant. There's nothing inherent to the software managing the process that leads to the exploitation of these workers. It's the unattainable metrics being set by management/business that's causing the issue.

And heres a person that could act against exploitation and instead chooses to just follow orders.

If you're not part of the solution then what are you?

They aren't being ordered to do anything though. The system that was built isn't the thing setting the targets, the users are. We wouldn't argue that the creators of email are responsible for any exploitation that email has enabled and I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a developer for a delivery routing system is responsible for the incentive structure set up around that system after it has been built.

That's a crap analogy and you know it. Email started as a federated, open system. This Amazon is closed, for profit.

Everyone there is part of the problem and excuses their behavior with bullshit like "I'm only working on a small percentage of the exploitation". Is everyone so bad a maths now you've forgotten that 10 tenths makes a one?

That's definitely one world view, that people are responsible for how people use the things they create. Nothing wrong with it.

I'd hold a different world view, in which individuals who have good intentions shouldn't be blamed for their work getting bastardized or leveraged in unethical ways.

In this case, it seems totally reasonable that an engineer on this project would assume that their work would reward efficiency (which it does), and not be gamed to reward exploitation (which it apparently also does).

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

blaming the hammer manufacturer for $dastardlyConstruction.

put another way, is the person who built tipping into instacart a bad person? or is it the person who decided to calculate pay as (baseRate - incomingTips) = actualWage the bad person?

It's possible for both. We know amazon mistreats low wage workers. Then high wage workers build more on those exploitive systems and say "oh, it wasn't me".

But, I also think folks who excuse this kind of thing are bad actors too.

Or like down thread, trying to shift the blame to "the users" who are intentionally misled by advertising and the known information-imbalance that makes exploitive-capitalism work.