Hacker News Reader

>I don't see a reason to assume Amazon does anything that every other warehouse doesn't do.

my understanding is that Amazon does do something that others don't - that is to bring extremely advanced tracking and analytics to employee performance and activity. This is of course imported as a philosophy from its side as a technology company.

I'm sure smaller warehouses / companies would like to do what Amazon does but cannot because they do not have the size and expertise to do it.

The bad part then comes that in the past warehouse work has not been algorithmically optimized as it can be now. Imagine monitoring a machine very closely, pushing it ever closer to peak performance, as you push it parts start to wear out quicker but that is ok because your monitoring catches this wearing out of parts as it happens and replaces them as needed - no one cares after all if the parts are worn out quicker, what one cares if the wearing out of parts damages the performance of the machine and due to your much better monitoring of this machine the wearing out of parts never damages the machine.

Now take a step back and imagine the parts are human beings and the machine is Amazon.

Time and motion studies go back a long way in industry

evidently bringing heavy computerization to processes that have existed a long time does nothing to make those processes more powerful.

Not sure id agree with you on that look up Charlie Chaplain's modern times factory work scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGs2Y5WJ14

The sarcasm was unnecessary.

I was building walking and inventory opimization for a mid size retailer/warehouse back in 2010. It’s really not that complex. I’m willing to believe Amazon is a whole lot better, but that doesn’t mean other companies don’t do it at all.

well my assumption is that a difference in size leads to a highly different result - not that others don't do something similar but they do not do exactly what Amazon does because probably not capable.

As with a lot of "unicorn" issues, the underlying issue is not that they're uniquely bad... it's that they're uniquely huge. Amazon warehouses aren't just another workplace. They're a new version of an industry, replacing an old version. Being so big, they also have pronounced effects on corporate culture and norms more broadly.

On bad faith... I won't argue that it's in good faith, but it's about average relative to journalism generally and Amazon vs Labour specifically. Amazon's PR is not a whole lot more intellectually honest, and euphemisation is (to me) one of the most grating forms.

> I don't see a reason to assume Amazon does anything that every other warehouse doesn't do

Being one of the worlds biggest companies that wants to eat everything and everyone (considering the verticals they are expanding into) surely would give them some reason to push their employees more than others. Some logistic companies are fine with their current size and quality, while others try to grow and satisfy their shareholders, that must have some impact on how the companies also treat their employees.

Their points system in the warehouses/FCs is literally "survival of the fittest".

They hire anyone, but the "weak" get weeded out pretty fast, so only those who can sustain the rather high workload continue working there.

And tbh, everyone is built differently, some can take much more physical abuse and pain without breaking a sweat, others break down and get depressed.

I'm in the latter category, I sometimes (used to be a lot) complain about my knees and back, but then I see others with healed broken legs and arms still working, limping but doing their hard job. And I think, well, fuck me, maybe I should shut up.

Still, it would be great if companies wouldn't push people to the limit. We have one life, let everyone enjoy it as best as they can.

It would be great if the companies that push people to the limit actually had a good reason for doing so. I don't believe Amazon has one.

It does it because it's profitable and because it can.

This is literally what a successful market looks like: a small number of much richer people at the top, and a giant pile of damaged and discarded people at the bottom.

Maybe it's time to redefine what "successful" means. If people are getting poorer or remain the same while a small number of people are getting richer, it's hard for me to understand that as "successful" in any way, unless you only think about the money.

Depends what you mean as 'good'. They're quite serious about killing everything else: sheer Darwinist obliteration of all competition. It doesn't worry them one bit if their endgame is 'world of fired people and a few superheroes suffering terribly to work at demonic intensity until they break'. That stuff is not their problem.

I didn't even blink at seeing this article. It tracks with the whole Amazon concept, very closely.

Is there a MORAL reason for doing this? Only if you think there's some special merit in celebrating that state of human existence beyond all other ways to be, and outside of any larger systems thinking. It would work nicely in Dalek World, where it's moral to exterminate all failed humans.

In 'evolutionary world' where we draw a lot of innovation and originality from integrating unexpected viewpoints and novel ideas, the Amazon thing is a quick road to starving your gene pool of anything useful. They're actively making other, less efficient forms of human employment unsustainable, rather than just unprofitable.

I suspect its because "Amazon" is the most visible there are far worse stories about UK warehouses.

Its a bit like the protestors against Mc Donalds.

And I do wonder if Amazon might have stricter reporting when compared to smaller industrial sites who might hide acidents.

>They kind of do? I get the point the article is trying to make, but they're just throwing everything at the wall to make that point, even when it doesn't really match reality.

They do not. A trainer's main goal is to keep an athlete healthy and capable of performing. In fact, rather than discard an injured athlete, they do the opposite: work with them to get them back to the best possible performance level.

In team sports the athletes and their team might have conflicting goals, especially if the team provides the trainers or an athlete is likely to sign a different team. Extract everything from an athlete and discard him / her could be in the immediate best interest for the team.

That's a hypothetical which is reliant on multiple points of coordinated, professionally antithetical malfeasance. It violates Occam's Razor.

I don't know what to tell you. Empirically, athletes getting worked to the bone / abused by their coach who hopes the athlete will become a star and bring fame and money to them is absolutely something that happens.

Gymnastics is where the abuse is the most notorious, but it happens everywhere.

Trainers and coaches are different roles. Coaches are concerned with high-level performance ("Are you scoring points?"), trainers are concerned with physiological performance ("Is your body moving effectively for your athletic goals?"). For trainers, a broken body is the exact opposite of what they would tolerate. What you could tell me is, "I didn't understand the subject, sorry for the erroneous comment."

Trainers get paid by professional athletes (at least in individual sports), not the other way around. Also, in most cases, the athlete is the brand. The analogy is ridiculous.

> The analogy is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how this comparison is "ridiculous". I think the analogy for players on team sports is more apt. There are parallels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6603920/

https://www.startribune.com/fleeting-glory-bodies-past-repai...

et al