Hacker News Reader

Comment by rightbyte | Hacker News Reader

> 400 packages a day on 10-hour routes

40 packages per hour or 90s per package. No wonder the drivers pee in bottles and work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs.

View on HN

And drive in ways that put the public at risk.

Even if you lack empathy about the situation of the drivers, the choices Amazon makes can impact you or someone you love and care about very quickly.

Very true. I used to commute through an area with many taxis and the amount of reckless driving and accidents I saw from them was ridiculous. I absolutely do not want a million more workers heavily incentivized to do the same.

It fits with the larger trend of corporations privitizing more profits at the expense of society as a whole.

I mean, sure, people are more likely to die in car accidents, but on the bright side Amazon can run more of their competitors out of business by driving down delivery costs! Great...

It’s another method of cost transfer. Rather than pay drivers better or in a way that allows them to slow down you incentivize them doing hints that put others at risk.

There’s a probability of an accident happening. And a probability of it causing a lawsuit and a probability of Amazon having to pay a settlement and a calculation of what that cost is compared to the savings of overtaxing drivers.

Bezos’ background at a hedge fund seems highly relevant to all this.

And throw packages like they don't care, as they should.

How is destroying other people's stuff a reasonable response for you being disgruntled at your employer?

It's not about being disgruntled, it's about not wanting your family to go hungry because you were only able to deliver three hundred packages in ten hours by taking extra care.

There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

Exactly what the game Papers Please is about

> There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

What is the difference, when you said you destroyed the packages in each case?

The difference is the intention.

But, the results are the same in either case. People's property gets destroyed. If the results are the same, what is the actual, real-world difference?

Well, no, you can bet if I hate my employer and therefore destroy people's stuff, that stuff is getting destroyed.

Tossing a cardboard box just doesn't do much the majority of the time.

It depends on your angle. If your looking to solve the problem, the root cause very much informs the solution. If your looking to prosecute, intention and context often inform the severity of the charge(s) and determination of guilt (ie man-slaughter v. first-degree murder).

That's not the workers problem.

People aren't responsible for their own actions?

> not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

Because you need your job, even. It's not just a want.

That exact same argument would hold true for drug dealers, mob enforcers, and a whole variety of people that do bad things. Sure, the mob boss is a bad guy for having the enforcer break someone's shop up; but the enforcer is _also_ a bad guy for doing it.

I'm not sure why people keep equating carelessness with actual malice.

Yes, obviously both the boss and the enforcer are bad for doing harmful things with an evil mind. That's just not the same as apathy.

Taking actions that you know put someone else's personal property at risk _is_ malice. It's less malice than actively breaking it, but it is actively making a choice to put something that belongs to someone else in harm's way.

No, it's not. Neither is minor speeding, for example. It's a lack of care and awareness about the consequences of one's actions - hardly a desire for those consequences. You say "active" and the whole point is that it isn't.

If the mob boss holds leverage over the enforcer (first a debt with threat of violence, and later evidence of the enforcer's crimes) then the enforcer might not be such a bad person. This is a big reason that lower level criminals are offered witness protection in exchange for information

I presume they mean due to only having such a short time to deliver, they aren't paid to expend time on being careful, rather than malice.

They're not getting paid to care, why should they?

Because it's a crime to intently destroy other peoples property?

There's a difference between intentionally destroying someone else's property, and simply not being paid enough to care what happens to it.

How did you get that the destruction was intentional?

I guess the ones that cared got fired for not meeting KPIs. Amazon is selecting for neglect and recklessness.

Buying from a retailer that doesn't work with such perverse incentives and inhumane practices could benefit the consumer it turns out.

If amazon would learn how to pack things, maybe stuff wouldn't get destroyed when boxes are tossed.

I've seen so many packages where the box is two sizes too big, and then a smattering of air pillows is added, leaving most of the space empty.

I assume packing has to take only seconds.

If an action takes you 5 minutes to do correctly and your boss force you to do it in 1 minute, how the hell can you do it right and not lose your job?

And park in the most ridiculous places. I wonder who pays the fines.

Parking tickets are just a cost of doing business in many areas. It's all factored into the prices ultimately paid by customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com