Amazon: We see you when you're Peeing, We know when you're unsafe...

[poochyena]

13 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Ma be a US vs Europe difference or just what i've encountered but i've never send any cam that films inside described as a dash cam. Those are allways called somthing else, (usually security camera as i've seen them most on busses and taxis).

There are a few on amazon. Here is one for example
https://smile.amazon.com/Campark-Channel-Capacitor-Parking-Support/dp/B08Q7NZ9L4/ref=sr_1_12_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=360+dash+cam&qid=1616649773&sr=8-12-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyNUROVkZCRlE4NzJPJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNjkzMjk3MkYyU0lRWVkzNDVSMSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNDkwMzkyMUtOSFdFWVIzN0pCRCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX210ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

Its less common than a single camera, but not unheard of

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I'm not against safety but you don't have to have a camera to accomplish it. An accelerometer and speed tracker accomplishes the same thing they claim to want to track. 

As far as the peeing goes, it's long been an issue that they don't have the time in their shifts to find a restroom without missing quotas and losing their jobs. If you have experience as a driver and have had plenty of time to plan restroom breaks, let's talk about it. But if you're just assuming they all suck at time management, that's a stretch for me. It's not like this hasn't been long documented with talk of peeing in bottles at distribution centers too. I'm not inclined to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt here. While public urination is wrong, if you gotta pee in the grass or lose your job, then the company is not structuring the shift correctly. 

Overall, safety is great but while the vehicle belongs to Amazon, my face belongs to me. I shouldn't be forced to be on constant video feed or get fired for something that can be accomplished without camera

I don't think the camera's are 100% there due to just pure safety (the speed and movement are likely taken from the GPS)....It's funny that you bring up the to catch peeing...because that is actually a really valid concern for Amazon.  Their drivers have been caught urinating on lawns where they had just delivered packages to.  So let me ask you this, an Amazon driver delivers a package to your house, and you see him peeing on your lawn...what would you think?

 

It's also likely to try to stop the Amazon drivers that pretend to deliver the package, and then reloads it into the vehicle (a high valued item)

A camera also does do the psychological nature that you are being watched and shouldn't do things that might look bad (ie seat belts)

 

Overall I think cameras in the vehicles are a good thing and more companies should do so.

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Also i call bullshit on Amazon's statistics. Most of the stuff they say decreased is stuff they had no way of measuring previously. SO personally i don't trust it worth a damm.

Well based on everything that was presented, they could have the statistics.  The way you measure seatbelts is by traffic violations, same with stop sign violations and distracted driving (you can base it off of the amount of tickets people get).  The accidents though is really easy to track.  So they might actually have all the numbers at their disposal (albeit, they could easily have cherry-picked the best results and left out worse ones).

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well based on everything that was presented, they could have the statistics.  The way you measure seatbelts is by traffic violations, same with stop sign violations and distracted driving (you can base it off of the amount of tickets people get).  The accidents though is really easy to track.  So they might actually have all the numbers at their disposal (albeit, they could easily have cherry-picked the best results and left out worse ones).

It also take a while for behavior to truly change so the measure could be at the start of the installation and then some time much later, to see the difference. Could be stats of days 1-10 vs days 50-60 from install.

[Spindel]

If there only was a way for employees to organize and go to the employer as a group to discuss these type of things. This union of people could put more pressure on the employer than individual employees. 
 

I don’t really have a name for it tho 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Spindel said:

I don’t really have a name for it tho 

There probably isn't a word for it in the English language, maybe a different one has something that fits?

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It also take a while for behavior to truly change so the measure could be at the start of the installation and then some time much later, to see the difference. Could be stats of days 1-10 vs days 50-60 from install.

Yea, that's true.

 

On a side note relating to the topic, the way it's phrased "verify driver identities" makes me think that they feel that some people are getting behind the wheel that aren't suppose to (like maybe the correct person starts off driving, but passes off the vehicle to someone else...someone that might not be verified to drive the vehicle).  While an accident might not be Amazon's fault (in terms of liability), it would likely make their job a lot harder if they have employees letting non-Amazon employees drive the vehicles

[Moonzy]

I think a camera allows to keep both parties in check, the driver (in regards of public defecating, wut) and the company (in regards to potentially not allowing their workers time to do essential businesses)

 

Unless if the footage somehow can't be accessed by either party then sure, it's foul play

 

I think a camera does more good than bad

Don't do things you don't want your employer to know about, and don't do things you don't want the court to know about

 

But idk the labor laws so -shrug- this might be very one sided depending on this factor alone

But we can always cancel Amazon if we get enough outcries on the publicly released footages

[CarlBar]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well based on everything that was presented, they could have the statistics.  The way you measure seatbelts is by traffic violations, same with stop sign violations and distracted driving (you can base it off of the amount of tickets people get).  The accidents though is really easy to track.  So they might actually have all the numbers at their disposal (albeit, they could easily have cherry-picked the best results and left out worse ones).

 

The issue with that is you don't know how many, (other than accident's, i'm in 100% agreement there), where caught vs not caught on that. If a significant number where going uncaught for example any apparent reduction could be down entirely to differences in enforcement. For that matter where they using the same subset of drivers for both groups. if they weren't or there was significant turnover you could be looking at hiring practise changes, or different state level enforcement of rules or any one of a bunch of other issues. There a lot of ways, deliberate and accidental you can screw this kind of thing up. And i just don't see any way amazon could be sure a high enough percentage of the incidents pre camera where being caught to be sure any change wasn't down to other factors. Accidents is kinda the one exception because you can be sure they're reported. Though if accidents in which the amazon driver was at fault went down less than those where they where not at fault it would be a case of misleading data. but Amazon would still have all of the necessery data so it would be a misrepresentation by amazon. (personally any flaws i'd bet are down to Amazon screwing up rather than malice, i'd be surprised if they expected enough push back to ever bother to cook the data, could be wrong though).

[Spindel]

57 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There probably isn't a word for it in the English language, maybe a different one has something that fits?

What about the German word ”Gewerkschaftsbund” or the Swedish word ”fackförbund”?

[Rauten]

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

There probably isn't a word for it in the English language, maybe a different one has something that fits?

55 minutes ago, Spindel said:

What about the German word ”Gewerkschaftsbund” or the Swedish word ”fackförbund”?

Here in Spain, we call them "sindicatos"... though on occasion they have also been called "mafias".

 

On topic though, I guess it depends on the camera position and what they can see, and what they can check.

I can fully understand the cameras from a road safety and package protection standpoint and, like others have said, it can also help drivers defend themselves against unfair accusations.

On the other hand, if it prevents drivers from being able to do basic things like peeing, well... that's just not good.

[Distinctly Average]

I don’t see the difference between being watched on a camera in a van to being watched by your boss in an office, or being filmed in a shop or bank. The title is very misleading and biased IMO. 

[TOMPPIX]

4 hours ago, Spindel said:

What about the German word ”Gewerkschaftsbund” or the Swedish word ”fackförbund”?

union.

[Jtalk4456]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

1. This is no invasion to privacy, what you do on company time is company intellectual property.

2. Amazon has the right to protect its investments, both personal and physical property.

3. Those cameras also protect you. Try the other shoe, supervisor claims your slouching.... umm camera proves otherwise. Didn't open the world of thought on this article to much....  and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

4. What I see is this ... people whining about cameras being used to enforce worker accountability. 

5. The urinating thing, (I can't believe I have to explain this) if you're not old enough [mentally] to find a bathroom when its time then well, you are not competent to be working anyway. Not to mention this public urination and defecation in most countries is illegal.

6. Lastly, this topic is not worth the time to address, post and to be replied too.

7. I challenge someone to try and convince me that this "article" has any relevance to ... anything valid.

1. Not amazon's time, and not their intellectual property. Don't know where you got that from, but if they tape me singing to music in the car, they don't have rights to sell my first album, they have no ip on what a driver does, that doesn't even make sense. 

2. Not Amazon's property. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, but this is not in amazon trucks that we're talking about. This is in contract companies, a lot of which use PERSONAL VEHICLES. Therefore they absolutely should have a right to privacy in their own car.

3. Unless Amazon uses the footage to fire you because you don't want to be recorded in your own vehicle, in which case it's not protecting you.

4. Not at all, just saying the camera is unnecessary to enforce that.

5. I'll say again, Amazon has a LONG history of controversy with not allowing proper time for breaks. This is not about fred not having time management skills, this is about fred having to deliver hundreds of packages in a shift and not being afforded the time to get off the road and stop at a clean and legal bathroom facility

6. I find your attitude a bit rude here, especially coming from a moderator, and especially given you're mid-addressing it, and with points that are out of topic since again it's not Amazon's vehicle. If you wanna disagree, fine, but lets not go down the path of demeaning and insulting someone for posting a news story just cuz you don't think it's important. 

7. See all the points above.
Overall I want to clarify as it seems few are reading the article in question here.
This is NOT an Amazon vehicle, this is NOT their property or their IP somehow. This is a contracted delivery company being told that their drivers will be monitored by Amazon or they will be fired. Many of these fleets are people using PERSONAL vehicles, like the ones that deliver to my house constantly.

The "peeing thing" as you call it, is a MINOR detail that made for a catchy title. It is NOT the point of the article, I'm NOT worried someone will get filmed with their pants down. That wasn't the point. The point is Amazon's controlling behavior over things that don't belong to them and it's impact on privacy.
The biggest point was that their argument of safety and accountability can all be done with a ROAD-FACING dash cam, gps tracking and accelerometer (likely in the gps). Since it can be done without the camera, the camera is unnecessary and is just a way of Amazon legally collecting more and more data.

This is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. I'm not arguing otherwise. BUT data privacy is a growing concern around the world and I sincerely hope that we can all see how a camera collecting biometric data while you drive YOUR OWN VEHICLE could be considered a bit of an issue. Is it legal, sure, but that doesn't make it right. And when we just accept it's legal so it's ok, that opens the door for many slippery slope arguments allowing tech and other companies to do whatever they want. 

9 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Also i call bullshit on Amazon's statistics. Most of the stuff they say decreased is stuff they had no way of measuring previously. SO personally i don't trust it worth a damn.

That said i don't necessarily have an issue with the camera's in principle, however thats on the basis of the labour laws as they exist where i live. Given the US's utterly awful labour laws, and amazons tendency to be at the centre of all kinds of worker treatment scandals, (even in Europe), i don;t exactly trust amazon to use this in a solely acceptable manner and that is an issue. And i'd bet it's at the heart of why the drivers are up in arms. It's not about  what amazon is saying they'll do with it, but about all the other things they will probably go and do with it.

Exactly my point. There is nothing illegal with Amazon requiring this, but this is in personal vehicles and we cannot guarantee this footage will solely be used for the purposes Amazon states. As I stated, accountability and safety can be enforced with a road facing dash cam and basic motion sensors, so why do they need a camera on the driver's face? because they want more data than that. Amazon is known for this. Great for consumers, horrible for employees. This is Amazon's MO, we've all heard about their bad labor practices.

8 hours ago, Alcarin said:

If you are driving an Amazon delivery vehicle while directly employed by Amazon, then sure I agree with the cameras and biometrics. I'm honestly surprised they haven't been in their vehicles before now. You are operating Amazon property, delivering merchandise that also isn't your property. Amazon has a right to protect its property and its customers.

If you are operating your own vehicle or another company's vehicle, as a part of a third party delivery service... that's where things get iffy.

This post does not take into consideration how Amazon treats its employees as a whole, this is just in the context of this thread.

The packages being Amazon's property could be an issue, but I'd argue that this again could be accomplished other ways. If you want to monitor shipping conditions, back seat camera. If you want to make sure the drive isn't stealing packages, cameras near the doors seeing if the driver enters the vehicle still holding the package. I'm just saying watching the driver sing along to their favorite genre for hours does nothing to promote safety or accountability. I'd assume as a worst case scenario, they might try to fire someone for complaining while on the job cuz they saw them complaining on camera. And with at will fires being legal in most places, they don't have to tell why they fire you. There are dozens of corporate dystopian novels about supercompanies with this kind of behavior. 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

don't really see how this is different than cameras at a warehouse or office building. dash cams are incredibly common in cars and very useful.

because the camera in a warehouse is necessary to enforce accountability and safety. The warehouse camera isn't trained on your face, it's trained on the warehouse as a whole and watches for any accidents. A camera facing a driver isn't watching the road, it isn't seeing if they pretended to deliver and put the package in the back to steal, it isn't watching their speed or braking or driving habits. It's literally just watching the driver's face. This is unnecessary for the points Amazon argues.

8 hours ago, CarlBar said:

May be a US vs Europe difference or just what i've encountered but i've never send any cam that films inside described as a dash cam. Those are allways called somthing else, (usually security camera as i've seen them most on busses and taxis).

Here dash Cam just means it's mounted on the dash, so could face either direction. I'm making the point that facing the driver's face, which is what they are doing here, does not help with safety or accountability. A dash can facing the road would help, or security videos on the outside of the vehicle.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

In particular if you have or know there is video recording of unreasonable working hours or conditions. Amazon could try and fire you and your counter is, go ahead I will dispute this as an unlawful dismissal and I can guarantee I will find a lawyer to pro bono this and take a cut of the payout I know I will get.

You'll have times logged and recorded of any breaks you have so unless you are having more or taking longer than you should Amazon is shit out of luck.

The problem is at will firing. Amazon doesn't have to say why they fired you, they just fire you and move on. All the evidence in the world is no defense when they won't give you a firing reason to argue against

[HelpfulTechWizard]

13 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

my face belongs to me.

yes. it does. but footage of it on (technically) private property does not. Amazon (in this case) is not removing your face and keeping it for their own.

[Jtalk4456]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

1. I don't think the camera's are 100% there due to just pure safety (the speed and movement are likely taken from the GPS)....It's funny that you bring up the to catch peeing...because that is actually a really valid concern for Amazon.  Their drivers have been caught urinating on lawns where they had just delivered packages to.  So let me ask you this, an Amazon driver delivers a package to your house, and you see him peeing on your lawn...what would you think?

2. It's also likely to try to stop the Amazon drivers that pretend to deliver the package, and then reloads it into the vehicle (a high valued item)

A camera also does do the psychological nature that you are being watched and shouldn't do things that might look bad (ie seat belts)

3. Overall I think cameras in the vehicles are a good thing and more companies should do so.

4. Well based on everything that was presented, they could have the statistics.  The way you measure seatbelts is by traffic violations, same with stop sign violations and distracted driving (you can base it off of the amount of tickets people get).  The accidents though is really easy to track.  So they might actually have all the numbers at their disposal (albeit, they could easily have cherry-picked the best results and left out worse ones).

1. Let me ask you this, will a dash cam facing the steering wheel do anything to catch him peeing on my lawn? Also if amazon gave proper breaks, that would be irrelevant. And I have cameras on my house to catch him.
2. Same question as above, this won't catch this behavior. This only sees the driver driving, nothing else.

3. I don't entirely disagree, but this isn't Amazon's vehicles and the cameras are trained on the one area that won't catch any bad behavior except for singing out of key.

4. It's possible, and I'm open to any discussion where safety truly is impacted that much. But first I need to ensure that camera in MY vehicle I use for deliveries isn't suddenly watching me off hours on the way to the grocery store. I need to ensure that they don't fire me for hearing me talking to a friend about politics on speaker. I need laws to ensure this is ONLY USED for safety and accountability. And most of all, I need to see the study and how the results were gotten.

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

On a side note relating to the topic, the way it's phrased "verify driver identities" makes me think that they feel that some people are getting behind the wheel that aren't suppose to (like maybe the correct person starts off driving, but passes off the vehicle to someone else...someone that might not be verified to drive the vehicle).  While an accident might not be Amazon's fault (in terms of liability), it would likely make their job a lot harder if they have employees letting non-Amazon employees drive the vehicles

I thought about that, but given an accident will include a police report naming who was driving, and outside of accidents and bad driving, a camera on the outside of the car would prevent this being an issue.

7 hours ago, Moonzy said:

But we can always cancel Amazon if we get enough outcries on the publicly released footages

Wishful thinking, but the allure of cheap items has kept them good through tons of scandals so far, I think canceling Amazon should have been done long ago if we wanted to stop them. Our only option now is to use law to regulate them.

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

The issue with that is you don't know how many, (other than accident's, i'm in 100% agreement there), where caught vs not caught on that. If a significant number where going uncaught for example any apparent reduction could be down entirely to differences in enforcement. For that matter where they using the same subset of drivers for both groups. if they weren't or there was significant turnover you could be looking at hiring practise changes, or different state level enforcement of rules or any one of a bunch of other issues. There a lot of ways, deliberate and accidental you can screw this kind of thing up. And i just don't see any way amazon could be sure a high enough percentage of the incidents pre camera where being caught to be sure any change wasn't down to other factors. Accidents is kinda the one exception because you can be sure they're reported. Though if accidents in which the amazon driver was at fault went down less than those where they where not at fault it would be a case of misleading data. but Amazon would still have all of the necessery data so it would be a misrepresentation by amazon. (personally any flaws i'd bet are down to Amazon screwing up rather than malice, i'd be surprised if they expected enough push back to ever bother to cook the data, could be wrong though).

Misrepresentation is a big issue, They could be getting these numbers by pitting their worst drivers with complaints against their best drivers.

4 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

I don’t see the difference between being watched on a camera in a van to being watched by your boss in an office, or being filmed in a shop or bank. The title is very misleading and biased IMO. 

Those are work settings, this is in PERSONAL VEHICLES

[Jtalk4456]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

yes. it does. but footage of it on (technically) private property does not. Amazon (in this case) is not removing your face and keeping it for their own.

in a personal vehicle though? Also do we know if they are storing that data? They are "collecting biometric data" they didn't say removing it after safety use. 

[HelpfulTechWizard]

Just now, Jtalk4456 said:

in a personal vehicle though? Also do we know if they are storing that data? They are "collecting biometric data" they didn't say removing it after safety use. 

I thought it was amazon vehicals (which are, infact, owned by Amazon)

Ofc they are storing the data. How else would they see if a safety infraction happened? Time Travel?

If its personal vehicles its bs.

[kelvinhall05]

I don't see how this is any different from security cameras at an office building or logging computer usage, browser history, etc on work profiles. I really don't see the problem.

[Master Delta Chief]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

[Sigh]

Amazon is not the first to do this.

This is no invasion to privacy, what you do on company time is company intellectual property.

Amazon has the right to protect its investments, both personal and physical property.

Those cameras also protect you. Try the other shoe, supervisor claims your slouching.... umm camera proves otherwise. Didn't open the world of thought on this article to much....  and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

What I see is this ... people whining about cameras being used to enforce worker accountability. 

The urinating thing, (I can't believe I have to explain this) if you're not old enough [mentally] to find a bathroom when its time then well, you are not competent to be working anyway. Not to mention this public urination and defecation in most countries is illegal.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong here.

 

Lastly, this topic is not worth the time to address, post and to be replied too.

After having been a COO for a company for 10years my sympathy for [driver] is kinda low.

This is the kind of defensive mentality that I completely despise. If other companies have done this, then it’s just as wrong as what Amazon is trying to pull off. Right now, they’re getting the attention from this as they’re a well-known company globally. This definitely goes against the privacy of the employees and does nothing but adding another layer of stress to them. Those camera’s might offer some ‘protection’ against them in certain situations, but that doesn’t justify its placements. 

 

If the drivers themselves don’t have the time to take a pee break, you won’t solve it with placing these cameras. It’s such a simplified way of thinking of solutions that it honestly hurts me.  

 

What can be considered worse, is that they’re doing this to a other firm who’s in contract with Amazon for delivering packages.

[Bombastinator]

Insurance companies tried something like this but less extreme some years ago and it failed in the marketplace.  I could see them being able to do it to new hires (though it’s possible a lot of people simply wouldn’t work for them knowing it would be enacted) but making previous hires do it strikes me as overly aggressive.  Those numbers are pretty high.  

[SGT-AMD]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

[Sigh]

Amazon is not the first to do this.

This is no invasion to privacy, what you do on company time is company intellectual property.

Amazon has the right to protect its investments, both personal and physical property.

Those cameras also protect you. Try the other shoe, supervisor claims your slouching.... umm camera proves otherwise. Didn't open the world of thought on this article to much....  and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

What I see is this ... people whining about cameras being used to enforce worker accountability. 

The urinating thing, (I can't believe I have to explain this) if you're not old enough [mentally] to find a bathroom when its time then well, you are not competent to be working anyway. Not to mention this public urination and defecation in most countries is illegal.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong here.

 

Lastly, this topic is not worth the time to address, post and to be replied too.

After having been a COO for a company for 10years my sympathy for [driver] is kinda low.

 

 

I challenge someone to try and convince me that this "article" has any relevance to ... anything valid.

https://www.truckingtruth.com/wiki/topic-64/trucking-companies-that-use-driver-facing-cameras

 

Old news indeed

 

[Bombastinator]

13 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Amazon owns the vehicles, not the employees so it makes perfect sense to track where those vehicles are doing. It’s like a company issuing laptops to their employees with restrictions in place like restricting what domains can be accessed, what programs to run. Heck, a company has the right to fire anyone who tries to tamper those restrictions. If I issue my employee a laptop and tried to watch porn or download the entire 9 episodes of WandaVision via torrenting by attempting to uninstall the endpoint protection software, that would fall classify under tampering and destruction of private property. Same goes for jailbreaking and rooting a company issued phone or tablet.
 

Also, I don’t see how could a union solve such problems. I might be shortsighted to this issue as I have never worked for a company with unions. Besides, Amazon workers now got their $15/hour minimum wage. 

If the camera only watches the vehicle your argument would follow, but apparently it doesn’t.

[Taf the Ghost]

The exact details of the contract are what matters. A camera in the cabin while annoying, isn't really any different from any office building with internal or external surveillance equipment. But there's very much open questions about any data collections, because there always are. That's why the details matter.

 

However, the answer everyone is looking for is "weed". It's less expensive for Amazon to passively drug test this way rather than always actively testing employees. That and drinking on the job. That's what it really is about.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, SGT-AMD said:

https://www.truckingtruth.com/wiki/topic-64/trucking-companies-that-use-driver-facing-cameras

 

Old news indeed

 

I am instantly suspicious of any media outlet claiming “truth” in their title, (because it’s by definition not possible. The best that can be achieved is not knowingly false.  The claim shows a disturbing amount of arrogance at best) but looking at it it seems the Amazon thing is even more invasive that a discarding loop system that only saves if there is a major event. 

[wanderingfool2]

On a note for everyone:

- The camera system gives audible reminders when it detects things such as unsafe following, and red-light running (so automatic feedback, which I think is good)

- The camera can detect yawning, and even warn the driver to pull over for 15 minutes (this would benefit the driver).

- The camera can be used in the event of an accident (if the driver is not at fault it can help them, and in either case it could mean that Amazon has a reduced insurance cost)

- The camera is actually 4 parts, road, sides and driver...essentially a 360 camera

- It is equipped on Amazon branded vehicles

https://www.cnet.com/news/senators-question-amazon-on-use-of-cameras-to-monitor-delivery-drivers/

 

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Not amazon's time, and not their intellectual property. Don't know where you got that from, but if they tape me singing to music in the car, they don't have rights to sell my first album, they have no ip on what a driver does, that doesn't even make sense. 

2. Not Amazon's property. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, but this is not in amazon trucks that we're talking about. This is in contract companies, a lot of which use PERSONAL VEHICLES. Therefore they absolutely should have a right to privacy in their own car.

3. Unless Amazon uses the footage to fire you because you don't want to be recorded in your own vehicle, in which case it's not protecting you.

4. Not at all, just saying the camera is unnecessary to enforce that.

5. I'll say again, Amazon has a LONG history of controversy with not allowing proper time for breaks. This is not about fred not having time management skills, this is about fred having to deliver hundreds of packages in a shift and not being afforded the time to get off the road and stop at a clean and legal bathroom facility

6. I find your attitude a bit rude here, especially coming from a moderator, and especially given you're mid-addressing it, and with points that are out of topic since again it's not Amazon's vehicle. If you wanna disagree, fine, but lets not go down the path of demeaning and insulting someone for posting a news story just cuz you don't think it's important. 

 

-Snip-

1 - Actually, if you are being paid by Amazon (and do something else on their time) it would be considered their IP (or at least they have partial ownership).  Sure, they might not have the right to sell it since it's not in the contract, but you don't have the right to claim it as your own entirely as well (i.e. If you were to sell it, Amazon could also pursue you). The fact is, if you are contracted for a job between a set range of hours and you do other things they can try claiming IP as you are doing so on Amazon's dime.

2 - Do more research into it.  It is Amazon's property.  They are deploying it in Amazon branded vehicles, the drivers are contracted, but it's still Amazon branded vehicles (and thus Amazon has more control over them)

3 - Just because it can be used against you doesn't invalidate the point that it can also protect you.  If you get fired/reprimanded for not delivering all your packages in the allotted time, you could request the GPS and camera footage to show that you in fact were unable to do so.  If you want to take a bathroom break; and you get in trouble for it because you haven't delivered enough packages...you now have video proof showing that you didn't spend an unreasonable time finding/using a bathroom (which would mean they can't punish you and if they do you could sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

5 - Again, you could use the video against them.  Bathroom breaks have been held up in court (within reason)

6 - His attitude wasn't rude.

 

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Let me ask you this, will a dash cam facing the steering wheel do anything to catch him peeing on my lawn? Also if amazon gave proper breaks, that would be irrelevant. And I have cameras on my house to catch him.
2. Same question as above, this won't catch this behavior. This only sees the driver driving, nothing else.

3. I don't entirely disagree, but this isn't Amazon's vehicles and the cameras are trained on the one area that won't catch any bad behavior except for singing out of key.

4. It's possible, and I'm open to any discussion where safety truly is impacted that much. But first I need to ensure that camera in MY vehicle I use for deliveries isn't suddenly watching me off hours on the way to the grocery store. I need to ensure that they don't fire me for hearing me talking to a friend about politics on speaker. I need laws to ensure this is ONLY USED for safety and accountability. And most of all, I need to see the study and how the results were gotten.

1 - They have a video of the side (likely there is still quite the obstruction, but there are a decent amount of videos out there showing the Amazon driver doing the deed at the front of the vehicle...which this would definitely catch).  Point is, find a bathroom, if they go after you just sue them for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

2/3/4 - You are making assumptions again.  Again do some research on this subject before you start making drastic claims. (fyi it doesn't capture sound).

 

In the comment about the accident, by the time an accident happened it's already too late.  Having a wrong driver behind the wheel can invalidate the insurance and thus could mean a whole lot of money if an accident occurs (cost of the vehicle, cost of the packages, cost of any injuries to the opposing party)...sure Amazon could go after the driver for the lost money, but it would be likely they wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

Again, I just want to point out there hasn't been any evidence you have shown that says it is going in unbranded personal vehicles.  The indication is that it's in the branded Amazon vehicles (which do have contract drivers)