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

[wanderingfool2]

5 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

The disadvantages will outweigh the benefits. These so called 'solutions' will only add more pressure and stress for drivers who are already likely overworked (especially now in this pandemic). The yawning detection system sounds kinda useless. If a driver is already starting to yawn, they would likely need more than just 15 minutes of a break. 

I've been in a vehicle with someone who fell asleep and yelled at to wake up...so having a system that can detect that is important.  Given they also reported 48% drop in accidents, if those numbers are true, it does seem like a very compelling reason to keep a system like that.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Actually they are asking for their face, literally in the contract

 

and whether people act good on camera or not is irrelevant to whether a company should be able to require video monitoring in a situation where it isn't necessary. Again a dash cam will have the same "mirror effect" without reducing the drivers privacy.

To clarify I'm not arguing whether the employee has the right to privacy, I'm arguing the employee SHOULD have the right to privacy to the point where it doesn't interfere with the safety of the job. If the same goals can be accomplished with gps and motion tracking, there's no reason for the company to use a more intrusive method like a camera

Not for ownership of it. You make it seem like there aren't millions of people already working with cameras watching them....without issue.

 

It's actually not irrelevant at all, and it's entirely what is being discussed. People act better when they're on camera. A better driver is a better driver. Period.

They've done studies, and if it's reduced incidents by even 1/4 of the amount they claimed, it's still a positive.

 

You state without reducing the drivers privacy. Which they're not entitled to. So it doesn't matter.

 

Having a camera in the vehicle doesn't interfere with the safety of the job. If you can't do the job safely while being on camera, you shouldn't be doing it. If you're doing things you shouldn't be and that's why you don't want the camera in the car, you shouldn't be doing it. There are tons of jobs where people are on camera without any issue whatsoever. Just because it isn't required, doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it. Can't handle it? Work elsewhere. Simple.

[Distinctly Average]

2 hours 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.

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.

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.

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

Those are work settings, this is in PERSONAL VEHICLES

We get it, you dislike Amazon. Go find another job if you don’t like the conditions. Here in the UK almost all busses,,many taxis and most delivery vans have cameras. It is a two way thing. You are increasing your personal safety. You are helping reduce insurance costs. You are protecting your employer too. Everywhere there are cameras these days and I see nothing wrong with it as long as you are a law obiding citizen. People here complain about ANPR and I don’t get that either. It is a great tool and as long as you understand it is not tracking everyone, just wanted vehicles, then there is no issue.

 

As you seem obsessed with the human digestive system you should realise that in many countries, urinating in public is against the law. We all get caught short at times but most of us have the good decency to find a suitable place. I would suggest doing it where you know you are being filmed is far from suitable. Cameras toilets is obviously wrong, cameras in delivery vans, no worries. 

[steelo]

Years ago, I worked in an Amazon warehouse staring at Kindle screens to check for defects. I kid you not, I did this for 10 hours a day, 4 days a week wearing special glasses while shining a lamp to hundreds of screens. What made this even worse was...my shift was from 5pm-4am on those days while my wife worked 8am-5pm. Needless to say, it made me hate life but I was in school at the time and knew I wouldn't be there forever. As far as your situation, it sounds like they've tightened down the rules because other drivers before you really tried to take advantage of the 'freedom' they were given not having a manager in their face. Honestly, don't blame Amazon (although they are pretty evil) Blame the idiots before you.

 

With any job, it's a balance of how much BS you're willing to put up with versus how much you value a paycheck. Nobody is forcing you to be there and it sounds like you're miserable. Trust me, I've been in your situation with several jobs and it's an awful, hopeless feeling. Don't succumb to it, do something about it.

 

My 2 cents...For your own mental health, I would recommend at least starting a job search ASAP. What will (probably) end up happening is you'll stop caring a little at a time until you make a big mistake and they inevitably fire you...Trust me, it's not worth the aggravation of staying at a place you despise.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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 - 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 - 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)

you think amazon is going to let their drivers stop by the road for 15 minutes? more like we saw you yawning you are fired

[Morgan Everett]

Not entirely surprising. It does surprise me how many people are ready to do PR work for corporations such as these on a pro bono basis, though. 

[StDragon]

Amazon's end-game is a system of Manna.

[Master Delta Chief]

26 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

We get it, you dislike Amazon. Go find another job if you don’t like the conditions.

 

44 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Can't handle it? Work elsewhere. Simple.

No, it's not that simple to just find another job. I think this has been addressed already on numerous occasions, but finding a specific job that you want to do and you also have studied for doesn't always get 'gifted' right in front of you. It's such a simplified way of thinking that you just created this illusion that things can go in just a snap of a finger. 

 

Also, who in their right mind would 'like' Amazon? There's already so much negativity around it that it still blows my mind people would still defend them. 

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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 - 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 - 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)

Wait... they’re doing this to “contractors”?!  So they boned them once by evading normal hiring rules through a Regan era loophole, then they bone them again by throwing another requirement at them after they’ve taken the job and basically no longer have a choice.  Wow.  I wonder if this would even be legal if they were covered by employee regulations.  A lot of things companies do to contractors arent.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Bombastinator

[dizmo]

Just now, Master Delta Chief said:

No, it's not that simple to just find another job. I think this has been addressed already on numerous occasions, but finding a specific job that you want to do and you also have studied for doesn't always get 'gifted' right in front of you. It's such a simplified way of thinking that you just created this illusion that things can go in just a snap of a finger. 

 

Also, who in their right mind would 'like' Amazon? There's already so much negativity around it that it still blows my mind people would still defend them. 

It's an entry level delivery driver position. There is no studying. Yes, it is that simple.

Just because you want to do a job, doesn't mean you're suited to it, and by no means are you entitled to it.

They have well over 500,000 employees. Even if you have 0.01% of people don't like working there, that's still 5,000 people complaining. Seems big on paper, in reality it's a tiny percentage of their workforce.

[Guest]

Like you shouldn't be doing stupid stuff like not wearing a seatbelt. Peeing and defecating outside is just gross. Most likely this is insurance. 

[wanderingfool2]

39 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Wait... they’re doing this to “contractors”?!  So they boned them once by evading normal hiring rules through a Regan era loophole, then they bone them again by throwing another requirement at them after they’ve taken the job and basically no longer have a choice.  Wow.  I wonder if this would even be legal if they were covered by employee regulations.  A lot of things companies do to contractors arent.

Depends which article you read.  At most I would say at the moment there isn't any evidence that they are doing it with contractors who aren't driving Amazon vehicles.  Could be wrong on this one, but it seems more like they have their employees who do drive Amazon vehicles, but they also contract out to companies who have drivers to do the extra work (as Amazon scales up and down).  Like a driver on demand kind of thing (again could be wrong on this one, I don't really feel like looking too far into how it's working)

 

[Bombastinator]

39 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It's an entry level delivery driver position. There is no studying. Yes, it is that simple.

Just because you want to do a job, doesn't mean you're suited to it, and by no means are you entitled to it.

They have well over 500,000 employees. Even if you have 0.01% of people don't like working there, that's still 5,000 people complaining. Seems big on paper, in reality it's a tiny percentage of their workforce.

I don’t know if it’s actually “no experience necessary required class c drivers license” as you claim.  In some places class c licenses are very common.  In other places they aren’t. If the vehicle has air brakes that’s a class a license WITH an air brakes certification and absolutely requires special study everywhere.  Even a class c license requires some study, but it is or at least used to be something one got in high school.  Unless one didn’t. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Distinctly Average]

1 hour ago, Master Delta Chief said:

 

No, it's not that simple to just find another job. I think this has been addressed already on numerous occasions, but finding a specific job that you want to do and you also have studied for doesn't always get 'gifted' right in front of you. It's such a simplified way of thinking that you just created this illusion that things can go in just a snap of a finger. 

 

Also, who in their right mind would 'like' Amazon? There's already so much negativity around it that it still blows my mind people would still defend them. 

I don’t defend them at all. If it is as you say a hated company, why is it now so huge? They do a lot right and a lot wrong. While I don’t agree with many of their practices both sales and employment, they are just one of many companies that do the same. Does it make it right? If they stick to the law then yes. In that case it is up to governments to change things.

 

Seriously, this case is one of choice. Employees can choose to learn about what the film is basing used for, question any use that goes too far and use the footage to their pwn advantage. If they do not want to do that then they can choose to find another line of work or choose to live with it. While it is not a job I currently do, if I was in need then I would do any job whether filmed or not to pay the bills.

 

[Distinctly Average]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know if it’s actually “no experience necessary required class c drivers license” as you claim.  In some places class c licenses are very common.  In other places they aren’t.

Here in he UK you can drive a delivery van up to a certain size (that depends on when you passed your driving test just how big) on a standard driving licence. So the skills; healthy enough to do the job including lifting etc, full driving licence, ability to read, ability to navigate, ability to leave delicate or expensive parcels out in full view and open to the elements without bothering to knock, ability to pull out without indicating, ability to not care if you block the traffic as you cannot be arsed to park properly while you do your drop offs.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I don’t defend them at all. If it is as you say a hated company, why is it now so huge? They do a lot right and a lot wrong. While I don’t agree with many of their practices both sales and employment, they are just one of many companies that do the same. Does it make it right? If they stick to the law then yes. In that case it is up to governments to change things.

 

Seriously, this case is one of choice. Employees can choose to learn about what the film is basing used for, question any use that goes too far and use the footage to their pwn advantage. If they do not want to do that then they can choose to find another line of work or choose to live with it. While it is not a job I currently do, if I was in need then I would do any job whether filmed or not to pay the bills.

 

One of three I think.  FedEx, DHL, and UPS. There’s also USPS but that is a totally different thing.  You have to have certifications and pass a test and there’s a mile long waitlist.  It’s not totally uncommon to work at one of those other companies while waiting.

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Here in he UK you can drive a delivery van up to a certain size (that depends on when you passed your driving test just how big) on a standard driving licence. So the skills; healthy enough to do the job including lifting etc, full driving licence, ability to read, ability to navigate, ability to leave delicate or expensive parcels out in full view and open to the elements without bothering to knock, ability to pull out without indicating, ability to not care if you block the traffic as you cannot be arsed to park properly while you do your drop offs.

The USA has 3 license classes a,b,&c.  C is automobiles and is pretty common except in some cities where less than a third of people have one.  B is motorcycles and has a seperate test.  You also have to have a C license for a period of time before being able to apply for a B, though that may vary by state.  I was never interested in driving a motorcycle so we’re talking 40 year old information here.   A is everything else and has a lot of variants.  Limosines require a type of A license for example. No rear view mirror. My memory is a limo license can allow you to drive a school bus but not a truck.  A passenger van can commonly be driven on a C license, but many trucks, busses, and other types of equipment can’t.  I don’t know what the requirement for a motorhome is.  Could be A,C or variant of C.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Distinctly Average]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The USA has 3 license classes a,b,&c.  C is automobiles and is pretty common except in some cities where less than a third of people have one.  B is motorcycles and has a seperate test.  You also have to have a C license for a period of time before being able to apply for a B, though that may vary by state.  I was never interested in driving a motorcycle so we’re talking 40 year old information here.   A is everything else and has a lot of variants.  Limosines require a type of A license for example. No rear view mirror. My memory is a limo license can allow you to drive a school bus but not a truck.  A passenger van can commonly be driven on a C license, but many trucks, busses, and other types of equipment can’t.

Here things are very different. Driving jobs are 10 a penny. If I wanted one I could be working by the end of the week. Not my thing though so I will stick to IT. 
 

We have many different classes of driving licence. I can drive most things except a large

motorcycle (like you, no interest), a lorry or a bus. Those require different licences. That is in part due to when I passed, and that I passed in a manual car. If you pass in an automatic you cannot drive a manual nor many of the other vehicles. If you passed after certain dates you have to do a separate test to drive a vehicle of 8-16 seats, a different test to drive over 3.5 tons, certain agricultural stuff etc. It has become very fragmented and there are about 20 different categories on our driving licences.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Here things are very different. Driving jobs are 10 a penny. If I wanted one I could be working by the end of the week. Not my thing though so I will stick to IT. 
 

We have many different classes of driving licence. I can drive most things except a large

motorcycle (like you, no interest), a lorry or a bus. Those require different licences. That is in part due to when I passed, and that I passed in a manual car. If you pass in an automatic you cannot drive a manual nor many of the other vehicles. If you passed after certain dates you have to do a separate test to drive a vehicle of 8-16 seats, a different test to drive over 3.5 tons, certain agricultural stuff etc. It has become very fragmented and there are about 20 different categories on our driving licences.

They may be quite similar.  Passenger vans commonly have 7 seats. 

[dizmo]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know if it’s actually “no experience necessary required class c drivers license” as you claim.  In some places class c licenses are very common.  In other places they aren’t. If the vehicle has air brakes that’s a class a license WITH an air brakes certification and absolutely requires special study everywhere.  Even a class c license requires some study, but it is or at least used to be something one got in high school.  Unless one didn’t. 

I mean, sure you'd need a different drivers license (in some instances), but those aren't really hard to get. It's not like you've gone to school for 4 years for something you really want to do, it's often 20 hours of at home study (so 5 hours if you're actually trying) and then you go and take a test. If you can drive a car, you can drive the commercial vehicles they're driving. If you can't? Again, I revert to my previous statement: You shouldn't be doing it, go get a different job.

 

In Canada, an air brake endorsement course is 20 hours, which includes 4 hours of on hands training.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

The problem is at will firing

 

Quote

"There are limits, such as you can't fire people for discriminatory reasons," said David Weisenfeld, legal editor of the website XpertHR. You also can't fire them for exercising their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or many other federal and state employment statutes, he added. "In many states, you can't fire someone for off-duty conduct, as long as they're not bringing it into the office."

https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/employee-relations/Pages/Employment-at-Will-Isnt-a-Blank-Check-to-Terminate-Employees-You-Dont-Like.aspx

 

Just because Amazon might refuse to give a reason, you can press them on it, doesn't mean you cannot challenge it. It doesn't take a lot of deduction to figure out why you're being dismissed.

 

The whole At Will thing isn't a employer get out of jail free card many think it is, even though compared to our labor laws it's crap but regardless it's still not what people think it is.

[justpoet]

I didn't read all the comments this time like I normally do, so this may have already been brought up.

 

First, I'll say I'm fully against this, to get that out of the way.

 

However, this sort of tech has been becoming commonplace in big rigs and other "drive for your job" vehicles for a while.  It is also showing up in every day consumer vehicles (think driver attention monitoring, assistive braking, etc)...they're just not reporting that directly to the insurance company or the police....yet.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, dizmo said:

You make it seem like there aren't millions of people already working with cameras watching them....without issue.

Basically every minimum wage worker that uses a money till, those almost always have a camera (multiple) pointing at them and around them. Not that this is the only use case for cameras watching workers or being in work environment. I can't walk in to my office building without going in to view of multiple cameras and if I go in the to the actual datacenter I'm covered by multiple angles and are used for my safety monitoring not just security, something could happen to me and someone would see it.

[Jtalk4456]

8 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

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.

nope these are 3rd party delivery companies delivering amazon packages. Not all, but most of these drivers are using their own personal vehicles for it. I have 5 kids so a lot of household essentials delivered, and it either comes from a UPS truck or a personal vehicle, about 50/50 between the 2. Rarely if ever do i actually have an amazon delivery van come to my house.

8 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

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.

because that's on work grounds, work devices. This is personal vehicles. Does your job install a camera in your personal car and watch your face while you drive to work?
 

 

8 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

1. 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.

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

1. See I don't even think it's wrong in all situations. Let's take a major trucking company, like Averitt Express. Their sole job is trucking, trucking, trucking. They do nothing but drive all day every day. And with a semi truck being particularly large and therefore more dangerous, a camera watching for a yawn is entirely reasonable. So why could it be an issue for Amazon? Because that's not all they do. They are a tech company, highly invested in DATA. So I don't trust them to be collecting all this new data and just assume they will only use it for safety.

2. Exactly

8 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

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.

being perfectly honest I hadn't even considered weed, but then bad driving as a result would be part of the discussion already. I do agree the crux of the matter is the details of the contract, but I think there is an inherent difference with amazon being in the data business. normal surveillance companies or trucking companies aren't in the business of selling data, so there's no incentive to misuse the connected data.

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

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. 

so I'm not an expert on cameras, so I hadn't heard of these discarding loop systems. IF Amazon is using that, I'd be alright with that depending on what they qualify as an event and ofc the terms of the contract. If there is saved data or continuous monitoring however, I'm still against it given Amazon's vested interest in Data

[Donut417]

20 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

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

Exactly. Most if not all places I have worked have had cameras. Hell some times the cameras help you. For example I pick and pack orders for a living. We have customers who blatantly lie that they didnt get a product. Our home office can scrub thru the camera footage and watch us pack the order. This has saved our warehouse from getting a few errors. That also helps our company keep an eye on shady customers. 

 

20 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

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.

Amazon employees in the warehouse have had to piss in bottles before. At least a few reports have said. The way they keep track of productivity and the amount of productivity they require out of employees is insane. BUT if a Union gets in there that will all change. 

 

I think part of the concern is how Amazon pressures their workers. They roll thru employees like a Fast Food restaurant. Which isn't really good for any company as turn over costs money. But they pressure employees so hard they dont take breaks out of fear they will get fired. Same thing with delivering orders to homes, they are pressured to do a lot of orders as quickly as possible. There is only some much one person can do before they are "Done" and cant do any more.