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

[Bombastinator]

26 minutes ago, dizmo said:

1. Wasn't it already confirmed that it's for the Amazon branded vehicles? Even if it wasn't, that's something you can either choose to accept or not. Don't like it, work elsewhere that doesn't require it. Amazon is far from the only delivery service. Hell, they're far from the only delivery service that delivers Amazon packages.

2. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're not working for your ISP.

3. Not if you're using it for work. Same thing if you use a phone or laptop for work; they have access to that portion.

 

If you think we're ever going to live in a world where everyone feels the same about everything, you're enjoying a very fluffy cloud 9. You can never cater to everyone. There's loads of people that can't handle retail environments. When I was working retail, I hired and fired many. So, what does that mean? That all of retail should change because some people can't cut it? Nope. It means that there's simply some jobs that some people aren't cut out for.

I get the feeling he's never worked a job where that's a situation he's come across, and thus it seems incredibly invasive to him, when really it's not.

The impression I got was not that Amazon was adding video surveillance, but that they were adding TO the already in place surveillance and changing how it worked.  It wasn’t so much that surveillance was over the line, but that the particular form was, partially because it was allegedly done in a way that was overly invasive and expensive compared to other simpler systems that could look for the same things with less cost and annoyance.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

It is.  If Amazon drivers were paid differently by area such things could be arranged.  A pay bump for those living in NYC or other extremely expensive areas for example.  Cost of living by area makes a lot of difference. 
 

The problem with your concept of “you really shouldn’t be living in a city” is that is where over half of all deliveries are going to be.  If you work in a city the farthest away you can live is a suburb where the cost of living is generally near the same.  As it is a rush hour commute from a suburb to a city can be 45 min or more.  At a point you have to start factoring in commute time at which point pricing no longer helps because people aren’t paid to commute.  Standard amount people in the US seem to be willing to spend on commute time is something like 20 minutes.

Prices in suburbs is almost always cheaper than the city when factoring in size of the apartment for rent or sale. Also I call bs on the 20 min commute time. I regularly spent 40 minutes on commuting to work and it was absolutely no problem for me. This is not even factoring in the amount of time i would wait at the bus stop. It wasn't that hard at all and i didn't mind it. Both my parents spend at least 30 mins on commute before covid and this is pretty typical for alot of people who work in the city but live in the suburbs. The fact that having to commute is even being brought up in this argument is simply ridiculous. Thats such an entitled view that nobody should have to commute more than 20 mins. 

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Prices in suburbs is almost always cheaper than the city when factoring in size of the apartment for rent or sale. Also I call bs on the 20 min commute time. I regularly spent 40 minutes on commuting to work and it was absolutely no problem for me. This is not even factoring in the amount of time i would wait at the bus stop. It wasn't that hard at all and i didn't mind it. Both my parents spend at least 30 mins on commute before covid and this is pretty typical for alot of people who work in the city but live in the suburbs. The fact that having to commute is even being brought up in this argument is simply ridiculous. Thats such an entitled view that nobody should have to commute more than 20 mins. 

True, but not by a very massive amount quite often.  Suburbs exist because it is slightly cheaper to live there.  They spread pretty quickly though.  Then supply and demand takes effect and prices rise.  Suburbs have a history that follows transport.  Suburbs didn’t used to exist before commuter trains.  There’s a limit for suburbs based on commute time.  Tokyo was a massively expensive city to live in so japan invented faster transportation and they were the first country to have bullet trains. In France the TMV mostly serves Paris.

[Jtalk4456]

17 hours ago, dizmo said:

1. Wasn't it already confirmed that it's for the Amazon branded vehicles? Even if it wasn't, that's something you can either choose to accept or not. Don't like it, work elsewhere that doesn't require it. Amazon is far from the only delivery service. Hell, they're far from the only delivery service that delivers Amazon packages.

2. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're not working for your ISP.

3. Not if you're using it for work. Same thing if you use a phone or laptop for work; they have access to that portion.

 

If you think we're ever going to live in a world where everyone feels the same about everything, you're enjoying a very fluffy cloud 9. You can never cater to everyone. There's loads of people that can't handle retail environments. When I was working retail, I hired and fired many. So, what does that mean? That all of retail should change because some people can't cut it? Nope. It means that there's simply some jobs that some people aren't cut out for.

4. I get the feeling he's never worked a job where that's a situation he's come across, and thus it seems incredibly invasive to him, when really it's not.

1. Nope I've confirmed the opposite several times in this thread and in my status post. I've also mentioned that saying get another job isn't always an option for everyone. Allowing bad practices to happen and be content just because it's not your job is just condemning others to suffer. In some towns where an amazon warehouse moved in, it pretty much is the ONLY delivery job in that area. I've posted examples of that as well. 

2. I'm not comparing work to not work. You made the argument that it was worth it if safety was improved, if crime went down. The end justified the means for you. What I'm saying is there's other ways we can justify the means of other obviously invasive actions. If the isp did what I said, overall citizen safety would improve. But there is a cost, there is a risk of power being misused. This is the slippery slope that can be seen by opening about any dystopian novel where the government or corporation has slowly added this and that little by little, until all of a sudden the world is in their control almost to every extreme. The ends don't always justify the means. Because when you just look at the end and don't take into account the cost, of course the balance is tipped. If you add in the cost, the equation is balanced differently. 

3. Not the same, because when you get off work, you're not using your work laptop for personal use. You're driving that car home, you're using it for groceries, errands, vacations, visiting families. You wouldn't take your work pc home and open up pornhub. But if you wanted to hit the strip club, guess what you're driving there? The same vehicle used for work. That is the difference in privacy. If the gps in this surveillance system tracks location history, well amazon now see's you went to the strip club last night. Will they fire you for it? Maybe, it wouldn't be legal, but again entry level workers rarely have the time or resources to fight work treatment and injustice. The point is what they could do with this data is overwhelmingly more than the few safety concerns they claim it addresses. And those concerns could be met with a far less intrusive method, so the only reason to get the more expensive solution is to take advantage of the extra capability. Meaning the potential they will misuse this extra data is higher in my opinion than the potential they paid more for a system because they DON'T plan on using the extra features. 

4. Man a lot of people in this thread assuming things about my work life... This makes the least sense. Of course I've worked at a till with a camera on me. But that till wasn't in my living room or kitchen. It was in the store, it was in the restaurant. And the till belonged to the company. So did the countertop, and everything else in the work building. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is a difference between reasonable expectations of property in your personal vehicle versus a work establishment.

[Leviathan-]

On 3/26/2021 at 10:16 PM, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Now I feel personally attacked. What because I work for the Government, I'm no longer a private citizen? I'm just like every other IT folk out there. My employer just happens to be the Government. I got the job the same way someone else gets theirs at a private corporation, through an interview and a detailed background check (okay maybe private folks wouldn't need one as in-depth). But I don't get where people make this association that public servants are pretty much as corrupt as politicians. Our pay is in-line with the rest of the industry. In fact, it could be lower as bonuses do not exist. And don't even get us started on stuff like Christmas parties and luncheons. Non-existent, all paid out of pocket. 

I mean, do you consider what you do to qualify as a public servant? You work for the man, or are you the man? I say we watch you just because, who knows what you have access to and what your doing with your time on active sessions. We will be watching you from this day forward. In all seriousness, see the quote below.

On 3/26/2021 at 11:59 PM, Bombastinator said:

Conflation between government service and elected officials is a surprisingly common occurrence.  It must be remembered that 99% of government service workers aren’t elected or even appointed.  My dad actually did get appointed from a regular position mostly because they asked 28 other more qualified people if they wanted the job and  they all said no.  My dad only took it because he was retiring in the very near future and it represented a retirement GS rating 2 step bump.  Kind of a big deal.  Most government workers actually don’t even WANT the appointed positions.  My Dad thought long and hard about taking it even though he was only going to be in it a year and the chances he would be called on were essentially zero. It was entomological advisor to the president.  (Carter in this case) So if the United States suffered a plague of locusts my dad would have been the guy on television explaining to Kansas housewives why the grill of their car was full of dead grasshoppers.  Not a really likely thing to happen.  To take one is or was called “going political” and was steadfastly avoided by basically everyone. The “politicals” were even looked down on.

 

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Leviathan- said:

I mean, do you consider what you do to qualify as a public servant? You work for the man, or are you the man? I say we watch you just because, who knows what you have access to and what your doing with your time on active sessions. We will be watching you from this day forward. In all seriousness, see the quote below.

 

?

[Leviathan-]

20 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

?

Quote was not meant for you :). It was for the blue chinchilla. I referenced your quote as an example for how people confuse holding public office vs working for the government. 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, Leviathan- said:

Quote was not meant for you :). It was for the blue chinchilla. I referenced your quote as an example for how people confuse holding public office vs working for the government. 

Fair enough.

[Leviathan-]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Fair enough.

Cheers.

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Nope I've confirmed the opposite several times in this thread and in my status post. I've also mentioned that saying get another job isn't always an option for everyone. Allowing bad practices to happen and be content just because it's not your job is just condemning others to suffer. In some towns where an amazon warehouse moved in, it pretty much is the ONLY delivery job in that area. I've posted examples of that as well. 

2. I'm not comparing work to not work. You made the argument that it was worth it if safety was improved, if crime went down. The end justified the means for you. What I'm saying is there's other ways we can justify the means of other obviously invasive actions. If the isp did what I said, overall citizen safety would improve. But there is a cost, there is a risk of power being misused. This is the slippery slope that can be seen by opening about any dystopian novel where the government or corporation has slowly added this and that little by little, until all of a sudden the world is in their control almost to every extreme. The ends don't always justify the means. Because when you just look at the end and don't take into account the cost, of course the balance is tipped. If you add in the cost, the equation is balanced differently. 

3. Not the same, because when you get off work, you're not using your work laptop for personal use. You're driving that car home, you're using it for groceries, errands, vacations, visiting families. You wouldn't take your work pc home and open up pornhub. But if you wanted to hit the strip club, guess what you're driving there? The same vehicle used for work. That is the difference in privacy. If the gps in this surveillance system tracks location history, well amazon now see's you went to the strip club last night. Will they fire you for it? Maybe, it wouldn't be legal, but again entry level workers rarely have the time or resources to fight work treatment and injustice. The point is what they could do with this data is overwhelmingly more than the few safety concerns they claim it addresses. And those concerns could be met with a far less intrusive method, so the only reason to get the more expensive solution is to take advantage of the extra capability. Meaning the potential they will misuse this extra data is higher in my opinion than the potential they paid more for a system because they DON'T plan on using the extra features. 

4. Man a lot of people in this thread assuming things about my work life... This makes the least sense. Of course I've worked at a till with a camera on me. But that till wasn't in my living room or kitchen. It was in the store, it was in the restaurant. And the till belonged to the company. So did the countertop, and everything else in the work building. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is a difference between reasonable expectations of property in your personal vehicle versus a work establishment.

1. It is. Never, in any place, are you forced to work for a single company. Even if it were theoretically the only job (which it isn't), suck it up, work there for a few months, and move to somewhere with more work. If you find it that intolerable, moving with nothing more than a suitcase of clothes costs next to nothing.

2. Except it's not. What you're saying is akin to basically saying that laws shouldn't exist. Government oversight. While that might not be exactly what you said, it's about the same as comparing the conversation at hand to your ISP comparison.

3. With some companies, yes you are. You also have the option of using your personal phone for work, at which time you allow the company access.

4. It's still a work environment. It's not like they're going to watch you when you're about doing your own thing. If you don't like it, don't work for the company. It's not like it's a one pony show and they're the only delivery company out there. Amazon employs 75,000 drivers, out of a workforce of millions.

 

[wamred]

On 3/24/2021 at 7:42 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

Summary

 Amazon drivers must consent to biometric monitoring or lose jobs.

 

Quotes

1.

2.

3.

 

My thoughts

1. I can understand the safety benefit and Amazon making sure their drivers are driving well but this is a bit much...

2. "Don't believe them, these are not the droids you're looking for"

3. OK now I'm 100% against this. Just have a GPS monitoring speed and acceleration and braking for safety, you don't need a camera on the drivers face, or back if peeing, to ensure safety

 

Sources

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-drivers-must-consent-to-biometric-monitoring-or-lose-jobs-reports-say/

I agree I don’t like that my boss can see where I am let alone anything like this. 

[Jtalk4456]

On 4/3/2021 at 10:15 PM, dizmo said:

1. It is. Never, in any place, are you forced to work for a single company. Even if it were theoretically the only job (which it isn't), suck it up, work there for a few months, and move to somewhere with more work. If you find it that intolerable, moving with nothing more than a suitcase of clothes costs next to nothing.

2. Except it's not. What you're saying is akin to basically saying that laws shouldn't exist. Government oversight. While that might not be exactly what you said, it's about the same as comparing the conversation at hand to your ISP comparison.

3. With some companies, yes you are. You also have the option of using your personal phone for work, at which time you allow the company access.

4. It's still a work environment. It's not like they're going to watch you when you're about doing your own thing. If you don't like it, don't work for the company. It's not like it's a one pony show and they're the only delivery company out there. Amazon employs 75,000 drivers, out of a workforce of millions.

1.

Spoiler

There's always the choice, I've never said anyone has a gun to their head to stay, but you make is sound like anyone can just get up and do what they want without worrying about consequence. Let's say you're in a small town taken over by an amazon warehouse. They grabbed up a bunch of land from townspeople, so population just got cut to take down houses and make room. Amazon is in town paying 15/hr, assuming the recent increase. It's a small town so we're talking a gas station or two, maybe 2 grocery stores, nothing big here. Most people, even before amazon came, drove to the bigger town an hour down the road if they needed anything beyond groceries. So we've got mostly housing, mixed with some low paying jobs at a gas station or grocery store. Well this is a small town, so most people aren't very wealthy, conditions are poor and so taxes are low, meaning little help from the local government. Infrastructure sucks including not having updated equipment for the couple of firefighters and the 2 police in the town. The couple hundred people who live here see their opportunity to move up to a slightly better pay with amazon, so they work there. So do a lot of the people in the nearby town. But of course for good restaurants and infrastructure and everything else, people aren't really spending money in the small town, they still head to the nearby town. A few months in people begin to want out. Sure they weren't making as much at their other jobs, but they want to be treated better. Except they have kids. And they've had just a tiny bit more money to work with for the occasional lolipop, better birthday and xmas presents, etc. Could they get a job at the neighboring town, sure, but it's just slightly bigger with just a little more pay, and that would get eaten up with gas costs driving an hour. Could they just pick up and move with a suitcase like you suggest? I mean some could maybe, but that would be harder than staying where they are and they live in a poor area with lower education rates, so without a degree, they'd have a hard time finding a job in the other town making enough to be worth the costs of moving and finding new living arrangements. Could they sell their home to help? Sure, except they have a mortgage and won't get much equity out of it, and it's a small town so the market to sell real estate is almost nothing. Some might literally ABANDON their homes because Amazon brings up property value in the area and they can no longer afford their property tax. Also moving is way harder with kids involved, so that's a no go. Do they have any choices to leave Amazon? Sure, but are any of them better than staying? Not really. Most options are difficult on their own, let alone for anyone with a family, kids, nearby parents who might need more attention as they get older. This is what I mean when I say they don't always have the choice that easily.

Now let's pretend this isn't pretending because I've actually see this happen to a rural area near me. In the mountains, a big ski lodge came in and the whole area is only there for that ski lodge now. Poverty has gotten far worse as people have no real good choices to leave, they end up trapped in low paying service jobs for the skiing tourism industry. The area gets more and more run down and poverty stricken as no one can afford to live there and abandon their houses due to high property tax. Those who remain enjoy terrible infrastructure, because the giant ski company sits just over the town border and doesn't pay any taxes to the area it has primarily affected. At least the other town limits will get some taxes, not a lot since local governments agree to low or no tax situations to have these large companies come, Amazon being one of the best examples of this. You can say that people can make the choice til the cows come home, but unless the company actually contributes taxes, puts forth effort to make the area better, and raises wages to not just slightly above minimum, but actually liveable wages, some people will not be in a position to drop everything and make the drastic changes you suggest. The long run is no good if your kids starve in the short run.

2. Agree to disagree

3. Except you can use your own laptop and leave the work one off. You can pay for your own phone that isn't being tracked by the company. You can't always choose to have a second car just for the grocery store trip to not include camera.

4. Sure, if you can guarantee they can't watch these outside of work. Except you can't because they are actually triggered by driving behavior, not work shifts. And when Amazon could fire you for unplugging the camera, noting the signed contract, it's a guarantee these will be on standby anytime the car is on. Even outside work hours.

[Master Delta Chief]

On 4/4/2021 at 4:15 AM, dizmo said:

1. It is. Never, in any place, are you forced to work for a single company. Even if it were theoretically the only job (which it isn't), suck it up, work there for a few months, and move to somewhere with more work. If you find it that intolerable, moving with nothing more than a suitcase of clothes costs next to nothing.

This is just a complete lie. It isn't always that simple to find a different job as there's multiple different factors you need to take in account and you know it. It's such a typical right-libertarian take that it just sounds outright ridiculous. If you don't like the working conditions of your workplace, you should strike (when there's a lot of support for it) and demand immediate improvements. If the workers have more of a say where they work (aka workplace democracy), they may accept and even like what they're doing more. 

[dizmo]

On 4/4/2021 at 9:34 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

1.

  Reveal hidden contents

There's always the choice, I've never said anyone has a gun to their head to stay, but you make is sound like anyone can just get up and do what they want without worrying about consequence. Let's say you're in a small town taken over by an amazon warehouse. They grabbed up a bunch of land from townspeople, so population just got cut to take down houses and make room. Amazon is in town paying 15/hr, assuming the recent increase. It's a small town so we're talking a gas station or two, maybe 2 grocery stores, nothing big here. Most people, even before amazon came, drove to the bigger town an hour down the road if they needed anything beyond groceries. So we've got mostly housing, mixed with some low paying jobs at a gas station or grocery store. Well this is a small town, so most people aren't very wealthy, conditions are poor and so taxes are low, meaning little help from the local government. Infrastructure sucks including not having updated equipment for the couple of firefighters and the 2 police in the town. The couple hundred people who live here see their opportunity to move up to a slightly better pay with amazon, so they work there. So do a lot of the people in the nearby town. But of course for good restaurants and infrastructure and everything else, people aren't really spending money in the small town, they still head to the nearby town. A few months in people begin to want out. Sure they weren't making as much at their other jobs, but they want to be treated better. Except they have kids. And they've had just a tiny bit more money to work with for the occasional lolipop, better birthday and xmas presents, etc. Could they get a job at the neighboring town, sure, but it's just slightly bigger with just a little more pay, and that would get eaten up with gas costs driving an hour. Could they just pick up and move with a suitcase like you suggest? I mean some could maybe, but that would be harder than staying where they are and they live in a poor area with lower education rates, so without a degree, they'd have a hard time finding a job in the other town making enough to be worth the costs of moving and finding new living arrangements. Could they sell their home to help? Sure, except they have a mortgage and won't get much equity out of it, and it's a small town so the market to sell real estate is almost nothing. Some might literally ABANDON their homes because Amazon brings up property value in the area and they can no longer afford their property tax. Also moving is way harder with kids involved, so that's a no go. Do they have any choices to leave Amazon? Sure, but are any of them better than staying? Not really. Most options are difficult on their own, let alone for anyone with a family, kids, nearby parents who might need more attention as they get older. This is what I mean when I say they don't always have the choice that easily.

Now let's pretend this isn't pretending because I've actually see this happen to a rural area near me. In the mountains, a big ski lodge came in and the whole area is only there for that ski lodge now. Poverty has gotten far worse as people have no real good choices to leave, they end up trapped in low paying service jobs for the skiing tourism industry. The area gets more and more run down and poverty stricken as no one can afford to live there and abandon their houses due to high property tax. Those who remain enjoy terrible infrastructure, because the giant ski company sits just over the town border and doesn't pay any taxes to the area it has primarily affected. At least the other town limits will get some taxes, not a lot since local governments agree to low or no tax situations to have these large companies come, Amazon being one of the best examples of this. You can say that people can make the choice til the cows come home, but unless the company actually contributes taxes, puts forth effort to make the area better, and raises wages to not just slightly above minimum, but actually liveable wages, some people will not be in a position to drop everything and make the drastic changes you suggest. The long run is no good if your kids starve in the short run.

2. Agree to disagree

3. Except you can use your own laptop and leave the work one off. You can pay for your own phone that isn't being tracked by the company. You can't always choose to have a second car just for the grocery store trip to not include camera.

4. Sure, if you can guarantee they can't watch these outside of work. Except you can't because they are actually triggered by driving behavior, not work shifts. And when Amazon could fire you for unplugging the camera, noting the signed contract, it's a guarantee these will be on standby anytime the car is on. Even outside work hours.

No, I didn't make it seem like anyone can do anything they want, nor have I ever said anything like that. I said they don't have to work for a single company, which is true. Not the same thing. Your example also makes no sense. Population doesn't go down if you destroy buildings; real life is not SimCity. If all there is, is a gas station and grocery store, those two stores will thrive. People will likely be shopping at those for groceries, and spending more now that they have more income. As for the rest, you basically create the perfect scenario for what you want. So yes, of course it sounds like it's bad, because you've picked the worst case scenario of your own design. You also state that they can't sell their house for much, and then that property values are much higher. Which is it? Property value generally won't go up if there's no demand. As for your ski lodge, it isn't in the town. So. It's not really the same thing. If you own the house, chances are you already have a decent income. If you're renting, move in with a bunch of people, in one house, to save money and move out. If it's that much of an issue, you'll easily find people that are willing to do that. There's always solutions if you're willing to look for them, those that don't fall behind.

 

On 4/5/2021 at 9:07 PM, Master Delta Chief said:

This is just a complete lie. It isn't always that simple to find a different job as there's multiple different factors you need to take in account and you know it. It's such a typical right-libertarian take that it just sounds outright ridiculous. If you don't like the working conditions of your workplace, you should strike (when there's a lot of support for it) and demand immediate improvements. If the workers have more of a say where they work (aka workplace democracy), they may accept and even like what they're doing more. 

Name one place that only has a single company, and doesn't let you leave to go elsewhere.

I'll wait.

[staticpage]

AMAZON NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING NOW. Everyday I see one of their drivers doing something dangerous. Yesterday I was on a state route hauling firewood speed limit is 65mph. This driver parked her van 50% in one lane in a blind spot. I refused to pass on a double yellow and just sat in the road and waited. I saw 12 cars crest the hill before the van then lockup tires, the whole time the delivery lady was just blatantly ignoring the whole situation said something raciest about white people then did that same thing again at the next house. What I heard her say was basically ("everyone get out of my way I'm more important than your safety")

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, staticpage said:

AMAZON NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING NOW. Everyday I see one of their drivers doing something dangerous. Yesterday I was on a state route hauling firewood speed limit is 65mph. This driver parked her van 50% in one lane in a blind spot. I refused to pass on a double yellow and just sat in the road and waited. I saw 12 cars crest the hill before the van then lockup tires, the whole time the delivery lady was just blatantly ignoring the whole situation said something raciest about white people then did that same thing again at the next house. What I heard her say was basically ("everyone get out of my way I'm more important than your safety")

The problem is Amazon is not able to attract the right people. They are kinda like fast food, they have to take what they can get. So they go thru employees like they are going out of style. I mean why work for Amazon where you're treated like shit, when you can work for UPS which is a Union shop and get all kinds of perks. At work we ship stuff UPS and FedEx, we have had the same UPS driver since I started, we actually have two drivers as one guy picks up a bulk of the orders a little earlier in the day. We have had 3 or 4 FedEx drivers in the time I have been there (2 years). FedEx is not union and it shows. The fact is, is that good employees are hard to come by. Especially as many are sitting at home collecting those fat unemployment checks that the government keeps giving out. 

 

The other side of this is many of those "Drivers" dont work for Amazon. They work for contract companies who only deliver for Amazon. So im not sure how much power Amazon has over them. The other thing is that for them to meet Amazons production goals they probably would need to hire more people. Which I know they are trying to do as I see the job ads posted. But again its hard to find people. Keep in mind that especially in my area (Metro Detroit) every trucking company is looking for drivers. So Amazon needs to compete better if they want better people. They also probably need to do a better job in the HR area on evaluating people. 

[Jtalk4456]

On 4/7/2021 at 6:47 PM, dizmo said:

1. No, I didn't make it seem like anyone can do anything they want, nor have I ever said anything like that.

2. Your example also makes no sense. Population doesn't go down if you destroy buildings; real life is not SimCity. If all there is, is a gas station and grocery store, those two stores will thrive. People will likely be shopping at those for groceries, and spending more now that they have more income. As for the rest, you basically create the perfect scenario for what you want. So yes, of course it sounds like it's bad, because you've picked the worst case scenario of your own design.

3. You also state that they can't sell their house for much, and then that property values are much higher. Which is it? Property value generally won't go up if there's no demand. As for your ski lodge, it isn't in the town. So. It's not really the same thing.

4. If you own the house, chances are you already have a decent income. If you're renting, move in with a bunch of people, in one house, to save money and move out. If it's that much of an issue, you'll easily find people that are willing to do that.

5. There's always solutions if you're willing to look for them, those that don't fall behind.

6. Name one place that only has a single company, and doesn't let you leave to go elsewhere.

I'll wait.

1. You just went on to describe that they have other options they CAN do like finding roommates, moving cities, finding a different job. What I'm saying is just because there are other options that CAN be done, doesn't mean they are good options. Those options are not always good or even feasible, leaving people trapped between a bad job and being in a bad living situation. I have 5 kids. As much as it's physically possible to take a roommate if I desperately need, it's not realistic to my situation. Also a couple in a 1 room trailer can't take on roommates. While moving jobs is physically possible, the thriving grocery and gas store aren't paying better than Amazon, and they only have so many roles to fill. Moving costs money and with a poverty stricken area, education is statistically lower so higher paying jobs are going to be tougher to get even if they move somewhere else. 

2. You say it makes no sense, but that wasn't just some scenario. That actually happened, a real place near me, real people. despite the Ski lodge, that area is now the county with the highest rate of poverty in the state.

3. never said they couldn't sell it for much, said they couldn't sell it in general. We're talking an area with primarily trailer style or prefab homes on the cheap, small chunks of land. While the ski lodge makes the overall land value higher and resulting property tax higher, the individual houses are not desired by buyers. the rich people wanting to have a vacation home near the ski lodge don't want a dinky trailer home needing repair on a tiny lot, so while the overall value is higher than before, the actual homes are hard to sell unless a tourism developer comes through and grabs a whole street up to knock it down and build lodges or something. Again this actually happened to people I know

4. IF is the key word there. According to the census, less than 2/3 of americans own their home. I imagine in a poverty stricken area like the town I'm talking, the number is far lower. 

https://www.habitat.org/stories/7-things-you-should-know-about-poverty-and-housing

Quote

According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, nearly 38 million American households — 31.5% of all households — are paying more than 30% of their incomes on housing, forcing them to maintain a nearly impossible balance by making hard decisions about food, transportation and health. Meanwhile, 1 in 6 households are paying more than half of their income on housing and are considered severely cost-burdened.

I'd love for your optimistic view of people's ability to get up and move or get renters to be true, but I've been out in the field with multiple charities including habitat for humanity and I've seen first hand people willing to do anything and everything but simply unable to make any real headway despite their best efforts

5. those that don't fall behind... this is truly where our points differ. We have a vested interest in everyone being better off in this world. 

Spoiler

 

 

Watching as people fall behind is not only against my personal views of morality and religion, but it's factually counter productive. If we work to help those who fall behind, if we make the world better, it actually impacts everyone in a positive way. Can't remember the name of the group, but a few years back they literally gave houses to the homeless, no strings attached. Those people ended up able to find jobs and work and pay taxes and they didn't cost the state in medical care and social services and other things. It actually saved money for the state to give houses for free to those who need vs paying to deal with the costs of homelessness. There's lots of ideas that get marked as socialism to make it sound scary, but would actually be far cheaper than dealing with the problem they solve. It makes no moral sense to me and it makes no logical or economic sense factually to let people fall behind.

6. You're focusing on the idea of being forced to work for X, which is not what we're saying. What we're saying is just because there may be other physically possible options doesn't mean they are good options. doesn't mean they are helpful or practical in most situations

[Kisai]

I read the first three pages, but then this popped up:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/amazon-alabama-union-vote-outcome-1.5981771

 

Quote

Workers at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., handed the online retail giant a decisive victory when they voted against forming a union and cut off a path that labour activists had hoped would lead to similar efforts throughout the company and beyond.

 

So going back to the the original point.

 

 

So to summarize how it works, it's not real-time. The AI is in the camera dashcam. The driver or the camera can upload videos subject to triggers. So while that is not "live view", that's pretty much the same concern.

 

Now... is this a bad thing? Probably not terrible if it's installed in Amazon vehicles with properly licensed and insured drivers. The potential for false positives are very high though. Play American Truck Simulator 2 or Eurotruck simulator 2, and try to get between two cities without triggering a red light ticket. I don't know of a single driver who doesn't make driving gaffs from time to time, and where I live there are always idiot drivers pulling u-turns in the intersection.

 

Honestly I'd prefer that cameras and canbus-II integration be the default on all vehicles, and whatever logic brain they add to it be factory/aftermarket options (eg "cloud", "local-only", "fleet managed", "insurance-managed", "none", etc), that way if people want the feature, it's there if they want it, but they need to buy the necessary module for their region/government/company for it to record upload it. This would also allow adhoc delivery, uber, food couriers and so safer, as they can use their phones with their service to improve the geolocation and safety of the ride.

 

That said, I know people get paranoid about the government or a private company spying on them, but we've had this going back to at least the beginning of GM's OnStar (1996.) Nothing horrible (that I know of) ever happened as a consequence of having Onstar, but it's likely saved quite a few people from death by having the airbag firing triggering a call to onstar.

 

Which IMO, Americans in particular, have this weird obsession with privacy superseding reality. Personally I'd rather have the recording available as a blackbox, and optional to to transmit, over "always on" or "reported automatically". eg, if the vehicle collision sensors, airbags or fuel tank/battery has a problem while the vehicle is/was in motion, yes, please transmit what's happened to 911 so that fire/police know what they are going to.

 

 

[Donut417]

21 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Probably not terrible if it's installed in Amazon vehicles with properly licensed and insured drivers.

Heres the thing. These delivery drivers dont work for Amazon direct. They work for companies contracted to Amazon to do delivery. I just checked and it doesn't require a CDL to drive one of those vans/box trucks they use. Honestly I think they should have a commercial drivers license and be under that. But then you have to deal with DOT regulations and I feel they dont want to do that. I know for a fact that a friends brother had to get a CDL to drive one of the trucks DTE (The power/Gas company) uses when he got hired. 

 

The point Im making is they hire any Joe Blow off the street. They dont know if they can drive worth a shit. Just because they dont have any points on their license or outstanding tickets dont mean shit. Just means they haven't got caught. 

 

The other side of it is Amazon's productivity scheduling. I mean they pretty much require them to break the law in order to stay up with their deliveries. Amazon needs to be more fucking realistic with their productivity goals. Which is why their employees are now voting on a union. 

 

I have a feeling a lot of people are about to be fired because of this. Amazon / its partners are going to have a hell of a time finding people to replace them. My employer has two spots open and we started looking for people in January, the two staffing agencies we use cant find people. We had an interview with a person scheduled for Wednesday and I guess they didnt even show up. 

[maartendc]

Amazon has proven again and again they mistreat their workers, and this is yet another example.

 

Instead of making sure their employees have access to bathrooms / and or time in their schedule to find a bathroom when needed... Just install cameras so they cannot urinate when needed?

 

Instead of solving the problem humanely, they are inhumanely combatting the symptom of a problem that still exists.

 

This is the kind of solution a robot or algorithm would come up with, not a human being. Is the company being run by robots? Is Jeff Bezos just an evil robot? I would totally believe it, and it would actually explain a lot.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, maartendc said:

Amazon has proven again and again they mistreat their workers, and this is yet another example.

 

Instead of making sure their employees have access to bathrooms / and or time in their schedule to find a bathroom when needed... Just install cameras so they cannot urinate when needed?

 

Instead of solving the problem humanely, they are inhumanely combatting the symptom of a problem that still exists.

 

This is the kind of solution a robot or algorithm would come up with, not a human being. Is the company being run by robots? Is Jeff Bezos just an evil robot? I would totally believe it, and it would actually explain a lot.

Look at mass transit. Bus routes are designed with places for bus drivers to use the bathroom (which includes places that are off-limits to the public.) Amazon should do the same and open "mini-mart" locations. I'm not sure how Fedex, UPS and USPS deal with it.