Amazon Told Drivers Not to Worry About In-Van Surveillance Cameras. Now Footage Is Leaking Online::undefined

  • Fpsfrank85@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    143
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s astounding how much money they will spend to not pay and treat their employees fairly.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now, NOT DEFENDING AMAZONS BEHAVIOR OR THEIR DATA HANDLING PRACTICES.

      However I do work for a company that has in vehicle cameras and DEAR GOD does it cut down on incidents. We kept having issues with drivers just doing dumb little things to try and save time. like knocking the shifter into neutral and pulling on the handbrake instead of pressing the button on the shifter and moving it into park. Just to be clear, the company has a really lax time/delivery expectation. If you work at a safe, reasonable pace and dont fuck up nobody gets upset with you. But senior management did the math that each driver had to drag out an extra 2 hours a day for it to cost us more than what we spent on compo/vehicle repairs the year before. Once the van had a camera, we saw a 70% reduction in incidents in the following 12 months.

      • JshKlsn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re downvoted, but honestly, I understand what you’re saying.

        My friends all think it’s fine to text and drive, even in their employers vehicles. If there was a camera, guaranteed they’d stop texting and driving and become way safer.

        People don’t like it, obviously. I’d hate being watched. But there’s no doubt it cuts down on accidents.

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah thats all I’m saying, that even IF your only goal is to improve safety they absolutely work. If you’re also looking to micromanage, slavedrive and violate your staffs privacy you can use them for that too, but thats on you not to be evil.

      • Distributed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I work at a company that makes these kinds of cameras. Drivers hate them, but it really does enforce safe driving habits. This makes the roads a safer place, like it or not.

        Brings insurance down a lottt too.

      • Pyr_Pressure
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone I know is a dispatcher for a company that delivers for Amazon. He says that the management there piles on the deliveries in a way that he doesn’t think it’s possible for any of their drivers to do the full thing in the time allotted. Every day drivers come in 30-90 minutes late not being paid overtime, and he also has to stay because he has to stay until the last van is back.

      • reliv3@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Curious.

        What are the incentives for the drivers to pull this time saving maneuver rather than doing it the right way?

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No fucking idea, we’re all paid hourly. Some people like to flex on the others “I did 200 in 6 hours” and some really dont want to do overtime. Some also want to smash through their work and go grab a coffee and play with their phone for 2 hours.

          I can jump on anyones route, go do their workload slowly and methodically and get back within an hour of clock off. You have to properly take the piss to get dragged into the bosses office.

    • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s true, but Amazon pays above the national average, which itself desperately needs to rise.

      • Stitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a stronger indictment of the national work landscape than a boon for Amazon, who has a over 100% turnover rate…

        • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, I agree.

          I’m not an executive, if I could raise the national average for all of us believe me I would.

        • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Amazon pays pretty decently but it’s just god awful work. I worked in a warehouse briefly and made more than I had anywhere else entry level, but sorting boxes for 9 hours straight on night shifts isn’t worth it

          • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a turnover rate over time. If everyone quit and had to be replaced in a day you’d be at 100%. Anything after that is over 100% for the year.

            I’ve seen rates of 150% bandied around for Amazon. That means replacing 12.5% of your total headcount on average monthly.

            • salt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not great with math so please let me know if I’m understanding this right:

              1. Company has 100 employees
              2. All 100 employees quit
              3. Company gets 100 new employees as replacement

              = 100% turnover rate

              Then…

              1. Company has the 100 new employees
              2. 50 of the new employees quit
              3. Company gets 50 new employees as replacement

              = 150% turnover rate

              and so on?

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Turnover rates are usually described annually. If a company has to replace it’s whole staff twice in a year, that’s a 200% annual turnover rate.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It wasn’t obvious as “Amazon” has a lot of jobs and these drivers aren’t even employed by Amazon in the first place.

            • bighi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Amazon has lots of jobs, yes. But context is king.

              If I say “Developers stay at Facebook because Meta pays them above average”, will you be confused on who is “them” because Meta has many jobs? Will you think that maybe they’re saying that Meta pays janitors above average?

              It’s not a difficult thing to understand by context.

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again, these drivers aren’t even Amazon employees, so yes it is confusing when someone says something as vague as “Amazon pays above the national average” when discussing people who specifically don’t work for Amazon.