Amazon Told Drivers Not to Worry About In-Van Surveillance Cameras. Now Footage Is Leaking Online
vice.com
Amazon Told Drivers Not to Worry About In-Van Surveillance Cameras. Now Footage Is Leaking Online::undefined
You are viewing a single comment
Amazon Told Drivers Not to Worry About In-Van Surveillance Cameras. Now Footage Is Leaking Online::undefined
It’s astounding how much money they will spend to not pay and treat their employees fairly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Curious.
What are the incentives for the drivers to pull this time saving maneuver rather than doing it the right way?
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.
That’s true, but Amazon pays above the national average, which itself desperately needs to rise.
This is a stronger indictment of the national work landscape than a boon for Amazon, who has a over 100% turnover rate…
Again, I agree.
I’m not an executive, if I could raise the national average for all of us believe me I would.
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
how can you have a turnover rate over 100%?
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.
I'm not great with math so please let me know if I'm understanding this right:
= 100% turnover rate
Then...
= 150% turnover rate
and so on?
It simply has to do with the number of lost/new employees in a year. So if you have 100 employees on your payroll and 100 quit over the course of a year, then you have 100% turnover. If 50, then 50/100 total employees = 50% turnover. It will be lower if less people left. Here's the link where I learned this: https://www.aihr.com/blog/how-to-calculate-employee-turnover-rate/#:~:text=How%20to%20calculate%20annual%20turnover,%3D%200.05%2C%20or%205%25.
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.
Above the national average of what?
The nation
The average reported salary for delivery drivers.
Thanks. I thought they referring to salaries overall which didn't pass the sniff test.
For that job, obviously
It wasn't obvious as "Amazon" has a lot of jobs and these drivers aren't even employed by Amazon in the first place.
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.
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.
Shit
Ribbit