AMAZON on BBC1 Undercover

john539

getmore4less wrote: »

I think the one thing that was missed is amazon must be getting something right or they would have no workers.


For this kind of zero skilled monkey/robot job you just runs the stats.

Need a 100 pickers in a warehouse.
set a productivity measure say a combination of pick/distance

set a goal start with a guess.

Employ 100 people

Get them picking for a period say a week

Rank them by productivity score

Reset the goal to the best picker + 10%

Remind all and especialy those below the median they need to get better

repeat(but only reset higher)

Every now and then weed out the bottom 10% or fewer if they are within 80% of the best picker.

over time you improve the productivity of the group.

You just end up with demoralised staff if you treat them like that, which they have.

getmore4less

john539 wrote: »

You just end up with demoralised staff if you treat them like that, which they have.

The job does not require motivated staff.

If people can't hack it then perhaps Amazon should just employ more people on shorter hours, it would reduce their NI bill.

dktreesea

This is from way back in 2001. Have they improved much since the bad old days?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/apr/14/internetnews.uknews

I was struck by this paragraph at the end:
"Sales at the world's biggest online supplier are projected to reach £3bn this year but losses remain huge."

Since they apparently are still in a loss situation in the UK, I wonder how much of that is contributed to by shoddy work practices and way too high employee turnover.

I thought Channel 4's recent coverage, of the situation at the Rugeley warehouse, together with a separate piece on zero hours contracts, were somewhat more hard hitting than the BBC's coverage.
http://www.channel4.com/news/anger-at-amazon-working-conditions

It's bad enough penailising people for when they are sick, but to do it for talking to other colleagues? Is this really the kind of working conditions we should be fostering in modern day Britain?

k12479

dktreesea wrote: »

Since they apparently are still in a loss situation in the UK, I wonder how much of that is contributed to by shoddy work practices and way too high employee turnover.

You mentioned high turnover in your previous post as well but is it necessarily a problem? For jobs requiring a lot of training or experience it can be, but for unskilled jobs requiring little the costs of keeping people may outweigh those of hiring and training. A lot of unskilled jobs have a high natural turnover anyway as they're popular with temporary workers (students, etc).

RichardD1970

Again, with regards to the high turn over of staff.

Is it disproportional high for the size and type of business, and do the staff turn over figures take into account the fact that they use a lot of temporary seasonal labour?

eamon

I have worked in warehousing & distribution for many years. Indeed my first employer was at the time a household name and every year without fail from June to December agency staff outnumbered permanent staff ( I started as agency). My pay was about 3/5ths of equivalent permanent employees (the law is different now). Amazon is probably behaving no differently than any other retailers in how they treat and pay their agency staff. I suspect that they probably have a churn every 11 weeks to avoid their legal responsibilities. Amazon have changed how shopping is done and that can't be undone. Their business model may indeed be flawed and ultimately doomed and only time will be the judge of that.
I've read many of the early comments re how far the poor dears have to walk every day and how dull the work is. But that is the nature of warehouse picking work. It is not sexy and or glamorous but nevertheless it is paid work. What is the alternative for many in this country who may be geographically in the wrong place and with limited other choices. I for one if working for Amazon (via an agency) was the only option I'd jump for it. If you have no money and bills to pay morality & ethics re their postion on corporation tax come second.

dktreesea

eamon wrote: »

I for one if working for Amazon (via an agency) was the only option I'd jump for it. If you have no money and bills to pay morality & ethics re their position on corporation tax come second.

But it's not just their corporation tax that the issue. It's also that the law enables them to exploit their workers, certainly relative to how many employers in the UK treat their employees today at least. How far are you prepared to take the idea that if you have no money, and bills to pay, you are prepared to do any kind of work, however hazardous that work may be? Blistered feet shouldn't happen in any workplace, and can be avoided through a slower pace and rotation of work within a day.

dktreesea

getmore4less wrote: »

The job does not require motivated staff.

If people can't hack it then perhaps Amazon should just employ more people on shorter hours, it would reduce their NI bill.

k12479 wrote: »

You mentioned high turnover in your previous post as well but is it necessarily a problem? For jobs requiring a lot of training or experience it can be, but for unskilled jobs requiring little the costs of keeping people may outweigh those of hiring and training. A lot of unskilled jobs have a high natural turnover anyway as they're popular with temporary workers (students, etc).

Sure demotivation and high turnover are problems if they mean that Amazon cannot staff their warehouses from the local people and have to bus people in? (the situation at Rugeley)

sniggings

Dovah_diva wrote: »

That programme, by Panorama, was by the far the most unfair and biased I have seen in a while.

Much was made of the fact that the staff work 10 hours shifts (actually 9 as they get an hour for lunch). It barely got a mention, however, that staff only work four days a week. So they work 36 hours a week. Hardly slave labour.

The sickness seemed harsh - but is obviously on a rolling basis - I hardly think permanent staff are only 'allowed' three incidents of sickness in their entire career at Amazon. All companies have to have a way of managing sickness.

Many companies penalise staff that are late. My son is docked 15 minutes pay if he is a minute late.

It is speed picking. Speed picking has been around for years. Hard work, but not complicated and you don't need to have to think for yourself. Targets are deliberately set high and it is generally accepted that few staff will meet them. I thought the manager was very reasonable.

No time for talking or socialising? It is a place of work, not a pub! Get on with your job.

Final point - interesting that all the former staff complaining were youngsters. Older men (my husband and Dad for example) are used to such work.

Hard work never killed anybody. Those that are calling it slave labour ought to be ashamed. You don't know the meaning of the phrase.

what job do you have? or is this coming from a house wife, that stops and watches loose women when she likes? then expects the husband to do the hoovering after he's done a days work already, to give you a break.

I ask this as it's telling that you say your husband and dad are used to such work, so i take you are not, yet it's you advocating that it's fine for the men to do it.

googler

dktreesea wrote: »

....take the idea that if you have no money, and bills to pay, you are prepared to do any kind of work, however hazardous that work may be? Blistered feet shouldn't happen in any workplace, and can be avoided through a slower pace and rotation of work within a day.

Blistered feet can occur with many new shoes, whether Amazon-supplied safety boots, or standard leathers from Clarks or any other high- street establishment. One way round it would be for the prospective employee to buy their own, and break them in - you know, actually do some preparation for the job.

If this is the extent of the 'hazards' you refer to, I dispute your definition of 'hazardous' ...