Zero hours contracts - it's all about the oppressed workers...not

Loughton_Monkey

the_flying_pig wrote: »

you're quite possibly right, maybe we're making a fuss about nothing.....

I think you're possibly right. Panorama has 'form' for this, and it's inconceivable to believe that our "undercover hero" here was not fully 'briefed'.

Amazon Bashing is a nice headline at the moment, and no large employer in a local area is going to exist without a handful of whingers who recently lost their jobs....

What we have, here, is the largest and most successful online retailer on the planet. They (not understandably) want their employees to 'work' and they use objective and measurable performance standards.

Our intrepid "Adam" was clearly sent in with a brief to (a) ensure he turned up late a few times, and (b) underperform the picking standards.

If you re-visit the program, it will reveal that he had been there 6 or 7 weeks and still was only 80% or so of standard. The comment of his supervisor "It's a bit low. Try and pick it up for next week" was hardly the rantings of a bullying tyrannical task master, and it was made clear that if in another 2 weeks he was still underperforming, there would be a whole 5 to 6 weeks further during which intensive counselling or training would take place.

If (as I believe) the standards were 'based on past performance of standard employees actual achievements' then if "Fit Adam" is such a whimp that he couldn't achieve them after 15 weeks, then isn't he in the wrong job anyway? A lad with a brain will always find it harder to work in such an environment. As a student, I worked on several production lines [Roof tiles.... Raleigh bikes....] and for 3 hours at a time, the line coming and coming at a fixed pace, is indeed soul destroying, very hard work, but manual work is like that! It paid the bills.

It's clear, though, that Amazon has a small tolerance of absence (and why not?). Maybe it's a known problem of workers in that area. I think, basically, a 'six and you're out' in any 3 month period is not unreasonable.

But I would say to the workforce, make the most of it. The robots will eventually be brought in. They tend to stay overnight and can work 24 hours a day without a break. They are seldom 'ill'. They don't answer back, they do as they're told, and most of all, don't whinge.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If (as I believe) the standards were 'based on past performance of standard employees actual achievements' then if "Fit Adam" is such a whimp that he couldn't achieve them after 15 weeks, then isn't he in the wrong job anyway? A lad with a brain will always find it harder to work in such an environment. As a student, I worked on several production lines [Roof tiles.... Raleigh bikes....] and for 3 hours at a time, the line coming and coming at a fixed pace, is indeed soul destroying, very hard work, but manual work is like that! It paid the bills.

But I would say to the workforce, make the most of it. The robots will eventually be brought in. They tend to stay overnight and can work 24 hours a day without a break. They are seldom 'ill'. They don't answer back, they do as they're told, and most of all, don't whinge.

I didn't see the actual programme only the trailers.

I wonder if the people who stock the goods onto the shelves have such tight load times as the pickers featured.

I wonder how you work up, off the picking job and how long it is before the more talented and inventive move on to less mundane rolls?

I have implemented similar systems but on a smaller scale and without the intensity of electronic monitoring/mapping. I am not sure graduates or "high performers" would have been selected for other than temporary roles. There are certain people that can work in that environment.

No doubt the six point system is one of HR friends motivational ploys and also recognises the limitations of the supervisory staff too.

N1AK

the_flying_pig wrote: »

really? if they're relying on public transport [e.g. as they'd almost always have to in a busy city centre] then sometimes being more 2 minutes late is an inevitability, right?

I've always been terrible for turning up late, so I'd be a massive hypocrite if I tried to knock the people who were turning up late.

That doesn't mean Amazon is in the wrong. They have built their warehouse processes to minimise waste and maximise efficiency. Someone being a few minutes late could decrease the productivity for the entire day, delay despatch vehicles by a few minutes etc. It isn't unreasonable for Amazon to decide that punctuality is a critical requirement of working for them. It isn't like turning up 5 mins late gets you fired, it builds up points and if it happens often enough they let you go.

Some of the claims regarding sickness and performance targets that conditions made impossible I have more sympathy for. It sounds to me like poor management. If you have a good employee who can't hit target because of broken lighting or whatever then a decent manager would make sure it was accounted for.

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

.....Some of the claims regarding sickness and performance targets that conditions made impossible I have more sympathy for. It sounds to me like poor management. If you have a good employee who can't hit target because of broken lighting or whatever then a decent manager would make sure it was accounted for.

Indeed. I would certainly give credit to Amazon that they would take reasonable things into account and there was nothing in the program to suggest otherwise. As usual [for BBC] they had it down as a "sweatshop" before it started, and the undercover work and editorial was simply biased to 'confirm' what they had already assumed.

Again, it's one of those "Yes Minister" irregular verbs....

I am a modern and efficient employer.
You are a sweatshop.
He is a crazed tyrannical slave-master squeezing blood from a population of exploited poor.

I have written a million times to the BBC telling them to stop exaggerating!

macaque_2

It is very easy for a survey like this to find contented users. For example, zero hour contracts may be fine for a mother with young children and a working husband. Zero hour contracts however are not fine for a 23 year old who needs certainty of income, training and a career.

Percy1983

macaque wrote: »

It is very easy for a survey like this to find contented users. For example, zero hour contracts may be fine for a mother with young children and a working husband. Zero hour contracts however are not fine for a 23 year old who needs certainty of income, training and a career.

Exactly there is no set rule to say they are evil.

But there is cases where they are used in evil ways, as said where its a just so management don't need to think of a rota and if staff refuse a single short notice shift they lose all work for 2 weeks.

In some cases of where there isn't a consistant need for work and its not time intensive then zero hour contracts are ideal.

But in say a retail environment where they is a clear need for a set minimum number of staff at any one time surely it should be part time with overtime at worse, ie set a rota to cover the minimum and then cover busy times with overtime.