Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Hard to feel sorry for a broad who has 3 chins and looks like some kind of aqua creature.
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
You can say that if you want. I had a supervisor at work who had been with the company for 15 years. Her husband delivers for Amazon and makes more money than she does.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
I don't buy anything from amazon so I never think of the delivery .
Do something Danke
Low paid workers that are easily replaced with minimal training. That's called "unskilled labor" and they're paid the market rate. When they're unionized, they move slower and get paid more. It's the inverse of efficiency.
Then they won't sell as much because higher prices and $#@!ty service.
Last edited by angelatc; 12-09-2019 at 12:09 PM.
no disagreement, efficiency is just what the company cares about, the opposite of a worker's interestOriginally Posted by angelatc
they may not sell as much as today, but they'll still sell way more than any other competitor, because they've all but killed most of the rest by now.
Why would workers not want to be efficient?
because the benefits of efficiency do not translate to the worker.
A worker is paid for his/her hourly time, so he has no incentive, unless you specifically threaten him, to pack more than he wants to.
this is why the company sets a minimum quota, otherwise workers are free to slack off and not care about packages and customers.
if a worker packs more, the customer is happy and the company makes more money, the worker is rarely if ever rewarded.
the company's interest is to make more money with lower cost, the worker's interest is to make more money with less energy and time spent. so maybe the better way to word it is, the worker's idea of "efficiency" is not the same as the company's idea.
A worker of course would prefer that packages are shipped while they sleep and sit on their asses, just like bosses do. that's what everybody wants, a worker is simply born in a less advantaged position.
I disagree. People that work efficiently move up the ladder. They develop skills and move on to bigger and better jobs. They become managers, foremen, or supervisors. They lead crews.
A person that only works to meet a quota remains a low skilled poorly paid individual.
My daughter worked piecework at a place a couple of years ago. Her production was thru the roof. They let her work as little or as much as she wanted. She could come and go as she pleased. She was paid a higher wage than people that had worked there for years. She did this without even trying because it was easy work for her.
This assumes the opportunity is waiting for them, but by definition, there will always be more bottom workers than managers, more workers than bosses, so some are smart enough to realize it can't be everybody and logically it won't be them. In the case of warehouses, there's usually 1 manager for at least 20 if not 50 people. There's no way every person can become a manager and they'll each have another 20 under them, that's insane MLM talk.
Yes, and that's where you and I fundamentally differ. You seem to imply that lacking the ability to make an employer richer, a person has no right to live. If you're low skill, or can't be profitable, you get to starve or beg for charity. and you should be grateful you're given an opportunity to make any money at all.A person that only works to meet a quota remains a low skilled poorly paid individual.
there's a few problems with your analogyMy daughter worked piecework at a place a couple of years ago. Her production was thru the roof. They let her work as little or as much as she wanted. She could come and go as she pleased. She was paid a higher wage than people that had worked there for years. She did this without even trying because it was easy work for her.
1. was she a warehouse worker?
2. do you understand that a warehouse worker is expected to pack an item every 11 seconds? Meaning, they're already pushed to a reasonable person's limits, and only a few, if any, can exceed that
3. your latter part of the story proves my point, that her end goal is to work as little as possible, make maximum money for minimum input of energy and time.
Lol.
"The Patriarch"
..
"The Patriarch"
The irony of this thread is that Amazon is basically just running the Chinese model of low wages, long hours, maximum efficiency with little regard for safety. Even the "pre-shift pep rally" is what the Chinese factories do, though they're more military-like about it. Yet the OP is clearly implying that a socialist (the soft predecessor to communism) union model is the answer.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
The worker's interest is exactly the same as the business, because the worker is in the business of selling his labor. He wants the most amount of capital for the least amount of effort possible. Both entities want to maximize the return on their investments to the fullest.
You know if people are not happy delivering for amazon they could always get a real job .
Do something Danke
Not quite.
A worker who is paid for hourly time cannot easily adjust his costs, clearance his extra time, or surge charge his overtime, or even surge charge when packing higher priced goods.
A worker cannot change his terms on the fly in ways that businesses could.
A worker's goal is to maximize earnings withing the narrow framework of selling more time or less time or selling each hour more or less.
A business's goal is to maximize earnings by any method possible, cutting costs, increasing sales, hiring more, hiring less...etc. A business's method of making money can easily conflict with a worker, this is especially true if the worker is not an owner of the business's profits.
"Both entities want to maximize the return on their investments to the fullest."
Is exactly why their goals are opposite. If I sold coffee and you bought coffee, my goal is to sell as little to you for as maximal money as possible. Your goal is to pay as little as possible for maximal coffee. "their investments" are complete opposites. An employer wants to employ as few people as possible, pay each as little as possible, a worker wants to work as little as possible for as much money as possible. (Whether a worker wants more co workers or more hours are micro differences that are irrelevant to the bigger picture)
Last edited by PRB; 12-10-2019 at 03:55 PM.
just like people who don't like paying taxes can move.
Chinese factory model isn't exactly union it's about as capitalist as our system, the microlevel management habits doesn't undo the systematic inequality of power in capitalism.
So yes, I am still for unions, workers owning means of production, and workers deciding their use of time, rather than being dictated by their employer under the threat of being homeless or starving.
I have found with patience , longevity and study that I can avoid most taxes .
Do something Danke
so you're happy with everything you pay? cool.
Nah but I do what I can.
Do something Danke
These sensationalized pieces are compelling if you completely disregard the fact that it's not in Amazon's interest to be injuring people and exposing themselves to monetary damages. The takeaway is that Amazon is listening to their employee's concerns. If you replace every human employee with a robot, the injury rate drops to zero.
These sensationalized pieces are compelling if you completely disregard the fact that it's not in Amazon's interest to be injuring people and exposing themselves to monetary damages. The takeaway is that Amazon is listening to their employee's concerns. If you replace every human employee with a robot, the injury rate drops to zero.
Yes, and Amazon is more than a frontrunner in using robots. If they replaced most or all workers with robots, injury will be zero, and so will many employment opportunities. That is "worse" for the workers there today, but also worse for every worker and consumer overall. The fact it can be worse later doesn't mean we need to perpetuate or disregard the current conditions.
It's not that AMazon wants to injure or overwork their workers, it's that they don't care enough to avoid it at all costs, they currently will get away with it as much as they're legally allowed to.
Frankly, Amazon is but the logical conclusion of capitalism.
You might find this interesting.
I don't think you can obtain an accurate picture of the character or values of a company based on the isolated accounts of a handful of dissatisfied employees. You're not hearing from the potentially thousands of Amazon employees who are happy with their job and find working conditions to be satisfactory. In the segment they tell you how many injuries there has been at warehouses but they omit the causal nature of those injuries. What if you found out a large share of the injuries were the result of employee negligence. How would that change how you view Amazon? What do you think is the reason for these omissions?
No company can or would avoid injuries at all costs, nor is there any expectation from employees for them to do so. People continue to work and shop at Amazon because presumably they deliver more value than all other existing alternatives. Whatever logical conclusion of capitalism there is, it's because employees and consumers jointly and voluntarily decided it be the case.
It is possible people here underestimate the general lack of intelligence of the american consumer . amazon competes with customers . That is a $#@!ty business model and should not succeed .
Do something Danke
because the alternatives either don't exist or are not as cheaply available.
not quite. Amazon has succeeded and will never go out of business, they have a long way to go before they even come close to threat of being unprofitable
Oh nooooooooooooooooooo
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us