Amazon staff blast 'intolerable' conditions: Warehouse workers are pictured 'asleep on their feet' as they claim they are forced to work 55-hour weeks and say some are taken away in AMBULANCES

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5118951/Amazon-staff-complain-conditions-Tilbury.html

Amazon staff have been pictured sleeping on the job as they claim they are working in 'intolerable' conditions to meet punishing warehouse targets.
Staff claim they are shattered from working up to 55 hours a week and some who buckle under the strain are taken away in ambulances. 

Cameras monitor every move as employees try to process up to 300 items an hour, it was claimed. Screens remind them if they are falling short.
Exhausted staff tape over clocks so they are not reminded how long there is to go on their shifts, and have to walk up to a third of a mile to use the toilet.
The claims were made about the online retailer's newest warehouse – which the company refers to as a 'fulfilment centre' – in Tilbury, Essex. 
The packing plant is the biggest in Europe, the size of 11 football pitches, and is due to ship 1.2million items this year.
Amazon made £7.3billion in the UK last year and employs 24,000


Shifts begin at 7.30 in the morning and finish at 6pm, with workers given just two half-hour breaks during the day.
An undercover reporter, who worked at the warehouse for five weeks, said: 'I found staff asleep on their feet, exhausted from toiling for up to 55 hours a week.
'In my five weeks I saw staff struggling to meet impossible targets, in constant fear of the sack.'


He said timed toilet breaks, impossible targets and exhausting, 'intolerable' working conditions were frequent complaints from the staff floor.  
The revelations come at a time when Amazon has promised to improve the treatment of staff following accusations of poor conditions and low pay.   
Workers in Italy and Germany have gone on strike in protest at their workloads.
On Friday more than 500 employees carried out their first ever strike at Amazon's main Italian hub, in Piacenza near Milan, over pay.  


One worker in Tilbury complained: 'At my induction, someone was asking why the staff turnover was so high. It's because they're killing people. My friends think I'm dead. I'm exhausted.'
Another wrote on a white board for staff comments: 'Why are we not allowed to sit when it is quiet and not busy? We are human beings, not slaves and animals.' 
The Essex plant has no natural light. Instead, fluorescent bulbs are used, preventing staff knowing whether it is day or night outside. 
One colleague collapsed as they worked and was taken to hospital by ambulance. Another was seen by paramedics after suffering a panic attack when she learned compulsory overtime meant she would have to work up to 55 hours a week over Christmas.


One said: 'Everybody suffers here. I pulled my hamstring but I just had to carry on. My friend spent two days off after she damaged her knee ligaments.' Some staff pay £4 from their £8.20 an hour wages to catch a bus put on by the company from London to the warehouse.
Responding to the investigation the company said: 'Amazon provides a safe and positive workplace with competitive pay and benefits.
'We are proud to have created thousands of roles in our UK fulfilment centres in recent years. As with most companies, we expect a certain level of performance.
'Targets are based on previous performance achieved by our workers. Associates are evaluated over a long period of time.'


The firm has also defended itself after it was revealed that ambulances were sent to its main Scottish warehouse 43 times last year.
Emergencies included 15 of the most serious Category A classification, with 23 workers taken to nearby hospitals.
Call-outs to the depot in Dunfermline involved two staff being treated for falls, a call about 'traumatic injuries' and two for 'industrial accidents'. 
A previous investigation at Amazon’s sorting depot in Dunfermline found workers were threatened with the sack if they took four days off sick - even if they had a doctor's note.


GMB Scotland Organiser Helen Meldrum said: 'These are shocking statistics but given the long-standing history of concern over the working conditions in Amazon, I can't say that I am surprised.
'This lends weight to our arguments that Amazon must open up to trade union recognition.
'Ultimately this is a giant multinational which has received significant public money yet continues to go about its business in an unacceptably opaque manner.' 
An Amazon spokesman said: 'Independent safety experts certify our compliance with all relevant laws.'

It's disgusting, but customers bear some responsibility. Everyone wants their stuff delivered ASAP instead of waiting.

gelico wrote:

GAH!  Cry me a river.  it's called hard work

when i worked in the care home, many of the carers worked 50-60 hours as standard, and much of that time was spent wiping arses and vomit etc.
they didnt have panic attacks and get carted off in an ambulance cos they'd been told they had to work over christmas.  they will obviously be paid the overtime rate but christmas is a busy period, wtf do they expect?
it was the same when i worked at ASDA.


when my daughter worked at ALDI she said the managers there are managers because they eat shit and breathe ALDI.  they will do 80 hours a week, but it takes over their whole lives.

when my brother was a junior doctor he did at least 70 hours a week as standard routine

FFS!

All that's too long as well. There are people who could do with jobs, so why have people working such long hours?

The Amazon thing sounds stressful, and there's really no need to have people running around being timed.

7.30am to 6.00pm is 10&1/2 hours a day... and that's with 2 half hour breaks plus a number of other designated 'toilet/smoking' breaks through the day... and given the size of the place I bet the breaks start a few minutes early/finish late etc to allow the employee time to stop work/pack up/walk to and from break time areas etc... so how is that 55hrs toiling work for a normal 5 day week..!?


I've done 7.30 to 5.30 loads of times with 1 hour break for 10 hours paid... and many a time with little or no outside light coming in, just fluorescent light beaming down on me... isn't that what vast majority of us workers do every week...!?

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:

GAH!  Cry me a river.  it's called hard work

when i worked in the care home, many of the carers worked 50-60 hours as standard, and much of that time was spent wiping arses and vomit etc.
they didnt have panic attacks and get carted off in an ambulance cos they'd been told they had to work over christmas.  they will obviously be paid the overtime rate but christmas is a busy period, wtf do they expect?
it was the same when i worked at ASDA.


when my daughter worked at ALDI she said the managers there are managers because they eat shit and breathe ALDI.  they will do 80 hours a week, but it takes over their whole lives.

when my brother was a junior doctor he did at least 70 hours a week as standard routine

FFS!

All that's too long as well. There are people who could do with jobs, so why have people working such long hours?

The Amazon thing sounds stressful, and there's really no need to have people running around being timed.

I agree about timing people and dead lines...there's nothing more controlling or stressful.  But many jobs are like this.  People get run ragged in call centres, nursing homes, hospitals, bars, you name it.   The best thing to do is work for yourself.  Best thing I ever did.

Tommy Monk wrote:7.30am to 6.00pm is 10&1/2 hours a day... and that's with 2 half hour breaks plus a number of other designated 'toilet/smoking' breaks through the day... and given the size of the place I bet the breaks start a few minutes early/finish late etc to allow the employee time to stop work/pack up/walk to and from break time areas etc... so how is that 55hrs toiling work for a normal 5 day week..!?


I've done 7.30 to 5.30 loads of times with 1 hour break for 10 hours paid... and many a time with little or no outside light coming in, just fluorescent light beaming down on me... isn't that what vast majority of us workers do every week...!?

With two half-hour breaks, they're working 9.5 hours a day. It's not clear if those breaks are paid for or not. You wouldn't expect toilet breaks to be included - most staff go to the loo when they need to.

I work 39 hours a week, and that's enough for me. I'm not monitored all the time either - which must be horrible.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

All that's too long as well. There are people who could do with jobs, so why have people working such long hours?

The Amazon thing sounds stressful, and there's really no need to have people running around being timed.

I agree about timing people and dead lines...there's nothing more controlling or stressful.  But many jobs are like this.  People get run ragged in call centres, nursing homes, hospitals, bars, you name it.   The best thing to do is work for yourself.  Best thing I ever did.

Yes, being self employed is great, but it doesn't always pay well.

55 hours a week during the peak season is not that many hours. Hell, that's called Tuesday in Japan.

it does say over Christmas so it is a bit of a beat up story.

Although i disagree with the policy of compulsory overtime in general, management either treats their staff good enough where they can get 'volunteers' or they employ temp labor over the holidays.

Is there someone actually forcing these people to work for 55 hours a week? If not, then I am not quite understanding why people are accepting the work hours because they obviously need the money, then complainging that they're tired? Don't do it then!

eddie wrote:Is there someone actually forcing these people to work for 55 hours a week?  If not, then I am not quite understanding why people are accepting the work hours because they obviously need the money, then complainging that they're tired?  Don't do it then!

That's the point, isn't it?   Nobody is actually forcing them to do it.   Don't tell me they go into that job not realising the long hours and hard work?    At those hours they're earning something like £450 a week!   And that's why they're doing it.  They know they'll earn a packet but probably realise too late that you have to flog yourself to death to earn it but by that time they've got used to the pay packet.   Well, nothing in life is easy, is it?   Either stop moaning and get on with it, or leave.

Angry Andy wrote:My understanding is they will be forced out if they do not agree to the "voluntary"  overtime.
Capitalism at it's worst.

Lots of jobs are like that.   Particularly in retail.

According to the latest factory act, no one is forced to work overtime. You do your basic hours and then go home, of course if the firm is doing well and orders are piling up, you will not be looked upon favourably if you refuse to do it !

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Is there someone actually forcing these people to work for 55 hours a week?  If not, then I am not quite understanding why people are accepting the work hours because they obviously need the money, then complainging that they're tired?  Don't do it then!

To be fair, the jobs market isn't exactly flourishing in the UK right now. Some people take what they can get and are understandably disinclined to refuse overtime if that costs them later.

Really?

There is stacks off jobs out there.
So there is no excuses here.
What a bunch of snowflakes.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Is there someone actually forcing these people to work for 55 hours a week?  If not, then I am not quite understanding why people are accepting the work hours because they obviously need the money, then complainging that they're tired?  Don't do it then!

To be fair, the jobs market isn't exactly flourishing in the UK right now. Some people take what they can get and are understandably disinclined to refuse overtime if that costs them later.

My point still stands: either do it and be grateful you've been given overtime or don't do it. You can't moan about how long your hours are if you signed up voluntarily and willingly, to do the hours...?

Eilzel wrote:Some people believe managers making staff work 50+ hours a week for shitty wages is unacceptable, others think workers should suck it up

That's what truly separates Left from Right.

The idea of taxing the owners who make people work like this a little more though- unthinkable....

Do you have any idea how the majority of people live, here in UK...?


It is working much the same sort of hours, for same sort of money, and far from being in luxurious surroundings either...!


If you get a job of 'moving stuff about' in a massive warehouse... WTF would you expect it to be like...!?


Also, blame labour for open door mass immigration that has increased cost of living by huge amounts as well as holding down wage rates... labours overly generous 'tax credits' benefit handouts system has been another big subsidy for companies and encouraged/allowed them to keep wage rates lower for everyone too!


And blame labour for their terrible record on tax collection from big companies (Amazon being one of many who paid very little under labour!), but who are all paying much more in taxes now and every since labour were booted out of govt in 2010 when tory/lib dems took over... thought you would have been praising the changes tory/lib dems brought in that made these big companies pay more taxes!


And what are you talking about with taxing them even more, as if that will somehow result in them suddenly giving all their staff nice big wage rate increases...!? Can you explain how that would happen...?

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:Is there someone actually forcing these people to work for 55 hours a week?  If not, then I am not quite understanding why people are accepting the work hours because they obviously need the money, then complainging that they're tired?  Don't do it then!

To be fair, the jobs market isn't exactly flourishing in the UK right now. Some people take what they can get and are understandably disinclined to refuse overtime if that costs them later.

Les... wtf are you talking about...!?


How would you define 'a flourishing jobs market'...?


And what reasons have you got that makes you think there isn't 'a flourishing jobs market' at the moment...?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Interesting to note that this beat-up non-story appeared in the Daily Flail...

That would be the same far-right-wing Daily Flail that hates unions, regularly attacks workers, cheering on the Tories at every turn, usually favours big business over small businesses, that champions austerity, welfare cuts and selling off the NHS..

I wonder if the Daily Flail would even have printed this load of supercilious faux-outrage on the downtrodden workers behalf if it had been a British-owned warehouse,  rather than an American-controlled multinational corporation  ?

You're probably right. It does seem like a bit of a non-story.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Interesting to note that this beat-up non-story appeared in the Daily Flail...

That would be the same far-right-wing Daily Flail that hates unions, regularly attacks workers, cheering on the Tories at every turn, usually favours big business over small businesses, that champions austerity, welfare cuts and selling off the NHS..

I wonder if the Daily Flail would even have printed this load of supercilious faux-outrage on the downtrodden workers behalf if it had been a British-owned warehouse instead,  rather than an American-controlled multinational corporation  ?

Don't you realise that newspapers often get their sources from other newspapers?  

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/11/amazon-accused-of-intolerable-conditions-at-scottish-warehouse

Your 'point' is your own bullshit 'view' of what you like to think other people think, and for you to make/believe your own 'make believe' fantasy waffle, that only sounds good to yourself and other delusional leftie idiots...


You lot are always saying that rw are stupid/uneducated etc... so thereby making up the vast majority of low paid/unskilled workers and unemployed etc... so why would any of them be supporting exploitation of themselves as workers, or cuts in their benefits etc...!?


Why would any be against higher taxes on the rich, or against big companies paying their fair share of tax...!?


Truth is... it was Labour who allowed big companies to pay fuk all for years... and didn't raise the top rate of tax on higher earners for over 12 years of being in govt, only raising it a few weeks before being booted out of govt in 2010 elections... and that hike in top rate tax resulted in lower tax take in revenue!!!


And it was labour who opened up the floodgate to mass immigration that has caused the spike in cost of living, held down wages, jammed up schools/hospitals/roads/public transport etc, and totally fukked up our access to housing, and fukked up our whole country/economy...!

if they are so busy why are they sleeping???

must be labour voters

Eilzel wrote:Some people believe managers making staff work 50+ hours a week for shitty wages is unacceptable, others think workers should suck it up

That's what truly separates Left from Right.

The idea of taxing the owners who make people work like this a little more though- unthinkable....

the real difference between the right and left is that the right consider this a hard days work,the left consider a hard days work to be waiting 4 hours at the dole office for their hand out

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Do you have any idea how the majority of people live, here in UK...?


It is working much the same sort of hours, for same sort of money, and far from being in luxurious surroundings either...!


If you get a job of 'moving stuff about' in a massive warehouse... WTF would you expect it to be like...!?


Also, blame labour for open door mass immigration that has increased cost of living by huge amounts as well as holding down wage rates... labours overly generous 'tax credits' benefit handouts system has been another big subsidy for companies and encouraged/allowed them to keep wage rates lower for everyone too!


And blame labour for their terrible record on tax collection from big companies (Amazon being one of many who paid very little under labour!), but who are all paying much more in taxes now and every since labour were booted out of govt in 2010 when tory/lib dems took over... thought you would have been praising the changes tory/lib dems brought in that made these big companies pay more taxes!


And what are you talking about with taxing them even more, as if that will somehow result in them suddenly giving all their staff nice big wage rate increases...!? Can you explain how that would happen...?

I didn't refer to raising taxes as a way of encouraging pay rises.

My point was on views from Left and Right.

RWers generally think taxing the rich more is always terrible but have no problem with companies expecting huge hours from even low paid staff.

LWers generally support higher taxes from big corporations and think companies should not be allowed to exploit workers.

is that why labour employ zero hour contractors??

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Your 'point' is your own bullshit 'view' of what you like to think other people think, and for you to make/believe your own 'make believe' fantasy waffle, that only sounds good to yourself and other delusional leftie idiots...


You lot are always saying that rw are stupid/uneducated etc... so thereby making up the vast majority of low paid/unskilled workers and unemployed etc... so why would any of them be supporting exploitation of themselves as workers, or cuts in their benefits etc...!?


Why would any be against higher taxes on the rich, or against big companies paying their fair share of tax...!?


Truth is... it was Labour who allowed big companies to pay fuk all for years... and didn't raise the top rate of tax on higher earners for over 12 years of being in govt, only raising it a few weeks before being booted out of govt in 2010 elections... and that hike in top rate tax resulted in lower tax take in revenue!!!


And it was labour who opened up the floodgate to mass immigration that has caused the spike in cost of living, held down wages, jammed up schools/hospitals/roads/public transport etc, and totally fukked up our access to housing, and fukked up our whole country/economy...!

I've never said the RW are stupid or uneducated. Though am willing to retract that if you can find anything otherwise.

I've never said, and would never suggest, unskilled workers are stupid, that is a nasty presumption on your part.

I was also not a Labour supporter until very recently (since Corbyn).

So not much point me responding to any if that since it evidently isn't concerned with anything I ever said...

Corbyn approves of terrorism and antisemitism

You approve of Corbyn

Do you also approve of terrorism and antisemitism?

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

To be fair, the jobs market isn't exactly flourishing in the UK right now. Some people take what they can get and are understandably disinclined to refuse overtime if that costs them later.

My point still stands: either do it and be grateful you've been given overtime or don't do it.  You can't moan about how long your hours are if you signed up voluntarily and willingly,  to do the hours...?

A couple of thoughts. It is seasonal work, so if you're not willing to take the overtime, you probably shouldn't have signed up.

In America--which this story is about--the issue isn't hours, but wages. Right now we have a flood of jobs, and no one to fill them. We have a low 4.1% unemployment, but 6.1-million jobs go unfilled.

Employers--especially wealthy and successful ones like Amazon--must make the jobs attractive. They need to stop fookin' about minimum wages, and get with the program.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Corbyn approves of terrorism and antisemitism

You approve of Corbyn

Do you also approve of terrorism and antisemitism?

No. And neither does he.

Yeah he does, he sided with the IRA and he considers hamas his friend

Hamas and the IRA are terrorist groups..

The labour party is massively antisemitic and Corbyn does nothing to stop it

You can try hide your head in the sand but if you support Corbyn you're a terrorist sympathiser

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

No. And neither does he.

Yeah he does, he sided with the IRA and he considers hamas his friend

Hamas and the IRA are terrorist groups..

The labour party is massively antisemitic and Corbyn does nothing to stop it

You can try hide your head in the sand but if you support Corbyn you're a terrorist sympathiser

You keep dealing in absolutes, and provide no facts and/or figures. Don't you know how to build an argument?

These gross, unsubstantiated generalizations don't work. Have you got anything of substance?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Yeah he does, he sided with the IRA and he considers hamas his friend

Hamas and the IRA are terrorist groups..

The labour party is massively antisemitic and Corbyn does nothing to stop it

You can try hide your head in the sand but if you support Corbyn you're a terrorist sympathiser

You keep dealing in absolutes, and provide no facts and/or figures.  Don't you know how to build an argument?

These gross, unsubstantiated generalizations don't work.  Have you got anything of substance?

Facts are absolute Quill, they require no building up or arguing.

Water is wet - fact

Corbyn supported the IRA - fact

Corbyn supports hamas - fact

The labour party is antisemitic under Corbyn - fact

Fact don't care about your feelings and neither do i

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You keep dealing in absolutes, and provide no facts and/or figures.  Don't you know how to build an argument?

These gross, unsubstantiated generalizations don't work.  Have you got anything of substance?

Facts are absolute Quill, they require no building up or arguing.

Water is wet - fact

Corbyn supported the IRA - fact

Corbyn supports hamas - fact

The labour party is antisemitic under Corbyn - fact

Fact don't care about your feelings and neither do i

But you don't give facts. You only give conclusions. "Wet" is a conclusion. "Supports" is a conclusion. "Anti-Semitic" is a conclusion. Facts are tangible things, like H2O, membership card in the IRA, in Hamas, or a photograph waving the Nazi flag.

Like I said above, you don't build arguments. All you give us is your conclusion. The appropriate response to that is, so you say...

Garbage in; garbage out.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Facts are absolute Quill, they require no building up or arguing.

Water is wet - fact

Corbyn supported the IRA - fact

Corbyn supports hamas - fact

The labour party is antisemitic under Corbyn - fact

Fact don't care about your feelings and neither do i

But you don't give facts.  You only give conclusions.  "Wet" is a conclusion.  "Supports" is a conclusion.  "Anti-Semitic" is a conclusion.  Facts are tangible things, like H2O, membership card in the IRA, in Hamas, or a photograph waving the Nazi flag.

Like I said above, you don't build arguments.  All you give us is your conclusion.  The appropriate response to that is, so you say...  

Garbage in; garbage out.  

problem is quill, you ask for facts but you dont really want facts do you??

I mean it doesn't really matter what facts i give you, you would find a way to dismiss or justify the fact.

it wouldn't really matter if i posted a video of corbyn saying "our friends in hamas and hezbollah" you'd probably just waffle on like you normally do and tell us all why a video of corbyn saying those things isn't really evidence of him saying those things, you wanna see the shit ive heard from some people as they twist reality language and history to explain away the things they cant justify

you ask for facts and then when you're given them you flinch away, no quill there isnt any facts i could give you that you would accept.

i could give them to elizel, but he has become a zealot and im not sure if even the cold hard facts could penetrate his love for his cult leader

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Your 'point' is your own bullshit 'view' of what you like to think other people think, and for you to make/believe your own 'make believe' fantasy waffle, that only sounds good to yourself and other delusional leftie idiots...


You lot are always saying that rw are stupid/uneducated etc... so thereby making up the vast majority of low paid/unskilled workers and unemployed etc... so why would any of them be supporting exploitation of themselves as workers, or cuts in their benefits etc...!?


Why would any be against higher taxes on the rich, or against big companies paying their fair share of tax...!?


Truth is... it was Labour who allowed big companies to pay fuk all for years... and didn't raise the top rate of tax on higher earners for over 12 years of being in govt, only raising it a few weeks before being booted out of govt in 2010 elections... and that hike in top rate tax resulted in lower tax take in revenue!!!


And it was labour who opened up the floodgate to mass immigration that has caused the spike in cost of living, held down wages, jammed up schools/hospitals/roads/public transport etc, and totally fukked up our access to housing, and fukked up our whole country/economy...!

I've never said the RW are stupid or uneducated. Though am willing to retract that if you can find anything otherwise.

I've never said, and would never suggest, unskilled workers are stupid, that is a nasty presumption on your part.

I was also not a Labour supporter until very recently (since Corbyn).

So not much point me responding to any if that since it evidently isn't concerned with anything I ever said...

I said 'you lot'... as in, what the leftys here generally say...


How would you describe RWers...?


Are you saing they are all intelligent and skilled as workers...?

sb wrote:problem is quill, you ask for facts but you dont really want facts do you??

I mean it doesn't really matter what facts i give you, you would find a way to dismiss or justify the fact.

The real problem is, Russ, you are on the wrong side of the facts. That's why I can so easily "dismiss" your facts.

You think the answer is not to give facts? Hmmm... maybe if you rethought some of your positions, you too could find some friendly facts.

Why doesn't Amazon just hire more people and cut back on the hours? It's not like it would cost them any more money, and it might increase productivity.

BTW, there is more than one answer to this question.  

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I said 'you lot'... as in, what the leftys here generally say...


How would you describe RWers...?


Are you saing they are all intelligent and skilled as workers...?

You said you lot but you were answering me, so pretty pointless to reference what other people say but I don't.

RWers aren't all the same tbf, though I would say that generally when it comes to the nation and world as a whole, selfishness and lack of empathy are the characteristics of RW politics I most dislike.

As for those workers, they may well all be intelligent and/or skilled, they may just not have skills that are required in the current jobs market. Are you saying they are mostly stupid?

There you go again with the projection of made up stereotypes against RW, that we so typically see done by leftys... 'selfish and lacking empathy' this time...!


When will you see that you hate a straw man of your own imaginations creation...?

I have just received the following IM off FB

hey buddy hope your well been reading the amazon thread on NF and as useunal tommy has his facts wrong (my son worked there and has just been layed off 1 no such thing as a smoking break you can only smoke on one of the 4 x15 mins breaks aloud of which only two of the breaks are payed ,you can go to the toilet any time but have to log off the system so it is not shown as idle time to many toliet breaks can get you fired
he claims " I bet the breaks start a few minutes early/finish late etc to allow the employee time to stop work/pack up/walk to and from break time areas " TAKE that bet because its bullshit
also he said "plus a number of other designated 'toilet/smoking' breaks through the day" also bulshit as i explained above
you can use my name KD as a source and the fact my son worked there ....
thill last week when they layed off 80% of the returns department

Maddog wrote:Why doesn't Amazon just hire more people and cut back on the hours? It's not like it would cost them any more money, and it might increase productivity.

BTW, there is more than one answer to this question.  

partly becasue they hire according to expected workload...which varies quite markedly throughout the year

Lord Foul wrote:

Maddog wrote:Why doesn't Amazon just hire more people and cut back on the hours? It's not like it would cost them any more money, and it might increase productivity.

BTW, there is more than one answer to this question.  

partly becasue they hire according to expected workload...which varies quite markedly throughout the year

They could hire more.

If you are working at a big site/warehouse etc, and you have a designated break, the break time doesn't start the moment you leave your working position and end when you get back to there... it starts after you have made your way to the break area outside of the working areas and ends when you re-enter the working area on your way back to post... on a big job, it could take 10 mins or so each way, just getting to and from break area and working position... that was the point I was making before...


Some people try to use this walking about time to their advantage to avoid being at post working...


Eg...

I need a piss... 10 mins walking to rest area... 5 mins in there... then 10 mins back = 25 mins away from post not working...

Then a little while later... same person... I need a cigarette... 10 mins walking to smoking area... 10 mins in there... 10 mins walking back = another 30 minutes away from post not working...

Then... I need a drink of water... etc etc...

Some people try to do that shit alday to get out of actually doing any real work... I've seen it happening many times!!!

Original Quill wrote:

sb wrote:problem is quill, you ask for facts but you dont really want facts do you??

I mean it doesn't really matter what facts i give you, you would find a way to dismiss or justify the fact.

The real problem is, Russ, you are on the wrong side of the facts.  That's why I can so easily "dismiss" your facts.

You think the answer is not to give facts?  Hmmm... maybe if you rethought some of your positions, you too could find some friendly facts.

not really quill.

you dismiss my facts because you cannot refute them.

you claim trump supports the KKK, i showed you a montage 30 years in the making of him repeatedly denouncing the KKK, does it make a difference??

not to you, you continue to insist he is KKK. you say he is just "saying it"

if you cannot accept footage of trump denouncing the KKK, what chance is there you will accept footage of corbyn calling hamas and hezbollah his friends??

none

if the facts dont support your narrative you simply dismiss or find excuses for them.