In the Firing Line

Watching a program about working conditions at Amazon. Not so much the conditions that drew my attention, more the way information technology was used to chase workers around to hit targets. 

Talk about make a rod for our own backs.

🙂

Comments

  • But thats not IT's fault. Thats the fault of humans aka middle managers who say 'Oh we can process X amount of orders per hour, so we'll need each staff member to process X amount of orders to keep up.'

    The money you save by using IT, you should be using to hire more staff. So the fault lies entirely with the fact that Amazon should be hiring more staff to cope if staff can't meet deadlines.

     

  • XX1XX1 ✭✭✭
    The real Mr I wrote (see)

    ...

    The money you save by using IT, you should be using to hire more staff...

     

    I don't agree with that assertion; however, it doesn't matter how many people get employed IT could still be used to chase those workers around to hit targets.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I'm of an age when the rise of computers was touted as a means to free the masses from menial work; the idea was that they would have more leisure time. Indeed they do, its called redundancy.

    Not quite a Luddite, the Amazon case is the logical endpoint of still needing people to perform some tasks. Despite them earning less than 25 years ago for similar work, the sword held over their heads is the threat of having no work at all and earning nothing.

    Just like anyone who has an Iphone or similar device that they cannot afford to turn off or exist without, they are 'slaves to the machine'.  

    🙂

  • Computers and IT freeing people up was (and remains) a massive fallacy, more people are now employed in tedious computer related admin tasks than ever before.

  • RicF wrote (see)

    I'm of an age when the rise of computers was touted as a means to free the masses from menial work; the idea was that they would have more leisure time. Indeed they do, its called redundancy.

    Not quite a Luddite, the Amazon case is the logical endpoint of still needing people to perform some tasks. Despite them earning less than 25 years ago for similar work, the sword held over their heads is the threat of having no work at all and earning nothing.

    Just like anyone who has an Iphone or similar device that they cannot afford to turn off or exist without, they are 'slaves to the machine'.  

    Scary innit?

  • Tory methodology, put them out of work, give them a taste of hardship and they'll work for less on the come back. Look back over your political history. This is the party that opposed the minimum wage, why would you expect any different. 

  • I don't think it's Tory methodology I think it's capitalism - I'm pretty sure it was no different under the last government.

  • One party brought in the min wage one opposed it. Says it all for me

  • RicF wrote (see)

    Watching a program about working conditions at Amazon. Not so much the conditions that drew my attention, more the way information technology was used to chase workers around to hit targets. 

    Talk about make a rod for our own backs.

    but is that so much different to pre-computer days??   back in the day of manufacturing being the hub of most countries domestic output, companies  were using production targets to improve output.  whether that was tons of coal dug, number of cars produced etc these were all done to targets and workers had to improve or they could be "moved on".

    we had people who specialised in "time and motion study" - my cousin was a person who did this - who looked at how people worked and tried to improve their efficiency.  simply they would time them for a task and look for ways of them doing it quicker so production got faster.  

    it's the methodologies to measure targets that are different these days but the end result - hitting targets - isn't

  • Big_GBig_G ✭✭✭

    fat buhhda - you summed up my thoughts really.  I saw the program and there was mention of people being "treated like robots", but that is no different to many jobs on a factory shop floor.  I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but that is the nature of the job.

    On the face of it though, the Amazon targets did seem overly ambitious as there was footage with other employees saying they usually struggled to meet their targets.

    The thing that seemed draconian to me was the points system where you basically got the sack if you accrued 3 points for not meeting targets, going off sick etc.

    I don't know enough about the European law, but was the working time directive mentioned in the program last night implying that Amazon were breaking some law on working hours of employees?  I'm absolutely no expert in this, but I found that to be unlikely as I thought 12 hour night shifts on a factory floor (4 days on, 4 days off) were quite common?  

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    I love a good old time and motion study. They did one at my work a couple of years ago and found out we were spending too much time driving and doing admin rather than spending time face to face with customers.

    So they set everyone a target that meant spending more time each day with customers and less time doing amin but never actually reduced the amount of admin we had to do. Which meant people taking work home with them instead and working more hours for the same pay.
  • Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)
    The real Mr I wrote (see)

    The money you save by using IT, you should be using to hire more staff. So the fault lies entirely with the fact that Amazon should be hiring more staff to cope if staff can't meet deadlines.

     

    All investment has to have a payback and the IT equipment is solely designed (and touted) for the purpose of a quick payback. Managers have to use what is presented or they put themselves in the firing line. The payback is cost reduction which is the opposite of hiring more staff.

    Do you really think anyone would invest in IT just to bring in more people! come on real world answers please.

     

    It is a real world answer. IT speeds up processes, more people use your business because of this, the more business you have the more 'people' you need to cope with the human related parts of your business.

    It aint rocket science.

    Or did you think that Amazon would require the same amount of people it had during its first ever week in business with its 3 customers vs the millions it now has? IT can only do so much.

    As long as you have a section of your business that you can't automate, if your business gets bigger, you will need more people. So as Amazon gets bigger it will need either need more people or improved automation to handle the demand.

     

  • Mr I actually makes a good point (did I actually say that)? image

    The new systems we use at work enable an increased capacity but it's humans that have to deal with the consequences of that increase - hence more of us are needed, both temporary and permanent.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Bearing in mind that Amazons owner has accumulated 33 Billion dollars. The rider to why profits must be maximized no matter what, has to be to be 'whats this guys problem?'.

    🙂

Sign In or Register to comment.