Connect with us

International

Black Friday for Amazon workers: the human costs behind consumer convenience

We reviewed hundreds of documents and reports on workplace safety in Amazon warehouses.

Published

on

Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock

With the holiday shopping season upon us, many people will be taking advantage of the low prices and speedy delivery promised by Amazon. The online retail giant is more popular than ever, and it is bringing on thousands more employees to meet demand.

But available evidence suggests that the process by which Amazon fulfils our orders can harm its workers. It also suggests that this problem is getting worse, and has even been exacerbated by the introduction of automation and robots to the fulfilment process.

Our team in the Work Futures Research Group reviewed over 500 sources of information about Amazon. We looked at media reports, academic publications, Amazon’s own published materials and blog posts by Amazon employees. We also spoke to the trade unions who organise Amazon workers in the UK.

We attempted to speak to Amazon to get their response to our findings, but they did not respond.

Our findings paint a possible picture of harmful working practices inside Amazon’s fulfilment centres or warehouses. During periods of peak demand – Black Friday, Cyber Monday and Prime Day sales and Christmas – Amazon drafts in thousands of additional staff. This year, the company is offering sign-up bonuses of up to £3,000 to attract seasonal workers.

During these peak times, the length of the working week can increase to as much as 60 hours, and the average rate of ambulance callouts allegedly increases, Business Insider reported in 2019. However, an Amazon spokeswoman told Business Insider that they knew “for a fact that recordable incidents do not increase during peak” times, though they did not provide records. The company also said that using ambulance callout rates to assess workplace safety is “simply wrong because it does not take into consideration hours worked, population-size and whether the requests were work-related or not”.

The evidence of physical harm that Amazon’s warehouse workers can experience is alarming. The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a membership organisation of workers, unions, activists and health and safety professionals, surveyed 142 of the 2,500 workers at Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse.

Of those surveyed, 66% said they “had experienced physical pain while performing their regular work duties”, and 42% “continued experiencing pain even when they were not at work”. The researchers concluded that these reports constituted evidence of “work-related musculoskeletal disorders”.

A similar survey by the UK’s GMB trade union found that 87% of respondents reported both constant and occasional pain. It found 10% experienced only occasional pain and only 3% did not experience any pain.

The GMB also obtained information from UK local authorities about accidents that Amazon warehouses had reported to health and safety authorities. The annual total increased from 152 in 2016-17 to 240 in 2018-19.

Automation and injury

Amazon has claimed that the introduction of digitisation and automation to the work process improves worker safety. But there is evidence which suggests that these innovations may actually contribute to warehouse injuries.

Globally, Amazon has deployed hundreds of thousands of robotic drive units to its warehouses in recent years. This has increased the speed with which Amazon fulfils orders, but it also means human workers must keep up with the machines. Amazon also uses digital programmes to track workers’ movements, keeping human and robotics elements in sync to maximise productivity and efficiency.

A former senior operations manager at Amazon told investigative journalism nonprofit Reveal that when robots were introduced, “the productivity expectations for workers more than doubled”. Pickers, the workers charged with grabbing and scanning items, had their target raised from around 100 items to 400 items per hour. In an investigation including internal Amazon documents, Reveal found that:

· The rate of serious injury increased by 33% from 2016-19;

· In each of those years, the highest rates of serious injury occurred during the weeks of Prime Day and Cyber Monday;

· In 2019, the rate of serious injury was 7.7 per 100 employees – nearly double the average rate for general warehousing and storage in the US;

· The rate of serious injury in warehouses operating with robotics from 2016 to 2019 was more than 50% higher than in older warehouses operating without robotics.

In 2019, an Amazon spokesperson told Reveal that during Prime Day and the holiday season, the increase in injuries is due to increased numbers of employees, but that the average rate of injury “has historically decreased or been stable” during those times.

A year later, a company spokesperson told Reveal that in 2020, Amazon spent over US$1 billion (£0.75 billion) on safety measures related to technology and COVID-19 safety. They said, “[Amazon’s] investments in safety training and education programs, in technology and new safety infrastructure are working.”

A faster pace of work has been found generally to lead to increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders and stress, especially when workers have limited control over their pace of work. This finding challenges the idea that robotics and automation reduce physical demands on workers.

In May 2021, Amazon introduced a wellbeing programme focused on improving workers’ individual resilience through measures like healthy eating and “body mechanics”. We have seen no evidence that Amazon managers have considered decreasing the rate of work as a way to improve worker wellbeing.

There is less evidence about the impact of working at Amazon on mental health. Journalistic reports have found examples of anxiety, mood disorders and stress.

Organise, a worker-led network with more than a million members, surveyed UK-based fulfilment centre workers and found that 57% of respondents said they had become “a lot more anxious” since they started working at Amazon. Many reports have cited workers’ accounts of the stress of meeting targets.

Meeting targets

This pressure is systematically enforced by an automated system reportedly threatening the bottom 10% of workers with disciplinary action, ranked according to their productivity against targets. This has been corroborated by trade union officials we interviewed from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which has represented workers in many Amazon warehouses in the UK.

Similar allegations have been made by other publications and workers’ direct accounts – sometimes referring to the bottom 5%, sometimes 10%. Workers can allegedly be disciplined for taking too much “time off task” or failing to work at their “target speed”.

The Verge reported that legal documents it had obtained showed that Amazon in the US fired hundreds of workers in a year at a single warehouse on grounds relating to their productivity. An Amazon spokesperson told The Verge, “In general, the number of employee terminations have decreased over the last two years at this facility as well as across North America.”

The Verge also cites Amazon as saying that when more than 75% of workers are meeting their target, targets are increased. So, if workers work too slowly, they face losing their job – but if they work quickly enough, they face being made to work even faster.

One of the documents obtained by The Verge was a letter signed by an attorney for the company, confirming that an automated system tracks rates of individual productivity and generates warnings or terminations “without input from supervisors”.

In June 2021, Amazon US announced it was refining its time off task policy, which the company said can be “easily misunderstood”. The company said the system is intended primarily to understand problems with operational systems, and “only secondarily to identify under-performing employees”. Amazon said it would average time off task over a longer period of time, a change that would help it achieve the vision of being “Earth’s safest place to work”.

Local involvement

In the UK, many of Amazon’s warehouses are located in smaller local authorities, such as Cannock Chase, home to Amazon’s Rugeley fulfilment centre. “Partnership arrangements” have been seen by some as implying that the local authority acts, in effect, as Amazon’s agent, in relation to third parties making requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Given that Amazon will be a major provider of jobs within the local authority area, and may also be paying fees to that authority for the provision of advice, there are risks that its role in regulation may be compromised.

Cannock Chase Council said that the partnership arrangement does not compromise their ability to regulate Amazon in any way and does not result in Cannock Chase Council acting as agents for Amazon. It said that if Freedom of Information requests are made to them then they are legally bound to respond to these – and that does not form any part of the agreement with Amazon.

The increasing risk to the wellbeing of Amazon’s fulfilment centre workers calls for action, but solving this problem is far from straightforward.

Initiatives by Amazon workers, trade unions and campaigners to hold the company to account have to be part of the solution.

Amazon did not respond to The Conversation’s request for comment or detailed questions about these public reports of injury rates and working conditions.

Tom Vickers is Convenor of the Work Futures Research Group and a member of the Centre for People, Work and Organizational Practice at Nottingham Trent University. He has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy, the Leverhulme Trust and the British Sociological Association.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Chinese migration to US is nothing new – but the reasons for recent surge at Southern border are

A gloomier economic outlook in China and tightening state control have combined with the influence of social media in encouraging migration.

Published

on

By

Chinese migrants wait for a boat after having walked across the Darien Gap from Colombia to Panama. AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

The brief closure of the Darien Gap – a perilous 66-mile jungle journey linking South American and Central America – in February 2024 temporarily halted one of the Western Hemisphere’s busiest migration routes. It also highlighted its importance to a small but growing group of people that depend on that pass to make it to the U.S.: Chinese migrants.

While a record 2.5 million migrants were detained at the United States’ southwestern land border in 2023, only about 37,000 were from China.

I’m a scholar of migration and China. What I find most remarkable in these figures is the speed with which the number of Chinese migrants is growing. Nearly 10 times as many Chinese migrants crossed the southern border in 2023 as in 2022. In December 2023 alone, U.S. Border Patrol officials reported encounters with about 6,000 Chinese migrants, in contrast to the 900 they reported a year earlier in December 2022.

The dramatic uptick is the result of a confluence of factors that range from a slowing Chinese economy and tightening political control by President Xi Jinping to the easy access to online information on Chinese social media about how to make the trip.

Middle-class migrants

Journalists reporting from the border have generalized that Chinese migrants come largely from the self-employed middle class. They are not rich enough to use education or work opportunities as a means of entry, but they can afford to fly across the world.

According to a report from Reuters, in many cases those attempting to make the crossing are small-business owners who saw irreparable damage to their primary or sole source of income due to China’s “zero COVID” policies. The migrants are women, men and, in some cases, children accompanying parents from all over China.

Chinese nationals have long made the journey to the United States seeking economic opportunity or political freedom. Based on recent media interviews with migrants coming by way of South America and the U.S.’s southern border, the increase in numbers seems driven by two factors.

First, the most common path for immigration for Chinese nationals is through a student visa or H1-B visa for skilled workers. But travel restrictions during the early months of the pandemic temporarily stalled migration from China. Immigrant visas are out of reach for many Chinese nationals without family or vocation-based preferences, and tourist visas require a personal interview with a U.S. consulate to gauge the likelihood of the traveler returning to China.

Social media tutorials

Second, with the legal routes for immigration difficult to follow, social media accounts have outlined alternatives for Chinese who feel an urgent need to emigrate. Accounts on Douyin, the TikTok clone available in mainland China, document locations open for visa-free travel by Chinese passport holders. On TikTok itself, migrants could find information on where to cross the border, as well as information about transportation and smugglers, commonly known as “snakeheads,” who are experienced with bringing migrants on the journey north.

With virtual private networks, immigrants can also gather information from U.S. apps such as X, YouTube, Facebook and other sites that are otherwise blocked by Chinese censors.

Inspired by social media posts that both offer practical guides and celebrate the journey, thousands of Chinese migrants have been flying to Ecuador, which allows visa-free travel for Chinese citizens, and then making their way over land to the U.S.-Mexican border.

This journey involves trekking through the Darien Gap, which despite its notoriety as a dangerous crossing has become an increasingly common route for migrants from Venezuela, Colombia and all over the world.

In addition to information about crossing the Darien Gap, these social media posts highlight the best places to cross the border. This has led to a large share of Chinese asylum seekers following the same path to Mexico’s Baja California to cross the border near San Diego.

Chinese migration to US is nothing new

The rapid increase in numbers and the ease of accessing information via social media on their smartphones are new innovations. But there is a longer history of Chinese migration to the U.S. over the southern border – and at the hands of smugglers.

From 1882 to 1943, the United States banned all immigration by male Chinese laborers and most Chinese women. A combination of economic competition and racist concerns about Chinese culture and assimilability ensured that the Chinese would be the first ethnic group to enter the United States illegally.

With legal options for arrival eliminated, some Chinese migrants took advantage of the relative ease of movement between the U.S. and Mexico during those years. While some migrants adopted Mexican names and spoke enough Spanish to pass as migrant workers, others used borrowed identities or paperwork from Chinese people with a right of entry, like U.S.-born citizens. Similarly to what we are seeing today, it was middle- and working-class Chinese who more frequently turned to illegal means. Those with money and education were able to circumvent the law by arriving as students or members of the merchant class, both exceptions to the exclusion law.

Though these Chinese exclusion laws officially ended in 1943, restrictions on migration from Asia continued until Congress revised U.S. immigration law in the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. New priorities for immigrant visas that stressed vocational skills as well as family reunification, alongside then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s policies of “reform and opening,” helped many Chinese migrants make their way legally to the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.

Even after the restrictive immigration laws ended, Chinese migrants without the education or family connections often needed for U.S. visas continued to take dangerous routes with the help of “snakeheads.”

One notorious incident occurred in 1993, when a ship called the Golden Venture ran aground near New York, resulting in the drowning deaths of 10 Chinese migrants and the arrest and conviction of the snakeheads attempting to smuggle hundreds of Chinese migrants into the United States.

Existing tensions

Though there is plenty of precedent for Chinese migrants arriving without documentation, Chinese asylum seekers have better odds of success than many of the other migrants making the dangerous journey north.

An estimated 55% of Chinese asylum seekers are successful in making their claims, often citing political oppression and lack of religious freedom in China as motivations. By contrast, only 29% of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the U.S. have their claim granted, and the number is even lower for Colombians, at 19%.

The new halt on the migratory highway from the south has affected thousands of new migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. But the mix of push factors from their home country and encouragement on social media means that Chinese migrants will continue to seek routes to America.

And with both migration and the perceived threat from China likely to be features of the upcoming U.S. election, there is a risk that increased Chinese migration could become politicized, leaning further into existing tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Is the National Guard a solution to school violence?

School board members in one Massachusetts district have called for the National Guard to address student misbehavior. Does their request have merit? A…

Published

on

By

Every now and then, an elected official will suggest bringing in the National Guard to deal with violence that seems out of control.

A city council member in Washington suggested doing so in 2023 to combat the city’s rising violence. So did a Pennsylvania representative concerned about violence in Philadelphia in 2022.

In February 2024, officials in Massachusetts requested the National Guard be deployed to a more unexpected location – to a high school.

Brockton High School has been struggling with student fights, drug use and disrespect toward staff. One school staffer said she was trampled by a crowd rushing to see a fight. Many teachers call in sick to work each day, leaving the school understaffed.

As a researcher who studies school discipline, I know Brockton’s situation is part of a national trend of principals and teachers who have been struggling to deal with perceived increases in student misbehavior since the pandemic.

A review of how the National Guard has been deployed to schools in the past shows the guard can provide service to schools in cases of exceptional need. Yet, doing so does not always end well.

How have schools used the National Guard before?

In 1957, the National Guard blocked nine Black students’ attempts to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. While the governor claimed this was for safety, the National Guard effectively delayed desegregation of the school – as did the mobs of white individuals outside. Ironically, weeks later, the National Guard and the U.S. Army would enforce integration and the safety of the “Little Rock Nine” on orders from President Dwight Eisenhower.

Three men from the mob around Little Rock’s Central High School are driven from the area at bayonet-point by soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division on Sept. 25, 1957. The presence of the troops permitted the nine Black students to enter the school with only minor background incidents. Bettmann via Getty Images

One of the most tragic cases of the National Guard in an educational setting came in 1970 at Kent State University. The National Guard was brought to campus to respond to protests over American involvement in the Vietnam War. The guardsmen fatally shot four students.

In 2012, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, proposed funding to use the National Guard to provide school security in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The bill was not passed.

More recently, the National Guard filled teacher shortages in New Mexico’s K-12 schools during the quarantines and sickness of the pandemic. While the idea did not catch on nationally, teachers and school personnel in New Mexico generally reported positive experiences.

Can the National Guard address school discipline?

The National Guard’s mission includes responding to domestic emergencies. Members of the guard are part-time service members who maintain civilian lives. Some are students themselves in colleges and universities. Does this mission and training position the National Guard to respond to incidents of student misbehavior and school violence?

On the one hand, New Mexico’s pandemic experience shows the National Guard could be a stopgap to staffing shortages in unusual circumstances. Similarly, the guards’ eventual role in ensuring student safety during school desegregation in Arkansas demonstrates their potential to address exceptional cases in schools, such as racially motivated mob violence. And, of course, many schools have had military personnel teaching and mentoring through Junior ROTC programs for years.

Those seeking to bring the National Guard to Brockton High School have made similar arguments. They note that staffing shortages have contributed to behavior problems.

One school board member stated: “I know that the first thought that comes to mind when you hear ‘National Guard’ is uniform and arms, and that’s not the case. They’re people like us. They’re educated. They’re trained, and we just need their assistance right now. … We need more staff to support our staff and help the students learn (and) have a safe environment.”

Yet, there are reasons to question whether calls for the National Guard are the best way to address school misconduct and behavior. First, the National Guard is a temporary measure that does little to address the underlying causes of student misbehavior and school violence.

Research has shown that students benefit from effective teaching, meaningful and sustained relationships with school personnel and positive school environments. Such educative and supportive environments have been linked to safer schools. National Guard members are not trained as educators or counselors and, as a temporary measure, would not remain in the school to establish durable relationships with students.

What is more, a military presence – particularly if uniformed or armed – may make students feel less welcome at school or escalate situations.

Schools have already seen an increase in militarization. For example, school police departments have gone so far as to acquire grenade launchers and mine-resistant armored vehicles.

Research has found that school police make students more likely to be suspended and to be arrested. Similarly, while a National Guard presence may address misbehavior temporarily, their presence could similarly result in students experiencing punitive or exclusionary responses to behavior.

Students deserve a solution other than the guard

School violence and disruptions are serious problems that can harm students. Unfortunately, schools and educators have increasingly viewed student misbehavior as a problem to be dealt with through suspensions and police involvement.

A number of people – from the NAACP to the local mayor and other members of the school board – have criticized Brockton’s request for the National Guard. Governor Maura Healey has said she will not deploy the guard to the school.

However, the case of Brockton High School points to real needs. Educators there, like in other schools nationally, are facing a tough situation and perceive a lack of support and resources.

Many schools need more teachers and staff. Students need access to mentors and counselors. With these resources, schools can better ensure educators are able to do their jobs without military intervention.

F. Chris Curran has received funding from the US Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the American Civil Liberties Union for work on school safety and discipline.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Rand Paul Teases Senate GOP Leader Run – Musk Says “I Would Support”

Rand Paul Teases Senate GOP Leader Run – Musk Says "I Would Support"

Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Friday hinted that he may jump…

Published

on

Rand Paul Teases Senate GOP Leader Run - Musk Says "I Would Support"

Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Friday hinted that he may jump into the race to become the next Senate GOP leader, and Elon Musk was quick to support the idea. Republicans must find a successor for periodically malfunctioning Mitch McConnell, who recently announced he'll step down in November, though intending to keep his Senate seat until his term ends in January 2027, when he'd be within weeks of turning 86. 

So far, the announced field consists of two quintessential establishment types: John Cornyn of Texas and John Thune of South Dakota. While John Barrasso's name had been thrown around as one of "The Three Johns" considered top contenders, the Wyoming senator on Tuesday said he'll instead seek the number two slot as party whip. 

Paul used X to tease his potential bid for the position which -- if the GOP takes back the upper chamber in November -- could graduate from Minority Leader to Majority Leader. He started by telling his 5.1 million followers he'd had lots of people asking him about his interest in running...

...then followed up with a poll in which he predictably annihilated Cornyn and Thune, taking a 96% share as of Friday night, with the other two below 2% each. 

Elon Musk was quick to back the idea of Paul as GOP leader, while daring Cornyn and Thune to follow Paul's lead by throwing their names out for consideration by the Twitter-verse X-verse. 

Paul has been a stalwart opponent of security-state mass surveillance, foreign interventionism -- to include shoveling billions of dollars into the proxy war in Ukraine -- and out-of-control spending in general. He demonstrated the latter passion on the Senate floor this week as he ridiculed the latest kick-the-can spending package:   

In February, Paul used Senate rules to force his colleagues into a grueling Super Bowl weekend of votes, as he worked to derail a $95 billion foreign aid bill. "I think we should stay here as long as it takes,” said Paul. “If it takes a week or a month, I’ll force them to stay here to discuss why they think the border of Ukraine is more important than the US border.”

Don't expect a Majority Leader Paul to ditch the filibuster -- he's been a hardy user of the legislative delay tactic. In 2013, he spoke for 13 hours to fight the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. In 2015, he orated for 10-and-a-half-hours to oppose extension of the Patriot Act

Rand Paul amid his 10 1/2 hour filibuster in 2015

Among the general public, Paul is probably best known as Capitol Hill's chief tormentor of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease during the Covid-19 pandemic. Paul says the evidence indicates the virus emerged from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. He's accused Fauci and other members of the US government public health apparatus of evading questions about their funding of the Chinese lab's "gain of function" research, which takes natural viruses and morphs them into something more dangerous. Paul has pointedly said that Fauci committed perjury in congressional hearings and that he belongs in jail "without question."   

Musk is neither the only nor the first noteworthy figure to back Paul for party leader. Just hours after McConnell announced his upcoming step-down from leadership, independent 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr voiced his support: 

In a testament to the extent to which the establishment recoils at the libertarian-minded Paul, mainstream media outlets -- which have been quick to report on other developments in the majority leader race -- pretended not to notice that Paul had signaled his interest in the job. More than 24 hours after Paul's test-the-waters tweet-fest began, not a single major outlet had brought it to the attention of their audience. 

That may be his strongest endorsement yet. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/10/2024 - 20:25

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending