trippinballs420 said:

im gonna play devils advocate here...

why is this a problem if they are getting paid at least minimum wage?

shouldnt everyone who is late to work once too often get fired? 65 to 95degF isnt that ridiculous, i used to work at a cub scout summer camp and we'd be doing physical labor from 7am to 10pm in heat up to like 110degF so i dont think its that bad.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

trippinballs420 said:

im gonna play devils advocate here...

why is this a problem if they are getting paid at least minimum wage?

shouldnt everyone who is late to work once too often get fired? 65 to 95degF isnt that ridiculous, i used to work at a cub scout summer camp and we'd be doing physical labor from 7am to 10pm in heat up to like 110degF so i dont think its that bad.

---

I have to agree, an employer that expects you to show up on time, do some
work and pays at the end of the week and all the while working in tolerable
conditions doesnt sound all that bad. I mean fuck, I worked in a metal fab
shop where I had to show up as early as 5am and work as late as 6pm and temps
were as low as 10F and as high as 130F. the lead mill was just as bad

if anyone wants the real scoop on what it's like to work at the dildo factory
then Cracula  is the one to ask because he's not some fruity, liberal, 99%er
journalist that expected to sit around in an air conditioned office while the
company executives packed orders

---

........

Man pris. You really lay it on thick sometimes.

Quote:

  "Do you think this job has to be this terrible?" I ask the workamper.

"Oh, no," she says, and makes a face at me like I've asked a stupid question, which I have. As if Amalgamated couldn't bear to lose a fraction of a percent of profits by employing a few more than the absolute minimum of bodies they have to, or by storing the merchandise at halfway ergonomic heights and angles. But that would cost space, and space costs money, and money is not a thing customers could possibly be expected to hand over for this service without huffily taking their business elsewhere. Charging for shipping does cause high abandonment rates of online orders, though it's not clear whether people wouldn't pay a few bucks for shipping, or a bit more for the products, if they were guaranteed that no low-income workers would be tortured or exploited in the handling of their purchases.

---

koraks said:

@propensity: kudos for actually getting the point!

---

Thanks, but it's pretty sad that such a thing would call for kudos.

koraks said:

OK, so nobody actually takes the time to read the article.

Let's get some misunderstandings out of the way.

Firstly, this isn't about manufacturing work. Not that it matters too much, but it does show that none of you actually clicked the link, or read my opening post. Even the devil's advocate needs to actually read the files

Secondly, no, this is not about the hours or the fact that people need to show up in time. I have two major problems with the practices at this company that the journalist reports on and has experienced first hand:

1. The targets that are set for the workers are not realistically achievable for most of them. While I understand this can help boost productivity, it also demotivates the workers if they are structurally incapable of meeting their targets. It's like running after that carrot that you'll never get. Except there's no carrot to begin with. Just running. Workers receive negative feedback constantly and are structurally being pushed beyond their physical and emotional limits. This takes us to problem 2:

2. The physical work environment and requirements result in long-term health problems (carpel tunnel being the most benign of them) as well as numerous incidents (electric shocks being a relatively innocent example; lost fingers being more serious).

If you combine the two above with the general work environment, then you see a situation that does not live up to those beautiful ethics that we all believe that we put into practice in our perfect society.

Again, read the article if you want to discuss this.

@propensity: kudos for actually getting the point!

---

hah yeah, you got me, didnt click the link at all

propensity said:

Good job missing the point of the article entirely.

It's not so much about the work itself as it is:

Quote:

  "Do you think this job has to be this terrible?" I ask the workamper.

"Oh, no," she says, and makes a face at me like I've asked a stupid question, which I have. As if Amalgamated couldn't bear to lose a fraction of a percent of profits by employing a few more than the absolute minimum of bodies they have to, or by storing the merchandise at halfway ergonomic heights and angles. But that would cost space, and space costs money, and money is not a thing customers could possibly be expected to hand over for this service without huffily taking their business elsewhere. Charging for shipping does cause high abandonment rates of online orders, though it's not clear whether people wouldn't pay a few bucks for shipping, or a bit more for the products, if they were guaranteed that no low-income workers would be tortured or exploited in the handling of their purchases.

---

---

Prisoner#1 said:

propensity said:

Good job missing the point of the article entirely.

It's not so much about the work itself as it is:

Quote:

  "Do you think this job has to be this terrible?" I ask the workamper.

"Oh, no," she says, and makes a face at me like I've asked a stupid question, which I have. As if Amalgamated couldn't bear to lose a fraction of a percent of profits by employing a few more than the absolute minimum of bodies they have to, or by storing the merchandise at halfway ergonomic heights and angles. But that would cost space, and space costs money, and money is not a thing customers could possibly be expected to hand over for this service without huffily taking their business elsewhere. Charging for shipping does cause high abandonment rates of online orders, though it's not clear whether people wouldn't pay a few bucks for shipping, or a bit more for the products, if they were guaranteed that no low-income workers would be tortured or exploited in the handling of their purchases.

---

---

I guess I dont understand

---