Amazon Fulfillment

[Pete]

^

Yes and reminder that when Amazon held a job fair last summer for it's sortation center on Council and SW 15th, they had a huge turnout and I believe all those jobs were quickly filled.

[baralheia]

These type of articles always get way too much press. because if these were the true conditions, there would be many many many more reports.

There have been TONS of reports of worker mistreatment like this over at least a decade, if not longer. These reports come from both company-owned and third-party logistics (3PL) warehouses, both inside and outside of this country. They don't even take very good care of their office workers either.

Here's a brief list of reporting on this topic gleaned from a very quick Google search:

• Mother Jones, April 2012: https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ehouses-labor/
• Gawker, May 2014: http://gawker.com/i-do-not-know-one-...zon-1572478351
• New York Times, August 2015: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/t...lace.html?_r=0
• Huffington Post, October 2015: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/...h-amazon-temp/
• Paste Magazine, December 2017: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...warehouse.html

This is only a fraction of the articles out there. To be frank, if you haven't heard about this, you haven't been listening. This conversation has been going on for years now.

I expect, however, that the experience Pete shared - that existing Amazon jobs here have filled up very quickly - will repeat itself when this Amazon warehouse opens. It will be good for the local economy, especially in tax revenues. They just won't be very good jobs.

[jedicurt]

There have been TONS of reports of worker mistreatment like this over at least a decade, if not longer. These reports come from both company-owned and third-party logistics (3PL) warehouses, both inside and outside of this country. They don't even take very good care of their office workers either.

Here's a brief list of reporting on this topic gleaned from a very quick Google search:

• Mother Jones, April 2012: https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ehouses-labor/
• Gawker, May 2014: http://gawker.com/i-do-not-know-one-...zon-1572478351
• New York Times, August 2015: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/t...lace.html?_r=0
• Huffington Post, October 2015: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/...h-amazon-temp/
• Paste Magazine, December 2017: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...warehouse.html

This is only a fraction of the articles out there. To be frank, if you haven't heard about this, you haven't been listening. This conversation has been going on for years now.

I expect, however, that the experience Pete shared - that existing Amazon jobs here have filled up very quickly - will repeat itself when this Amazon warehouse opens. It will be good for the local economy, especially in tax revenues. They just won't be very good jobs.

and there are just as many about Walmart, target, and many many other companies.

first, doesn't usually discourage people from working there
second, most usually find issues that go against company policies to start with
third, amazon is the big boy now, so they just get the most attention.
fourth, compared to the number of people who work at these type of facilities, we are still talking about well less than 1% of workers claiming there are issues

[Jersey Boss]

It will be good for the local economy, especially in tax revenues. They just won't be very good jobs.

As long as they do not follow the WALMART model of having the tax base finance their employee benefits. By this I mean an increase in SNAP eligibility, subsidized housing and other areas of the social safety net.

[baralheia]

and there are just as many about Walmart, target, and many many other companies.

first, doesn't usually discourage people from working there
second, most usually find issues that go against company policies to start with
third, amazon is the big boy now, so they just get the most attention.
fourth, compared to the number of people who work at these type of facilities, we are still talking about well less than 1% of workers claiming there are issues

1. If you need a job ASAP and they'll hire you quickly, that attracts people. For a lot of people, they don't have the luxury of finding a job that will treat them better - they just need a job now. This is extremely common in the companies you mention as well. Again, doesn't make them good jobs.
2. In my experience with low-level, "unskilled" jobs like this, sure, local management might be going against company policy. The reality is, though, if they're getting pressured to meet some predefined goal, often company policy gets thrown right out the window. This doesn't always happen in all companies, but I've seen it happen multiple times where I've worked.
3. Sure. Bigger company invites more scrutiny, I don't disagree. We've seen similar with Wal-mart and other companies. But this should be more concerning. If a company knows there could be an issue under scrutiny that could give them bad PR, wouldn't they try hard to make sure that issue doesn't happen?
4. Most people working in these conditions don't end up reporting issues to the relevant authorities because they still need the job and/or don't want to rock the boat. There's often a very real threat of losing your job if you're a whistleblower.

[catch22]

^ agree.

[jedicurt]

1. If you need a job ASAP and they'll hire you quickly, that attracts people. For a lot of people, they don't have the luxury of finding a job that will treat them better - they just need a job now. This is extremely common in the companies you mention as well. Again, doesn't make them good jobs.
2. In my experience with low-level, "unskilled" jobs like this, sure, local management might be going against company policy. The reality is, though, if they're getting pressured to meet some predefined goal, often company policy gets thrown right out the window. This doesn't always happen in all companies, but I've seen it happen multiple times where I've worked.
3. Sure. Bigger company invites more scrutiny, I don't disagree. We've seen similar with Wal-mart and other companies. But this should be more concerning. If a company knows there could be an issue under scrutiny that could give them bad PR, wouldn't they try hard to make sure that issue doesn't happen?
4. Most people working in these conditions don't end up reporting issues to the relevant authorities because they still need the job and/or don't want to rock the boat. There's often a very real threat of losing your job if you're a whistleblower.

I would normally agree with you, especially when unemployment was high. but we now have companies talking about how to find alternatives due to the fact that they sometimes cannot hire enough people (even unskilled labor positions) due to the current unemployment rate. outside of a few areas in this country, it is a workers market right now.

[Pete]

^

It's one of the reasons Amazon has gone to the heavy use of robotics.

Without them, the required workforce would be much higher at this facility.

[stile99]

I would normally agree with you, especially when unemployment was high. but we now have companies talking about how to find alternatives due to the fact that they sometimes cannot hire enough people (even unskilled labor positions) due to the current unemployment rate. outside of a few areas in this country, it is a workers market right now.

Every time I hear about a company whining they can't find workers, I'm reminded of an old writer's joke about some publisher refusing to pay more than a penny a word, then when they found out the competition was paying a penny and a half declared they would have to file bankruptcy at that rate.

The point is there is not a company anywhere in the world that can't find workers. Sometimes, when the market swings towards the workers, what happens is companies have difficulty "finding workers" willing to work 70 hours a week for **** pay and even worse benefits. They just stop the sentence early. The companies without this attitude experience no problems.

[jedicurt]

Every time I hear about a company whining they can't find workers, I'm reminded of an old writer's joke about some publisher refusing to pay more than a penny a word, then when they found out the competition was paying a penny and a half declared they would have to file bankruptcy at that rate.

The point is there is not a company anywhere in the world that can't find workers. Sometimes, when the market swings towards the workers, what happens is companies have difficulty "finding workers" willing to work 70 hours a week for **** pay and even worse benefits. They just stop the sentence early. The companies without this attitude experience no problems.

right... except that we are looking at some historic lows in unemployment... and there actually might not be enough people looking for that kind of job. I know we aren't talking about the unskilled workforce with this scenario... but I know for a fact right now there are more open positions for software developers in OKC then there are developers to fill those positions. so companies in OKC are having to look out of state for resources.

yes, places like amazon could increase wages, and some companies do that... I know that McDonalds in the early 2000's in Elk City was paying $12-15 (back when minimum wage was either still 5.15 or had just upped, I can't really remember) an hour, because they couldn't find daytime workers while high schoolers were in class. I actually had friends in college at weatherford who would drive to elk city to work at McDonalds because the money was worth it. That still doesn't mean that they were able to fill every shift they needed, And then when the oil field jobs and wind farm jobs went away again.... everyone making that much at mcdonalds was either told to take less, or were let go, because they could lower their wages again.

I know your anecdote is funny and the way in which it is portrayed.... but the reality is far different sometimes.

Available Workers is sometimes a finite resource... especially when unemployment is below 4.5%.

[stile99]

yes, places like amazon could increase wages, and some companies do that... I know that McDonalds in the early 2000's in Elk City was paying $12-15 (back when minimum wage was either still 5.15 or had just upped, I can't really remember) an hour, because they couldn't find daytime workers while high schoolers were in class. I actually had friends in college at weatherford who would drive to elk city to work at McDonalds because the money was worth it. That still doesn't mean that they were able to fill every shift they needed, And then when the oil field jobs and wind farm jobs went away again.... everyone making that much at mcdonalds was either told to take less, or were let go, because they could lower their wages again.

Thank you. I couldn't ask for a better illustration/real world example of my point.

[chuck5815]

i’ve talked to and associated with a number of people who worked (key word here is “worked”) at Amazon, and not one of them had a good thing to say about the experience. The company exists to serve Jeff and his customers. Many of the key positions, including the Area Manager role, have 100% turnover (i.e. the average employee only lasts one year in the position).

This is not a good company, folks.

[catch22]

i’ve talked to and associated with a number of people who worked (key word here is “worked”) at Amazon, and not one of them had a good thing to say about the experience. The company exists to serve Jeff and his customers. Many of the key positions, including the Area Manager role, have 100% turnover (i.e. the average employee only lasts one year in the position).

This is not a good company, folks.

Part of the reason Amazon is going into their own distribution business is because FedEx and UPS were not willing to make the investments in adding capacity to their linehaul, express, and last mile just to handle more influx from Amazon. Amazon negotiates the absolute lowest rates, to the point where UPS and FedEx are breaking even on Amazon volume. From a friend of mine who works at UPS (volume planner for air freight), UPS gives Amazon a fixed amount of volume they can fly (since they are breaking even) and once they fill that (secret) volume UPS will cut them off.

If Amazon drives their suppliers and contractors to the point where they have to distance themselves from one of the largest companies in the world, I can’t imagine the demands they place on their workers.

[Rover]

Part of the reason Amazon is going into their own distribution business is because FedEx and UPS were not willing to make the investments in adding capacity to their linehaul, express, and last mile just to handle more influx from Amazon. Amazon negotiates the absolute lowest rates, to the point where UPS and FedEx are breaking even on Amazon volume. From a friend of mine who works at UPS (volume planner for air freight), UPS gives Amazon a fixed amount of volume they can fly (since they are breaking even) and once they fill that (secret) volume UPS will cut them off.

If Amazon drives their suppliers and contractors to the point where they have to distance themselves from one of the largest companies in the world, I can’t imagine the demands they place on their workers.

Breaking even doesn’t mean they weren’t making money. Sometimes you take volume clients to absorb overhead, making the other accounts more profitable. That said, if they were asked to expand, they might not want to take on overhead without assurances that Amazon might not be willing to give. When a single account becomes more than a certain percentage of your business, it can be risky. Doesn’t mean they were being taken advantage of by Amazon. The analysis of to do or not to do is much more complex than can be explained in a few sound bites.

How is it we know they were just breaking even anyway? Lots of companies take low margin “on top of” accounts for the volume and consistency?

[jedicurt]

Thank you. I couldn't ask for a better illustration/real world example of my point.

that temporary wage increases to find jobs result in those people being laid off the moment cheaper work becomes available? Yes... they technically can just pay whatever to find workers... heck, Amazon could pay each worker 120k a year for unskilled labor... and they would fill every position... but that doesn't mean it's good business sense to do so. I guess i'm still trying to figure out what your point is?

[Pete]

Wages are like rent...

The market completely dictates them.

Amazon, like every other employer, will have to pay people enough to fully staff these positions.

If they don't have enough (which seems highly unlikely) they will adjust.

And remember, they offer good benefits for this type of work and that matters a great deal to many.

[stile99]

Amazon, like every other employer, will have to pay people enough to fully staff these positions.

If they don't have enough (which seems highly unlikely) they will adjust..

Thank you.

[jedicurt]

Thank you.

I think for the most part we are saying the same thing... I think the point of contention came down to my use of the statement that amazon couldn't find enough workers.

the reality is that with unemployment so low, unskilled workers have much more freedom and options, and are more able to dictate more of their salaries and benefits. And that is the current situation we are in. and as Pete stated, that is why Amazon is looking into Robotics to reduce the number they need, because Amazon doesn't necessarily think it is good business sense to just pay what the market might be dictating for those positions when there might be a more long term cost effective and efficiency improving solution.

you are write, I gave you a perfect example to prove your point, when I also agree with, that is why I gave that example... but the situation is way more complicated than just that. because the end result is that because Amazon was not able to find enough employees at the cost estimates they deemed acceptable... it has made putting research and money into robotics to replace those jobs and improve efficiency much more cost effective. So they are going with what they think is the more long term better option. the state of the economy causing a situation where they must adjust their strategy for finding workers to fill all the positions has resulted in reducing the number of positions they needed to fill. Yes, I know your initial joke was about companies saying they would become bankrupt if they had to pay a penny more... but the reality is that while some workers will be paid more, there will be fewer overall positions as a result, because when your responsibility is to shareholders, the bottom line, sadly is all that matters.

[Martin]

noticed this morning that the frame on the okc fulfillment center is already starting to go up... construction is going at warp speed.

[PaddyShack]

noticed this morning that the frame on the okc fulfillment center is already starting to go up... construction is going at warp speed.

Have they gone plaid yet?

[Johnb911]

Have they gone plaid yet?

[Martin]

this is is from today... there's not much apparent scale from the image but that's four stories tall.

[Martin]

Have they gone plaid yet?

prepare for... ludicrous speed

[stile99]

I knew it! I'm surrounded by...

[Pete]

From Jeepnokc: