Amazon Driver Was Warned She'd Be Fired For Returning With Packages During a Tornado (theverge.com) 179
Joe_Dragon shares a report from The Verge: An Amazon delivery driver in Illinois was told to keep delivering packages after she reported hearing tornado sirens, with the dispatcher saying that the sirens were "just a warning." According to a report by Bloomberg, which includes screenshots of the conversation, the driver was told that returning to the warehouse would be viewed as a route refusal, "which [would] ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning."
The conversation reportedly happened on Friday evening, around an hour and a half before a tornado hit an Amazon facility around 30 miles away from the driver. After being told twice to "just keep delivering," the driver was eventually instructed to shelter in place "for 15-20 minutes, then continue as normal." (The instructions to shelter in place were repeated several more times after.) The driver, expressing that a delivery van wouldn't provide much safety, said she wanted to return to base. ""If you decide to come back, that choice is yours.""
The dispatcher's response is harrowing: "If you decide to come back, that choice is yours. But I can tell you it won't be viewed as for your own safety. The safest practice is to stay exactly where you are." The dispatcher said drivers couldn't be recalled unless Amazon directed it and that she would lose her job if she returned. The tornado ended up touching down near a highway, throwing cars in the air, according to Bloomberg, though the driver involved in the text exchange is reported to be safe. Amazon told Bloomberg that the dispatcher "should have immediately directed the driver to seek shelter" when they reported hearing the sirens and said that "under no circumstance should the dispatcher have threatened the driver's employment." The company says it's investigating the incident.
The conversation reportedly happened on Friday evening, around an hour and a half before a tornado hit an Amazon facility around 30 miles away from the driver. After being told twice to "just keep delivering," the driver was eventually instructed to shelter in place "for 15-20 minutes, then continue as normal." (The instructions to shelter in place were repeated several more times after.) The driver, expressing that a delivery van wouldn't provide much safety, said she wanted to return to base. ""If you decide to come back, that choice is yours.""
The dispatcher's response is harrowing: "If you decide to come back, that choice is yours. But I can tell you it won't be viewed as for your own safety. The safest practice is to stay exactly where you are." The dispatcher said drivers couldn't be recalled unless Amazon directed it and that she would lose her job if she returned. The tornado ended up touching down near a highway, throwing cars in the air, according to Bloomberg, though the driver involved in the text exchange is reported to be safe. Amazon told Bloomberg that the dispatcher "should have immediately directed the driver to seek shelter" when they reported hearing the sirens and said that "under no circumstance should the dispatcher have threatened the driver's employment." The company says it's investigating the incident.
That's what I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Manual labor is like school. If you are allowed to take a break from work, you take it. If the employees are allowed to take a safety break because of a tornado, all the employees will take it. The fact that they didn't, is strong circumstantial evidence that they were pressured not to.
It might not stand up in court, but all those employees were almost certainly pressured to keep working when the tornado alarm went off.
if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
if they only had an union to fight for them!
Re:if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
They shouldn't need a union to keep them safe from collapsing buildings. That's a right every American should have, period.
Re:if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there is such a right, as an employee you still need to be able to enforce it. In doubt, employees still have to succumb to the employer's whims, lawful or not, to keep their jobs. One of the reasons unions exist is to help employees enforce their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcing it is the government's job in Switzerland and it works about as well as with unionsmin the US.
Re:if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:4, Informative)
In the US enforcement of all kinds has either been cut back or bought off. California has a little bit of worker protection, most of the country has even less.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a large part of the reason Tesla is moving to Texas. California has worker protection and it seems that Musk just wants to put people in danger. Look at how he treated covid and any kind of safety gear. With Texas he won't have that problem. Even if he gets the workers killed there is very little liability.
Re: if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:2)
In Texas they could be in the middle of operating some heavy deadly machinery in a large factory and then all the lights go out because Texas likes to fsck with its power grid. Whoops, no emergency lighting either because fsck workers. I'd wonder how many people would die.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems Musk wants to put people in danger? How does it seem like that? That Elon Musk wants to endanger the people that are producing his product is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is very little liability for getting your workers killed in Texas? Again, this an amazing story if it is true. But it's hard to believe something so outlandish as that. Do you have any evidence that there is little liability for getting workers killed in Texas?
I'm not saying tha
Re: if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:4, Interesting)
And if the driver returned to the now collapsed warehouse she'd likely be dead now.
If I remember correctly, most drivers work for third-parties, not directly for Amazon, and the likelihood that it was an Amazon employee that told another Amazon employee to keep delivering packages before telling the driver to shelter is very, very small.
As for the "If they only had a Union" - the likelihood that the third-party delivery company would be unionized is very, very small (unions want to represent warehouse workers at Amazon-owned facilities, not a handful of drivers that work for a delivery service that takes contract work from Amazon.
Best indication this driver wasn't an Amazon employee - the threat of near-instant termination. Amazon, like any large American corporation, probably has an elaborate separation process that doesn't terminate employees on their first infraction/violation of company policy.
The real scenario is that a first-time small business owner leased some trucks from Amazon, hired a handful of drivers to help service the needs of Amazon, and when pressed to make a management decision for the first time threatened the driver with immediate termination for returning early.
Think about it, every "Amazon warehouses are hell holes" story I've ever read talks about performance improvement plans, employees getting 'written up' for infractions, and that terminations occur after a small pile of 'infractions' are accumulated.
Re: if they only had an union to fight for them! (Score:3)
"Amazon" can't be held responsible for literal (sort of) acts of god like tornados.
Of all the drivers that were out delivering, why did this one driver decide to "ask permission" to return to base? Did any other drivers ask? Did any just return? Did anyone actually get fired for returning to base?
I personally don't understand asking permission, protect yourself and deal with the consequences later... this story has the worker actually deciding to risk their life out of fear of losing their job - that's the
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the sentiment but not the semantics: that's an abuse of the word right.
People should indeed have a reasonable expectation of building safety. And hey, we do have building codes! It's up to investigation to show whether the building was up to code.
After that, we'll have all the arguments and weeping and gnashing of teeth about how the compensation was too much or little, or how to change building codes, forgetting that if you tried to make building codes cover worst-case scenarios nobody would
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't need a union to keep them safe from collapsing buildings. That's a right every American should have, period.
If the government functioned as it should by protecting the rights of employees and ensuring income disparities do not become too exaggerated, then unions would be completely unnecessary.
Unions are a less than ideal solution for a problem that, unfortunately, we have not solved by other means
Re: (Score:2)
If only there weren't millions and millions of illegals making that pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they only had an union to fight for them!
If only they had a legal system that enabled a wronged individual to reasonably seek reparation, regardless of if that wrong-doer is rich, poor, or corporate.
Re:Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:2)
Re: Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:5, Informative)
An onion starts with a vowel. The y sound is only considered a vowel sound in a diphthong and it is never a diphthong at the beginning of the word and hence not a vowel.
English motherfucker, do you speak it?
Re: Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:2)
You use "an" before vowel *sounds*. In the case of "Union" it is not a vowel sound, so it should be "a".
When you write something, you're instructing the reader's internal voice to say the words.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, it seems, is that you never made it past the 3rd grade. Yeah, this is actually shit that 4th graders already know. If it's any consolation, you can be one of those adult guys on the Howard Stern show that loses academic competitions to 8-year-olds. It doesn't pay anything, but at least you can get your 15 minutes of fame.
Re: (Score:3)
Y is sometimes a vowel.
Indeed, but it is never considered a vowel at the beginning of a word.
What's the problem?
You're highschool English teacher. /Note: Something in this post is intentionally designed to trigger people.
Re: Do you know how annoying that is? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Billy Bragg is never annoying.
Half expected the Dropkick Murphys to turn up after he'd finished.
Why curse the darkness when you can light a candle (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.grammar.com/a-vs-a... [grammar.com]
A Historic Topic - A vs. An
Writers sometimes confuse the use of the articles a and an. We were all taught that a precedes a word starting with a consonant and that an precedes a word starting with a vowel (a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y).
Here’s the secret to making the rule work: The rule applies to the sound of the letter beginning the word, not just the letter itself. The way we say the word will determine whether or not we use a or an. If the word begins with a vowel sound, you must use an. If it begins with a consonant sound, you must use a.
For example, the word hour begins with the consonant h. But the h is silent, so the word has a vowel sound. Hence:
an hour
The rule works the other way as well. Take the word university. It begins with the vowel u. But the u is pronounced as if it begins with the consonant y. Hence:
a university
But consider the word umbrella, also starting with u. It starts with the vowel sound uh. Hence:
an umbrella
Another vowel with a consonant sound is o. When spoken, the letter can sound as if it begins with the consonant w. Thus, we use the a:
a one-room apartment a once-famous actor
Articles with Words Beginning with ‘h,’ a or an
The consonant giving us the most trouble is probably h. When the h begins a word and the first syllable is strongly pronounced, you should use a.
a history of Europe (accent falls on his) a hero (accent falls on he)
Re: (Score:2)
"Herb". "An" or "a"?
Re:Why curse the darkness when you can light a can (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Re: Why curse the darkness when you can light a ca (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Why curse the darkness when you can light a ca (Score:2)
Just to be clear, should 'an' be used with historic / historical, because they are accented on second syllable?
A history lesson An historic victory An historical account An historically-correct drama
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. JMHO... the solution to this problem should be to have government clamp down on this hard - create statutory liabilities to apply even if nothing goes wrong. That would be the right response and the way to make sure it happens never again... not with Amazon, and not with any other large employer.
E.g. a $200,000 per employee per incident per day statutory liability for employers for each instance of "endangerment" for any encouragement to continue working under any potentially unsafe condition, na
Re:That's what I thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: That's what I thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Police officers, roughnecks, miners, and arctic fishermen might disagree.
Re: That's what I thought (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, for the others, but police are not required to endanger their little curly tails for anyone or anything [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
They're not obligated to protect anyone, but just being in the uniform is dangerous. It's not as dangerous as lots of other jobs that are often appreciated much less, but it's not like there's no risk inherent to being a cop. It only isn't anywhere near as dangerous as they like to make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Police officers
I include them as part of the armed forces.
roughnecks, miners
Only in 3rd world countries. It's obvious I'm talking about the US and other Western 1st world countries.
arctic fishermen
The job comes with dangers, but at no point are people actually told to sacrifice themselves.
Re: That's what I thought (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s kind of funny, thinking about what employers have asked of me over the years. In my first job, I was asked to put my rear on the line and travel to Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of my employer (in 2006). I was rewarded handsomely for that, and made the decision to go knowing the risks.
Later, I was volunteering with a charitable organization that operates at a remote wilderness site. When a wildfire ignited in our valley, I was asked to stay behind on the ride-out crew when we evacuated everyo
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Iâ(TM)m glad to have both experiences.
These kinds of experiences are great if you survive them safely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think "survive them safely" covered that.
Re: That's what I thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really a shame you got downmodded for this, even though you included police officers (which is like the 22nd most dangerous job category in the USA or something, my job is way higher up the list) because there are plenty of jobs where just doing them properly is inherently risky. In many of the most dangerous jobs your life could end through no one person's fault even though everyone is doing the best job they can.
Re:That's what I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
The other elephant in the room is that while you are on the company dime, they have a responsibility towards your safety.
There seems to be a misguided nonchalance towards a company's role in causing the situation, with the entire onus put on the employees to put on their best John Wayne impression as they walk off towards the sunset.
Unfortunately, the mortgage company, the landlord, the utilities, etc. will be not as understanding, even if it was the best response overall; there will be consequences that Amazon will not have to bear in creating the situation in the first place, and that is purely evil.
Re: (Score:2)
The elephant in the room is that no employment contract (other than for armed forces) can legally require people (they are not just employees) to endanger their own lives.
Firefighters and Police.
Re: (Score:2)
The warehouse that got collapsed was inside the area covered by the tornado warning. In fact, there was a tornado warning signaled inside the warehouse, but a lot of employees ignored it (this is according to my memory of what I read; feel free to use a search engine to find more accurate information if you wish).
Culture starts at the top (Score:4, Insightful)
It's clear what the work culture at Amazon's fulfillment centers is like - and it's clearly been institutionalized from the very beginning. And there's only a few key people at Amazon that could responsible for that...
Somebody (Score:3)
... and somebody will be along shortly to justify it because corporation.
Just a warning (Score:2)
Warning [thefreedictionary.com] : A statement telling of or an indication providing evidence of impending danger, difficulty, or misfortune.
Re:Just a warning (Score:4)
Warning in this context means a tornado has been identified and you should immediately seek shelter (as opposed to watch).
Don't know about Illinois, but in Kentucky there were several hours of tornado warning where something better than ride it out was an option, and was rebuffed, probably on the hope that the tornado would veer 10 degrees north and a few more hours of work could be squeezed in. Profits before people.
Anticipate massive lawsuits to follow (the prisoners in Kentucky were particularly egregious) and if there is any justice in this would, several heads on pikes. This was completely uncalled for.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "definition" is at odds with the meaning of a tornado warning actually is. Let me help you wiki that.
A tornado warning (SAME code: TOR) is a severe weather warning product issued by regional offices of weather forecasting agencies throughout the world to alert the public when a tornado has been reported or indicated by weather radar within the parent severe thunderstorm. It can be issued after a tornado, funnel cloud and rotation in the clouds has been witnessed by the public, storm chasers, emergency
Another reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you buy regularly that actually requires you to use Amazon. They have a lot of unique references, but there are good chances these are crappy gadgets, a risk to be taken for fun very occasionally, not something you "need" for the important matters of your life. The products from their own brand are not worth the hassle of paying for a disappointment, and the good quality products are available in plenty of other places. I guess people use Amazon for the convenience of dealing with just one
Re: (Score:2)
Take a multi-purpose screwdriver, for instance. I'm the type that'll look at (almost) every last one on Amazon and will keep 20 tabs of them open, then eliminate them one at a time until I get to the one that I want. Waste of time? Perhaps. Would most of them have done? Perhaps. But that's just me. That's why I need Amazon or eBay.
I still do a lot of shopping on eBay, depending on whether I can wait for the item or not, or if it's used or not, but if I need something today, it's Amazon, even if it co
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like me.
You an aspie too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. Personally, I try to buy at Amazon only if I can't get something elsewhere. Still, everyone stopping to buy at Amazon will not keep that driver employed, either.
I guarantee this will lead to changes at Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically - dispatchers will be sent to mandatory training so they can learn how NOT to respond in a manner which can be documented.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically - dispatchers will be sent to mandatory training so they can learn how NOT to respond in a manner which can be documented.
Maybe via a seance? Oh, wait. That's for after the drivers get kill by the tornado... I think that's in Appendix S.
The dispatcher needs disciplined (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought this would be sufficient for a criminal prosecution, something along the lines of "recklessly endangering lives". There have to be limits and Amazon's behaviour with these tornados exceeded any sensible limits.
We become those we mock (Score:3)
Decades ago, we mocked other countries for allowing employers to put employees lives at risk.
Now we are becoming one of those countries.
Re:We become those we mock (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Years ago other countries were still recovering from the destruction of their economies either by colonialism or WW2. Now its a more level playing field and Americans gotto hustle too.
That's actually quite insightful, but I've commented in the thread, so can't mod you up.
It's easy to look down on countries that have less prosperity and their business practices, but harder to recognize that when you're struggling to make ends meet, desperation tactics make sense. When hardship is deciding between rose gold and white iPhones, that's when human-rights issues darned well better be dealt-with.
This is some Charles Dickens grade stuff (Score:2)
People need unions.
Re: (Score:3)
And what happens when those parallel structures either conflict with government, or become government? You're back where you started, or heading for revolution.
Why'd she call and ask? (Score:3)
Why didn't she just seek shelter? Why would you call your boss and ask for permission to follow government directions?
Re:Why'd she call and ask? (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're tracked exactly by the minute where they are and how fast they're delivering packages.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my personal safety is above all other work commitments (unless there is some hazard pay). If Amazon doesn't like it, they can sue the National Weather Service.
Re:Why'd she call and ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, my personal safety is above all other work commitments
Same, but I'm really lucky in that I'm not a minimum wage delivery driver. I own my own house and have savings. If my employer asks me to do something dangerous or unethical, I can walk out the door and have no financial worries. It helps that I also live in a country with a social safety net and single payer healthcare.
If you're on the other end of the spectrum, and you probably are if you're working deliveries for a company like Amazon in the US, then you've got a lot more to consider. You've got rent to pay, maybe a family to feed, healthcare costs and etc. Not having a job tomorrow is a really serious consideration, and one that people will quite reasonably put themselves in danger for.
I am not going to criticise someone for trying to make ends meet. but Amazon is one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't she just seek shelter? Why would you call your boss and ask for permission to follow government directions?
"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"
Where are the unions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet Bezos doesn't launch his fucking peniscraft during a tornado!
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"?
Re:Where are the unions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon are famous for the dirty tricks they use to prevent unionisation. Not just propaganda - they've gone so far as to hire private investigators to infiltrate the workforce, identify anyone talking about unionisation when they think that management can't hear, and pre-emptively firing those people.
Be an adult (Score:2)
If my employer told me to do something that I determined would seriously put me at risk of serious injury or death, I would tell my employer to go fuck itself.
Re: (Score:2)
She was perfectly free to do that at any time.
Oh Auntie Em (Score:2)
It's a twister!
Dispatcher: I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!
Headline (Score:3)
"Enormous company has at least one idiot. Maybe even more!"
More on this exciting development when we return from commercial.
Re: (Score:3)
"Enormous company has at least one idiot. Maybe even more!"
More on this exciting development when we return from commercial.
Yes but this enormous company seems to have far more than just one idiot. An anecdote isn't data, but when all the anecdotes point to the same thing...
Shelter in place (Score:2)
the driver was eventually instructed to shelter in place
I can't imagine "sheltering in place" would provide much protection against a tornado, when "in place" means in a vehicle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a good idea (are there storm shelters all over the place?), but it doesn't seem like that's what the dispatcher meant. For example, from the summary, the driver "expressed that a delivery van wouldn't provide much safety." and then "the safest practice is to stay exactly where you are."
That doesn't sound the same as driving to the nearest storm shelter.
You know what would make it less likely (Score:3)
for an employer to threaten the employment of an employee to force them to keep working under duress?
A union.
A warning means there IS a tornado (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase "just a warning" reflects a deep and dangerous misunderstanding on the part of the dispatcher that must be fixed. In the NWS terminology, a "watch" means conditions are such that a tornado is possible, and a "warning" is the most dangerous condition, that there IS one and that you should seek shelter immediately. No one should ever respond to a weather "warning" condition by saying it's "just" a warning; that's the opposite of what it means!
Posting to undo incorrect moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with me. It's really annoying to not use mod points for months, but when they do expire, I have to wait weeks to get more. I'm not sure how that's supposed to balance the system and prevent mod abuse, but... whatever.
She was probably safer staying away from base... (Score:2)
If her home base was the Amazon facility that was hit - might have been safer somewhere else. But Amazon will just let the dispatcher take the fall for this - they're just as expendable as the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how this works. That dispatcher doesn't work for Amazon, but for a Delivery Service Partner. Amazon will complain to that DSP for making them look bad, but there's no guarantee they'll be disciplined or terminated over this. Remember: This is the same company that knows god damn well their drivers are pissing in bottles just to make the impossible route times they've been handed and simply doesn't give a shit.
Re: She was probably safer staying away from base. (Score:2)
The safest decision at the time would probably be shelter (not in small vehicle).
Whereas the safest decision in hindsight with god-like perfect information might be to skillfully drive a path to safety, dynamically avoiding all tornado
well not surpricing. (Score:2)
And that explains why Bezos is so rich (Score:3)
Zero regard for human life. This guy should be in prison instead of where he is. But since he is exploiting and abusing adults, nobody cares.
Re:And that explains why Bezos is so rich (Score:4, Insightful)
Bezos has many layers of corporate isolation between himself and the abuses, for his own legal protection. The dispatcher probably didn't even work for Amazon, but a "Delivery Service Partner" - a company Amazon contracts to handle their deliveries.
It means that if the Delivery Service Partner ever screws up and commits a serious crime, or does something that incurs massive civil liability, they can be sacrificed - deliberately allowed to go bankrupt to void any debts. The DSP ceases to legally exist, and Amazon isn't responsible for anything they did. Then Amazon can just set up a new DSP, that can easily re-hire the old staff.
It's a common corporate trick. Even the Catholic Church has used it to avoid paying out on abuse compensation claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But legal isolation does not provide moral isolation. The moral aspect in fact gets worse, because those actually calling the shots make sure they cannot be held accountable for their decisions. So Bezos is ultimately and personally responsible for all this crap that is done in his name. If it were isolated incidents, that would be different. But it is not. It is systematic. It is intended.
Profits over lives (Score:3)
Something that some retarded idiots in the 5G radioactive amulet thread arguing against lockdowns don't seem to get.
Sack her! (Score:2)
Re:Bravado (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty clear she was worried about the tornado.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, yes, the driver might have been less safe at the FC. Six people died there.
Driving back to the FC was not the most-safe option. The dispatcher should have given the driver the location of the nearest suitable shelter and directed them there.
Re: It's pretty obviously not Amazon at fault (Score:2)