Amazon Delivery Companies Routinely Tell Drivers To Bypass Safety Inspections (cnbc.com) 92
Amazon delivery companies around the U.S. are instructing workers to bypass daily inspections intended to make sure vans are safe to drive. From a report: Amazon requires contracted delivery drivers to inspect their vehicles at the beginning and end of their shift as a safety precaution. But some drivers say they're pressured to ignore damage and complete the inspections as quickly as possible, so that delivery companies can avoid taking vans off the road. If delivery companies take a van off the road, they risk forfeiting valuable package routes and drivers may lose a shift.
These inconsistent inspection practices undermine the company's public messaging around worker safety. They also highlight the tension that delivery partners face between ensuring drivers' safety and keeping up with Amazon's aggressive delivery quotas, which can stretch into hundreds of packages per day per driver. CNBC spoke to 10 current and former Amazon delivery drivers in Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky and Texas who discovered their vans had issues ranging from jammed doors and tires with little to no tread to busted backup cameras and broken mirrors. They say managers told them to ignore these problems and complete their deliveries as usual.
These inconsistent inspection practices undermine the company's public messaging around worker safety. They also highlight the tension that delivery partners face between ensuring drivers' safety and keeping up with Amazon's aggressive delivery quotas, which can stretch into hundreds of packages per day per driver. CNBC spoke to 10 current and former Amazon delivery drivers in Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky and Texas who discovered their vans had issues ranging from jammed doors and tires with little to no tread to busted backup cameras and broken mirrors. They say managers told them to ignore these problems and complete their deliveries as usual.
cruel irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as they gain workers rights ...
Why is a requirement to inspect a vehicle every single day a "workers' right"?
Re:cruel irony (Score:4, Informative)
Much of the unionization in the early industrial era centered around worker safety. OHSA gives some examples of safety rights [worker.gov]
Why should anyone care if a work is safe at work? Well it drains on everyone to have a population of people too disabled to work or too dead to care for children.
Re: cruel irony (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. There is a long-term profit motive for doing the right thing in this case. Insurance companies are pros at getting out of paying when fault can be found. But for a short-sighted executive or a person in middle management, the big picture view for running a successful business eludes them. For every long term planner and rational actor, I can find you 100 examples of people who failed upward.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that while a companys goal is to maximize shareholder value over long term, the workers, be the middle management or CEOs goal is short term, as their reward structure is usually based on quite short time frames(months, quarters or years).
Re: cruel irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that while a companys goal is to maximize shareholder value over long term ...
The problem is maximizing shareholder value in the short term. Enlightened employers see their employees as investments, and try to keep them happy and healthy, so they willingly help the company to prosper, instead of being forced to. This maximizes shareholder value in the long term, but involves short term costs, such as building a model village for the workers to live in. See Cadbury's in Birmingham, and the construction of Bournville. Worked out rather well I think. There are other examples from the same period, such as Saltaire in Yorkshire, based around a textiles mill owned by Titus Salt. And no, this was not workers tied to the company store. People wanted to work there, so the employer got better workers.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many problems: that is one. Another is that the a business or business plan may be overwhelmed or even bankrupted by another company's short-term tactics. It's why the libertarian ideal of market forces evolving good business practices is so hampered in the real world. monopoly abuse, fraud, and even producing shoddier but cheaper goods are all effective business tactics and can eliminate businesses with "good" business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is a long-term profit motive
There is a long-term _incentive_. That is not the same thing as making a profit, especially in a competitive market.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that incentives are real and motives are only the perception of the actor.
Re: (Score:2)
I drove for small delivery companies and there are no long term goals or planning. This about milking as much big corporation money as possible. I'm not even in that industry and still know the racket because it's the same shit as running an installation company while doing work for big box retail: the corporate giant does not give a fuck about your tiny company and will likely change business strategies every 6-12 months in order to cook books/squeeze some tiny % of a % and in every move it's a great big o
Re: (Score:3)
All I see is a great opportunity for the state to collect fines. Just put up stops around the terminal and stop each truck for inspection, levy a heavy company fine for every truck that is not in proper order.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a deliberate strategy by Amazon. You set goals such that it is impossible to meet deadlines and follow regs, then you sub out the work. Profit accrues to Amazon and blame accrues to the sub. Cell phone companies do the same thing [pbs.org] and I’m sure there are examples from other industries as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So did airline security, until 9/11. It's slowly returning to that incompetent pool of underpaid, undertrained, overworked,personnel with impossible expectations on their reliability and competence.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a deliberate strategy by Amazon. You set goals such that it is impossible to meet deadlines and follow regs, then you sub out the work. Profit accrues to Amazon and blame accrues to the sub. Cell phone companies do the same thing [pbs.org] and I’m sure there are examples from other industries as well.
It's not a right - A legal requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as they gain workers rights ...
Why is a requirement to inspect a vehicle every single day a "workers' right"?
It's a legal requirement in most North American jurisdictions that a driver, before taking out a vehicle for commercial purposes is to do an inspection and document that it was done and if there are any discrepancies or safety issues identified, the vehicle is not used until they are resolved.
The "worker's right" that's being violated here is the right to inspect a vehicle you're about to drive to ensure that it is safe. If a commercial vehicle wasn't inspected (or there is no paperwork to show that it was) and it is involved in collision then the driver AND the company are in big trouble with the law AND insurance companies will generally refuse to pay out (not that they generally need a reason - but this is a good one).
This is another case of Amazon putting the screws to their employees and suppliers resulting in the workers rights, public safety and the economies of the geographies that Amazon "serves" being negatively impacted.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another case of Amazon putting the screws to their employees and suppliers resulting in the workers rights, public safety and the economies of the geographies that Amazon "serves" being negatively impacted.
Doesn't surprise me. Amazon's contracted delivery business is a numbers game. You need to deliver a lot of packages to make a profit and get good routes and more routes, so anything that interferes with that is view as a negative. In addition, I'm not surprised repairs and maintenance is deferred to cut costs. The contract companies often will pay for damage out of pocket rather than use insurance to avoid getting rates raised of losing the coverage which would put them out of business. Amazon has pus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a commercial vehicle wasn't inspected (or there is no paperwork to show that it was) and it is involved in collision then the driver AND the company are in big trouble with the law
I think the point is that the driver and various other people might be DEAD or seriously injured, if a vehicle is unsafe to drive and causes an accident. I sincerely hope that any aircraft I fly on is checked over before it is allowed to take off. The same goes for travelling on a train or a bus. I presume that, like aircraft pilots, and bus and train drivers, Amazon drivers do not own the vehicles they drive, so they do not know whether a vehicle is fit to drive, except by doing checks before taking the ve
Re: (Score:3)
Why is a requirement to inspect a vehicle every single day a "workers' right"?
A safe workplace is a right in most civilized countries. The vehicle inspection is the worker signing off on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as they gain workers rights ...
Why is a requirement to inspect a vehicle every single day a "workers' right"?
Why do you think they do those inspections?
Why do you think laws and regulations mandate them?
(Hint: It ain't for the packages, stupid.)
A worker, has a right to work in a safe environment in the US. One of the few benefits left.
Re: cruel irony (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Just as they gain workers rights, they're replaced by driverless delivery systems. Kill yourself now and avoid the rush.
Bear in mind that when workers start getting replaced companies like Amazon will have a harder time finding paying customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Bear in mind that when workers start getting replaced companies like Amazon will have a harder time finding paying customers.
That's where you're wrong.
You see, the scam works like this: people with paying jobs and a decent income may or may not buy from Amazon (or Walmart, or other cheap retailers of any kind). Fine.
When people lose their jobs and go on the dole, they still have to buy stuff to live. But they don't have as much money anymore. So they buy more from Amazon or Wallyworld because it's cheap. And who pays? The taxpayer. That's what the dole is.
In short: people who are out of a job boost Amazon's sales figures, and the
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon's prices aren't so cheap and Amazon's average customer has a household income about $8k/year higher than Walmart's. People shop at Amazon to save time, not money.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's prices aren't so cheap
But lots of people think they are. Their marketing is very good.
Re: (Score:2)
>People shop at Amazon to save time, not money.
When I finally paid attention, I found that either Amazon and Walmart had the same price (to the Penny), or that Walmart's was lower for every single thing I bought for a couple of months.
On top of that, Walmart delivers faster . . .
I dropped amazon prime a few months ago. I finally found, last week, something that was a buck or two less on amazon . . .
If you're British you might have a dole (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the things that really pissed me off when my family was going through all that was the sheer number of people who would tell me to sign up for all these amazing government programs that would give me thousands of dollars that didn't actually exist. When I would tell people these programs didn't exist they just wouldn't believe me. When I would show them that these programs don't exist they still wouldn't believe me. And inevitably they would point me to a handful programs to pay for rent and neglect to notice the 20-year backlog because the programs were massively underfunded.
If you're an American know this: there is no safety net. Even the small amount of extra cash that was handed out during the covid panic was handed out sparringly and was difficult to get. If you trip in this country and fall it will kick you when you're down.
Re: If you're British you might have a dole (Score:1)
When I would tell people these programs didn't exist they just wouldn't believe me.
That depends a lot on the reverse racism...
Re: (Score:2)
>you'll get somewhere around 300 or $400 total.
hmm, some had better tell the Social Security Administration.
They're under the impression that they would pay me over $1,700 a month . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that when workers start getting replaced companies like Amazon will have a harder time finding paying customers.
That must be why the economy collapsed when 95% of farmers were replaced by tractors and combines. Whatever.
Please educate yourself: Lump of labor fallacy [wikipedia.org]
Re: cruel irony (Score:2)
Please educate yourself: Lump of labor fallacy [wikipedia.org]
Well gee if itâ(TM)s on Wikipedia â¦
You basically just said âoeyour opinion must be wrong because someone else has a different opinionâ.
Yet, the fallacy you linked to has fallacies of its own, no?
I mean, it claims that immigration does not effect employment, while offshoring does, while failing to explain why this would be the case. It also explains how S&D are magically suspended.
The law of supply and demand is pre
Re: cruel irony (Score:2)
95% of farmers were replaced No, 95% of farm _labour_ was replaced. The farmers gained from a concentration of the means of production which lead to a boom in the value of their assets which lead to further concentration.
Re: cruel irony (Score:3)
Re: cruel irony (Score:1)
That must be why the economy collapsed when 95% of farmers were replaced by tractors and combines.
Not the economy, Smart Guy: the financial wellbeing of the farmers.p You're always breaking that shit out and I'm always shooting you down in flames - beginning to conclude you might be a shill - albeit one of the more subtle ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of the Great Depression? It pretty well did coincide with a lot of farmers getting replaced with tractors etc, along with some bad weather and a banking industry interested in taking over small farms to get the benefits of large scale tractor farming.
some kid may need to die but it will fix this issu (Score:3)
some kid may need to die but it will fix this issue after an unsafe Amazon with bad tires crashes. And the victim just needs to know the van said Amazon so we sue them in COURT.
Re: (Score:2)
some kid may need to die but it will fix this issue after an unsafe Amazon with bad tires crashes. And the victim just needs to know the van said Amazon so we sue them in COURT.
No, they'll sue a small contract delivery firm that probably can't pay a big settlement and go out of business while Amazon denies any liability.
Re: (Score:2)
blue Amazon-branded vans (Score:2)
I wasn't aware those blue Amazon-branded vans were operated by an outside contract delivery firm. I thought they were part of Amazon's own delivery fleet and the unmarked white vans were the outside contractors.
This explains why I'm always seeing blue Amazon-branded vans with bald front tires, broken side mirrors, and torn off side cladding while out walking the dog.
Re: blue Amazon-branded vans (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't aware those blue Amazon-branded vans were operated by an outside contract delivery firm. I thought they were part of Amazon's own delivery fleet and the unmarked white vans were the outside contractors.
This explains why I'm always seeing blue Amazon-branded vans with bald front tires, broken side mirrors, and torn off side cladding while out walking the dog.
The white vans can be owned by the same company as the Blue Amazons, the difference is the white ones can deliver non-Amazon packages while the blue ones are Amazon only. Sometimes they are simply rentals to cover periods of high demand but a company doesn't want to add blue vans because the demand is seasonal and a sitting van costs money.
Better Call Saul! (Score:2)
Ain't no free lunch (Score:2)
Cheap, fast, reliable/safe/sustainable.
Pick two and sweep the third one under the rug.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't have a rug, you can simply order one online! [amazon.com]
Re: Ain't no free lunch (Score:1)
Re: Ain't no free lunch (Score:2)
If the driver owns the van (so as to count as a contractor rather than employee) then you can't do it that way and you push to cost of the risk of breakdowns onto the driver. Lowers your insurance and makes the driver eat the difference.
Smart from Amazon's side, but stupid from the government side. Why? Easy answer: governments create the policies that make independent contractors cheaper than employees. Get rid of some employment regs and then the drivers can be directly employed by Amazon and have access
Photograph the damage and this is why: (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just Amazon. Truckers are routinely given trailers with defects DOT would rightly take them Out of Service for and the classic way to prove it is a phone pic. For example my wife was given a trailer whose sliding tandem axles were nearly knocked off and were hanging by one pin.
Trucking and delivery are shit jobs by and large, dispatchers only care about themselves, and everything is nearly always rigged against employees.
Exceptions exist to prove the rule.
BTW one fun trick if you often get a company truck that's fucked up is let the DOT cops know on the down low to inspect trucks coming from that terminal. Have a nice friendly convo with them and respectfully remind them your employer is a shitbag (they probably know already) so not to mention you. They have no need to do that as they've the authority to inspect pretty much anywhere once the truck is on the road.
Whistleblower line (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So an Amazon contractor calls the whistleblower line and then is fired because the company no longer has the Amazon contract. Doesn't sound like a good idea to snitch on your employer when your job is at stake. The article even eludes to the fact that if you mention a problem with the van and they take it off the road for repairs, you may lose your shift because the van isn't available for you to use anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You have two options if you want to be safe: You can quit or you can call the whistleblower line. Both result in you not having a job.
Re: (Score:2)
cutting costs until it hurts you (Score:5, Insightful)
If delivery companies take a van off the road, they risk forfeiting valuable package routes and drivers may lose a shift.
No, they don't. It's called "having a spare".
There is enough data available to know how often a truck is likely to be damaged. Let's say that number is once per month. So for every 25 or so vehicles you have, you keep one more as a spare. Then you can cycle them through when there is damage, put the spare on the road and bring the damaged one to the garage.
That basic technique has been known since at least ancient Greek. Recently we've forgotten it because some idiot consultants ran around telling you that the spare in the corner is "not productive" and can be "downsized" as a "cost-saving measure".
The world would be a better place if we outlawed business consultants.
Racing to the bottom (Score:3)
Redundancy is inefficient. When things are running smoothly, efficient companies beat the resilient companies on price. Then when SHTF, the resilient companies are already underwater because they can't compete on price.
It's always about the next quarter, maybe the next six months.
Time time time... (Score:2)
"Redundancy is inefficient." ...some of the time.
"beat the resilient companies on price" ... some of the time.
"Then when SHTF, the resilient companies are already underwater because they can't compete on price."
I'm pretty sure Amazon has spare batteries for its electric delivery vehicles and redundant servers for portions of its cloud infrastructure.
The skill is in finding the balance between resilience and efficiency. Probability calculations help.
Re: (Score:2)
Redundancy is survival.
We're just moving the redundancy from within companies to between companies - we still have redundancy, it's just not the spare truck in the corner, it's the spare company that's waiting for you to go belly up in order to take over your market segment. And they can do it - guess what - if and only if they have excess capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
When things are running smoothly, efficient companies beat the resilient companies on price. Then when
Here's the part that neither you nor the large consulting companies understand:
The "things running smoothly" and "shit meet fan" aren't the same for these two types of companies. The resilient company will consider many things "business as usua"l which for the zero-overhead, "lean" house of cards already is an emergency.
Going under when something goes wrong is a stupid business strategy when at the same time you are focussed so much on cutting corners that it's highly likely that something will go wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends...
Yes, this has roots in 'Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good."'. Bad actors will always push those adhering to rules out of the system.
However N+1 redundancy is cheap if you have a large enough N. Yes, N+2, or better 2N redundancy would be even better.
The problem here is Amazon itself is the one who benefits from redundancy... By having multiple fleets of vehicles contract their services. They can even offload to USPS, or UPS when things are overwhelmed. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that means the whole automotive industry running on Just In Time is doomed, except for the Morgan Car Company in Malvern, because they are a bit old-fashioned. Yes sir, we can certainly supply you with a car, but demand is rather high at present. If you put your name down now, your great-grandson can pick it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Every JIT enterprise that did it like Toyota, and has six months of parts on hand at all times, should weather this. They'll run out of parts too, but at least they have a chance to react. Those who think JIT is just not keeping any stock (in or out) are the ones who are going to get steamrolled.
Re: (Score:2)
The automotive industry has actually gone back from full JIT into having a limited stockpile around. They got their lessons when several times a strike or problems at one supplied or bad weather, etc. etc. shut down entire factories. They understood by live demo how fragile a JIT supply chain is. Now they stock enough to be able to miss at least one shipment.
Re:cutting costs until it hurts you (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you have not seen the financial details of what it means to be an Amazon delivery partner. You can have 1 or 2 partners and you can make $75K to $300K per year if you follow Amazon's advice. If you don't follow Amazon's advice and do something like buy a spare truck then you'll make less. How much of your $75K income gets eaten buying a spare truck? How much of your $75K gets eaten when local pay for drivers exceeds Amazon's advice?
The folks running Amazon delivery services can make maybe 7% gross annually from whatever Amazon decides to grace them with. They also have to work 7 days a week and only get a few major holidays off. I have no idea why anyone would want to start an Amazon delivery business, only to get squeezed as hard as possible by Amazon while slaving away every single day.
https://d3a8hw3k243rpe.cloudfr... [cloudfront.net]
Re: (Score:2)
How much of your $75K income gets eaten buying a spare truck?
Less than filing for bancruptcy and losing your business would be my guess.
Yes, I know what you mean. And yes it is almost certainly the squeeze Amazon puts on them that causes this shit. But hey, your choice to play a high-stakes game that maybe gets you a mediocre income with a high risk of total failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm... it's almost like the delivery partners should get together and purchase a common pool of spare vehicles... or maybe there's a business opportunity for someone to have a spare Amazon van rental company.
Not sure if Amazon would make a fuss about renting vans with their trademark on them, but you could just have a bunch of vans painted Amazon blue, and the delivery partners could have some magnetic signs they could slap on there.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the move to make for the Amazon delivery owner, open a second business that does overnight service, roadside assistance, rentals - one stop Amazon delivery shopping. The pitch is the one-stop-shopping integration.
Its amazing that Amazon can push all of the costs and liability onto service partners while at the same time dictating the fees, the routes, the number of packages per route, the number of packages total, the number of employees, the number of trucks, you exclusively deliver for Amazon, an
Re: (Score:2)
Its amazing that Amazon can push all of the costs and liability onto service partners while at the same time dictating the fees, the routes, the number of packages per route, the number of packages total, the number of employees, the number of trucks, you exclusively deliver for Amazon, and more.
Not a surprise for anyone who didn't sleep through economics class. This is what a monpoly (or quasi-monopoly) does and why we don't want them.
Are you really independent when you cannot take on other business when things are slow with Amazon?
No, you are not. But there are many other example of companies who have essentially one customer. Especially smaller companies often fall into that comfortable trap.
we may need franchise reforum laws where no conrol (Score:2)
we may need franchise reform laws where no control =
join Employment and all kinds of other things
Re: (Score:2)
I see plenty of Amazon deliveries from plain white vans.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. It's called "having a spare".
I don't think they can spare to have spares. They need every delivery vehicle they can put on the road it seems. I can see 4-5 Amazon vans daily (on Saturday or Sunday) in our neighborhood and our neighborhood is small. We're on the main street in so any deliveries made to the other 3 streets has to go past our house.
Not just Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
People basically suck (Score:2)
Translation (Score:2)
You're fully responsible and liable for your own vehicle's safety, but if you actually try to do it, you're screwed.
Nice for Amazon to roll off the liability to their contractors, who get to bear the whole risk for it all. Maybe recalculate that contract with the risk evaluated, you might notice that you're better off not having that contract.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
uh, that's normal for contract trucking. Nothing Amazon specific about this issue at all. Been around since your great grand pappy's days. Absurd to even couple Amazon name with it since every contract truck you're likely to see today is doing similar.
Bad rules (Score:2)
Bad security and safety rules primarily cover manager's bottoms. I would not be surprised that all is perfect in writing and that instructions to bypass rules have no traceability / are plausibly deniable.
Good rules are reasonable, are monitored where corrective measures are to improve the process as a whole (as opposed to merely discipline workers.)
Managing well is actually a busy job and managers cutting corners is commonplace.
clarity (Score:2, Informative)
Let's be clear, Amazon is only included here because we need that 2 minutes hate.
These are not Amazon trucks, these are contracted companies that put Amazon delivery logo on the sides of their vehicles because Amazon will pay that little bit more.
These are low pay, bottom feeder contractors, not Amazon, and skimping inspections is endemic to that end of the trucking industry everywhere, in every context.
But by all means, "hate Amazon" right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so we're criticizing them for not being saints that behave better than everyone else?
Seriously?
And no, I'm not saying that (please don't put words in my mouth). I'm saying NOBODY DOES.
I deal with trucking companies every day and while some of them are above board, there are a lot that operate with more...flexibility...toward such formalities.
(shug)
Get as pissed about it as you fucking want, I'm just describing reality; I've been in logistics for 30 years.
Re:clarity (Score:4, Insightful)
These are low pay, bottom feeder contractors, not Amazon ...
That doesn't get Amazon off the hook. Employing low pay, bottom feeder contractors is not something you do by accident. You do it for the money.
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time you paid more for something than you had to?
That airline ticket is $560...here, Delta, take $700 because I don't do it for the money.
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time you paid more for something than you had to?
Example: the last pair of shoes I bought, that are better for my feet, and have lasted longer that the cheap ones I used to buy. Your airline ticket example is just silly. Of course nobody pays more than the offered price. But presumably, you might be willing to pay more for a more comfortable journey.
Re: (Score:2)
You bought a more expensive thing but you yourself point out that you paid extra BECAUSE THEY WERE BETTER FOR YOU.
You're insisting that Amazon "should" be happy paying more for something that isn't better for them in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
You're insisting that Amazon "should" be happy paying more for something...
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that Amazon should spend more money on getting a better quality service from its delivery contractors, not just give them more money for the same old rubbish. Maybe Amazon are so powerful that they can get out of any legal obligations regarding vehicle and contractor safety, rather than paying a proper price to cover that. But that would be another problem, related to Amazon's near monopoly status.
Re: (Score:2)
"I am saying that Amazon should spend more money on getting a better quality service from its delivery contractors,"
What better quality? Their metric is "Is package delivered" - that's all they're paying for. They don't give a crap about the trucks, the drivers, the safety inspections BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. If they wanted all that hassle and expense, they'd have their own trucks and drivers.
Contractor A says "I'll do this for $4/package"
Contractor B says "I'll do this for $3.75/package"
They will hi
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to have the vaguest understanding of how hiring a company to do something works.
I have hired contractors for electronic assembly, among other things. Hiring the cheapest was not the best decision in my experience. The cheap sweatshop operation churned out whatever they could get away with, so there were extra costs keeping an eye on the quality. The costs are not just what is on the invoice. The more expensive contractor made an effort to solve problems for us, which the sweatshop did not. So cheapest was not best, when overall value was accounted for.
I will concede that the safety of
What's new here? (Score:1)