I can't imagine this is limited to Amazon. Bathroom access became impaired with fast food/restaurants and municipalities closing off bathrooms to the public.
My neighborhood park hasn't had a working bathroom or water fountains since last year.
It isn't limited to Amazon, and it isn't a side-effect of the pandemic. I work for UPS and even before the pandemic most drivers used a bottle or cup on a regular basis, especially if you're in a rural area. In denser areas you can use Port-a-Johns at construction sites or restrooms at businesses. Your commercial customers will likely allow you to use their restroom even if it is closed to the public. I've never heard of someone defecating in the vehicle. Leaving your bottles in the vehicle is frowned upon, but it happens.
After dark, yes, go anywhere. During the day when people can potentially see you that would be a bad idea. If you can use the vehicle to block line of sight then that could also work.
They can also go on the side of the road, with the added hassle of disposing of paper. Where do you think they use the bathroom when hiking or camping? And this is why I included cups in my original comment. They can't use bottles as easily on account of the narrow nature, so a cup with a larger mouth is preferred.
Reminds me of a couple of years ago when Starbucks made a big public relations splash saying that it would no longer require people to buy something in order to use its restrooms, or to charge their devices.
Where I live, a week later, all of the Starbucks bathrooms that were previously wide open suddenly had locks on them, and the public electrical outlets were covered with metal plates.
Obviously it isn't but Amazon is the third largest private employer in the world and it make sense making sure they offer reasonable working conditions for their employees.
The person ultimately in control of whether or not they were peeing in bottles of course already knew at the time of the event.
I probably dislike Amazon more than most here, but I think the trend is to blame them for a lot more than that which falls under the heading of their responsibilities.
This feels like a bad argument to make, when there are so many vastly better and legitimate criticisms of Amazon (such as their operating an entire on-prem data center for the CIA to store their drone killing and torture site videos, et c).
They impose quotas on drivers (similar to warehouse workers) that prevent them from finding time for stuff like bathroom breaks. This is not a matter of individual choice.
Absolutely not. They can still take bathroom breaks, they just risk being fired for missing their quota.
It is ultimately a personal decision when someone places retaining a job over their own personal human dignity. That is not and cannot be placed on Amazon; to do so is a fundamental misattribution of responsibility for the individual's choice to a) work at Amazon and b) submit to these unreasonable demands.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
These people are forced to accept inhumane treatment (namely: workloads so large they have to abnegate basic bodily functions) because the alternative is homelessness and hunger.
If that doesn't qualify as coercion, I don't know what does.
I'm frankly astounded that you would pretend not to understand this.
The alternative is finding another job. People who work at Amazon (they're not the only game in town) voluntarily choose to work there because they have decided that working there is a better option for them, in their opinion, than any other job they might be able to obtain.
It's not "dehumanization xor starvation"; if it were then it would rightfully be called coercive or "forced". It's not, because there are lots and lots and lots and lots of unskilled jobs that are almost always available.
I recognize that labor laws are a complicated subject, and I recognize that their advocates don't always have the best interests of workers at heart. Nevertheless, I do wonder how far things have to go before we collectively agree that Amazon treats its workers inhumanely.
- Paying people so little that they resort to living in tents? No.
- Union-busting? No.
- Requiring near-total abnegation of basic bodily functions? No.
So where's the line? Does someone have to die of exhaustion? 10 people? 1% of workers?
A hallmark of totalitarianism is when a government deems itself to have power over the bodily functions of individuals. It may be useful to apply this analysis to private entities as well.
> The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment.
Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not.
This isn't obviously just a problem with Amazon, but employment across low-paying jobs isn't voluntary. They're all shit (some more than others). This is an overarching problem with employment in general.
> Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not.
No, the threat is that they'd have to work somewhere other than Amazon, same as everyone else. Most people in our society work non-Amazon jobs, it's not that bad a "punishment" for taking a bathroom break.
It's also not a "threat": a job today is no obligation to a job tomorrow. Things change.
The threat is that they won't be able to make ends meet if so much as a month without a job happens to them. That's because the job does not pay anything near enough.
Existential threat. And job is time and energy consuming enough to make it high impossible to look for something else, much less anything else that isn't similarly exploitative.
It is a systemic problem and Amazon is one of the big parts of that system. "Just find another job" ignores the reality of situation of people actually taking this terrible job.
> If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced.
Not one single employee is coerced. Any one of them can today choose a different employer.
As already pointed out, your argument rests on the fictional situation where all of the employees leave simultaneously. Of course this is absurd, and obviously not reality.
This has no bearing at all on any of the employees who are there right now.
None of them as of this time are facing a situation where there are no other jobs.
You can claim they are coerced when there really are no other jobs. Until then, you are wrong.
You can claim you're coerced without "no other jobs". Previous poster mentioned some real factors that can prevent you from taking "some other available job".
Having no bearing? Show us how many workers are comfortable with even leaving Amazon's employ, or capable of that, then you have half a point.
It is not even anywhere close to being a nice place to work, neither is many big convenience stores and other companies.
Yet people stay there. Any rationale why is that since they "can just change jobs"?
Amazon is big enough that it can afford to be way better.
> It may be useful to apply this analysis to private entities as well
The mistake was thinking they were ever fundamentally different to begin with. Power is power is power. The only difference is which checks do and don't exist on them at a given point in time.
They're specializations of the same higher-level category. People tend to treat one as good for society and one as bad, but both are just concentrations of power whose impact on society is a function of the limitations on that power (which is not a static thing for either category as a whole, much less individuals within the category).
You're arguing semantics, and you're equivocating: since these are specializations of a higher-level category, then they have meaningful differences.
More to the point: my entire argument is that we should not refrain from viewing businesses as totalitarian, despite the fact that this label is classically applied to government.
Do you have a point, or are you just here to nitpick?
I'm back after taking a few hours off and a long walk outside, and I am relieved to see your comment.
I thought you may appreciate knowing that my outburst is entirely unrelated to you, and instead stems from professional problems, which I have taken steps to correct. In particular, I have fired a certain client, and resolved to do so more proactively in the future. Again, I am truly taken aback by my own behavior -- it's like someone else was at the wheel.
In addition to sweeping in front of my own door, I will bear this episode in mind the next time I encounter someone irate on the internet, and strive to handle it as you did.
Thank you for being so gracious, and sorry for dumping my bad day on you.
You're right. I'm having a pretty tough day/week/month, and I'm completely on edge. I've just re-read the thread and I'm at a complete loss for how I could have interpreted this exchange to be hostile. I am surprised and horrified by my behavior.
Please accept my sincere apologies. I'm going to take a break.
In general I think this is more of a burden to women than men. I have no problem using a bottle on long drives, and my male friends have been mostly the same. But I've known women for whom it would be a deal breaker and would leave the job on that account.
This is based in both gender and sex, in that it's less convenient for the female sex and the female gender tends to be more modest.
59 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadMy neighborhood park hasn't had a working bathroom or water fountains since last year.
In a rural area wouldn't it be more convenient to just pee roadside?
Where I live, a week later, all of the Starbucks bathrooms that were previously wide open suddenly had locks on them, and the public electrical outlets were covered with metal plates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/opinion/sunday/public-toi...
I probably dislike Amazon more than most here, but I think the trend is to blame them for a lot more than that which falls under the heading of their responsibilities.
This feels like a bad argument to make, when there are so many vastly better and legitimate criticisms of Amazon (such as their operating an entire on-prem data center for the CIA to store their drone killing and torture site videos, et c).
It is ultimately a personal decision when someone places retaining a job over their own personal human dignity. That is not and cannot be placed on Amazon; to do so is a fundamental misattribution of responsibility for the individual's choice to a) work at Amazon and b) submit to these unreasonable demands.
Amazon isn't the only employer.
Some people really buy into Objectivism.
If that doesn't qualify as coercion, I don't know what does.
I'm frankly astounded that you would pretend not to understand this.
It's not "dehumanization xor starvation"; if it were then it would rightfully be called coercive or "forced". It's not, because there are lots and lots and lots and lots of unskilled jobs that are almost always available.
- Paying people so little that they resort to living in tents? No.
- Union-busting? No.
- Requiring near-total abnegation of basic bodily functions? No.
So where's the line? Does someone have to die of exhaustion? 10 people? 1% of workers?
A hallmark of totalitarianism is when a government deems itself to have power over the bodily functions of individuals. It may be useful to apply this analysis to private entities as well.
The workers in question voluntarily opt-in to Amazon employment.
Voluntary with a threat of hunger, homelessness, healthcare loss, etc if not.
This isn't obviously just a problem with Amazon, but employment across low-paying jobs isn't voluntary. They're all shit (some more than others). This is an overarching problem with employment in general.
No, the threat is that they'd have to work somewhere other than Amazon, same as everyone else. Most people in our society work non-Amazon jobs, it's not that bad a "punishment" for taking a bathroom break.
It's also not a "threat": a job today is no obligation to a job tomorrow. Things change.
Existential threat. And job is time and energy consuming enough to make it high impossible to look for something else, much less anything else that isn't similarly exploitative.
It is a systemic problem and Amazon is one of the big parts of that system. "Just find another job" ignores the reality of situation of people actually taking this terrible job.
And we know you know this.
If so, there is nothing obvious about this, and it would need to be shown.
Unless no employees can be absorbed by other employers, the alternative for an individual is not homelessness.
Only when we get to a stage where there are no other jobs and no way to move to where there are other jobs, will you be correct.
It is plainly obvious that we are not at that stage.
If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced.
Moreover, the ability to change jobs is not a pure function of jobs available. Other factors are at play, including:
- can you survive during the transition?
- do you the ability to even seek alternate employment? (Not easy if you're working 80h weeks)
- are you financially capable of relocating?
- would relocating force your partner to relinquish their job, and are they able to find another?
The list goes on.
Not one single employee is coerced. Any one of them can today choose a different employer.
As already pointed out, your argument rests on the fictional situation where all of the employees leave simultaneously. Of course this is absurd, and obviously not reality.
This has no bearing at all on any of the employees who are there right now.
None of them as of this time are facing a situation where there are no other jobs.
You can claim they are coerced when there really are no other jobs. Until then, you are wrong.
Having no bearing? Show us how many workers are comfortable with even leaving Amazon's employ, or capable of that, then you have half a point.
It is not even anywhere close to being a nice place to work, neither is many big convenience stores and other companies. Yet people stay there. Any rationale why is that since they "can just change jobs"?
Amazon is big enough that it can afford to be way better.
If your position is that no job should be unpleasant, I can agree with you.
Making unsupportable claims about people being ‘coerced’ into working for Amazon really has little do with this.
The mistake was thinking they were ever fundamentally different to begin with. Power is power is power. The only difference is which checks do and don't exist on them at a given point in time.
Edit: Clarity
More to the point: my entire argument is that we should not refrain from viewing businesses as totalitarian, despite the fact that this label is classically applied to government.
Do you have a point, or are you just here to nitpick?
I thought you may appreciate knowing that my outburst is entirely unrelated to you, and instead stems from professional problems, which I have taken steps to correct. In particular, I have fired a certain client, and resolved to do so more proactively in the future. Again, I am truly taken aback by my own behavior -- it's like someone else was at the wheel.
In addition to sweeping in front of my own door, I will bear this episode in mind the next time I encounter someone irate on the internet, and strive to handle it as you did.
Thank you for being so gracious, and sorry for dumping my bad day on you.
Please accept my sincere apologies. I'm going to take a break.
They really need to strike and unionize.
This is based in both gender and sex, in that it's less convenient for the female sex and the female gender tends to be more modest.