Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Faces $350K Fine For Shipping 'Amazing Liquid Fire' (computerworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The FAA has ruled that Amazon will face a $350,000 fine for shipping a one-gallon container of "Amazing Liquid Fire" by air. The corrosive drain cleaner was sent by air from Louisville, Kentucky, to Boulder, Colorado, on October 15, 2014. The container leaked during transit and nine UPS employees came into contact with the chemical, which caused a "burning sensation on their skin" that had to be treated with a chemical wash. According to Computerworld, "The FAA ruled the shipment wasn't packaged properly, wasn't accompanied by a declaration of dangerous goods, and was not properly marked or labeled as a hazardous package. It also said Amazon didn't provide emergency response information with the package and had not provided hazardous material training to employees who handled the package." The FAA said in a statement, "Amazon has a history of violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations." They apparently violated the rules 24 other times.

202 comments

  1. Slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This fine is nothing to a company like Amazon. It's a slap on the wrist rather than a significant penalty.

    1. Re:Slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. They will get a slap on the wrist twice as severe the next time if they actually succeed in crashing the plane.

    2. Re: Slap on the wrist by WarJolt · · Score: 0

      That's dumb. No way that's going through a plane. Most people don't take drain cleaner seriously. That stuff is sulfuric acid. Hydrofloric acid is way more dangerous, but usually people are more cautious around that. However I'd be most afraid of lipo batteries for all the drones people are buying.

    3. Re: Slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, most of it is caustic, not acidic, and batteries installed in devices are pretty safe when not being charged or used. There's still a risk from batteries, but the FAA should support a lawsuit from the UPS employee seeking punitive damages.

    4. Re: Slap on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Hydrofloric acid is way more dangerous, but usually people are more cautious around that".

      Didn't even need to read TFA for this one...

      "The FAA ruled the shipment... wasn't accompanied by a declaration of dangerous goods, and was not properly marked or labeled as a hazardous package"

      I'm not sure how you would expect someone to be more cautious around a particular substance if they have no information whatsoever on what the substance is.

  2. A little surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...that they only have to pay a measly $350,000 (compared to the loadsamoney they make) after violating the rules so many times and for what could've potentially resulted in serious injuries or deaths, if no one washed themselves off. Why the small fine instead of something more serious?

    1. Re:A little surprised... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a three strikes system? 25 mod 3 = 1.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:A little surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. Large corporations don't have to obey the law. The 1-in-25 times they're actually held accountable, they get fined a few minutes worth of operating profit.

    3. Re:A little surprised... by sheemwaza · · Score: 2

      There was this one time that a company violated safety rules multiple times resulting in substantial human pain and suffering. The courts decided to fine them punitive damages in the amount of 2.7 million dollars, which was still a trivial amount of money to the company.

      This is the most often quoted case of our court systems abusing companies and coddling litigious citizens. But it is the epitome of what you are asking for here...

      http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    4. Re:A little surprised... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Come on. You ordered hot coffee.You received hot coffee.
      That's quite different from posting hazardous material in an unsafe way.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    5. Re:A little surprised... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Come on. You ordered hot coffee.You received hot coffee.

      You ordered hot coffee. You got coffee that was above the safety standards put forth in the coffee provider's own documentation, in a cup which could not maintain structural integrity at the provided temperature. You were awarded damages because the vendor proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that what they knew was dangerous, and prohibited the act, and then performed it anyway.

      How is the situation different? Coffee does not require a hazardous materials label for shipping. How is the situation similar? In pretty much every other way. The contents are hazardous and spilled out. The container used was clearly inadequate for the job it had to do. The recipient of the item was in neither case made aware of the hazard.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:A little surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the stupid bitch shouldn't have been awarded anything other than a Darwin Award.

      But, But, But, her burns you blubber. Her own damned fault, if the coffee was in a cup holder where it belonged she wouldn't be burned.

      Pro Tip: Don't put HOT shit between your god damned legs in a moving vehicle.

    7. Re:A little surprised... by geoskd · · Score: 1

      How is the situation different?

      It is different because the litigant made the situation worse by placing a container, known to her to be filled with a dangerous liquid, between her legs while trying to operate a moving vehicle. This situation, while not technically illegal, was in violation of the spirit of reckless driving laws.

      The accident in question would not have happened if either party had been following the safety manuals for the equipment they were operating. While that does not exonerate the hot coffee provider, it should not reward the litigant either. The appropriate outcome would have been for the judge to award the litigant 0 dollars, then fine the coffee provider the 2.7M for safety violations. In that way both failures are acknowledged and punished appropriately.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    8. Re:A little surprised... by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      the litigant [placed] a container, known to her to be filled with a dangerous liquid, between her legs while trying to operate a moving vehicle.

      WTF? She was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car!

      Having received life-threatening third-degree burns and undergone a skin graft procedure, she asked for $20,000 to cover the medical expenses.

    9. Re:A little surprised... by geoskd · · Score: 1

      WTF? She was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car! [wikipedia.org]

      She claimed the car was parked. The fact that she spilled a very significant percentage of the liquid on herself strongly suggests otherwise.

      Try this simple experiment. Put on a pair of sweat pants, place a 10Oz cup of water with a fast food lid on it between your legs. Now try to open that lid and see where the water goes, and how much. You will find that even opening the cup fairly violently the water will not reach your genitals. Now try again with the cup squarely in your crotch. For grins, now try it in a moving vehicle. You will find the facts strongly suggest, but fall just short of outright proof, that the litigant lied under oath. That is why the judge ultimately found her to be 20% responsible, and reduced the award from $200,000 to $160,000 (for damages, not punitive). My personal belief is that the car was still moving when she tried to open the cup. Had she not been 79 years old, this surely should have qualified her for a Darwin honorable mention.

      That having been said, both parties engaged in questionable behavior, and both parties should have been made to face the consequences of stupid behavior.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    10. Re:A little surprised... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Try this simple experiment. Put on a pair of sweat pants, place a 10Oz cup of water with a fast food lid on it between your legs. Now try to open that lid and see where the water goes, and how much. You will find that even opening the cup fairly violently the water will not reach your genitals

      Maybe it won't reach your genitals, but I've gotten mine wet with a cup between my legs before. Perhaps you're the mysterious stranger who can put their seat back forward, as Saint Carlin mentioned in his bit on the Airline Safety Lecture? In any case, in your simple experiment you need for the cup to be excessively deformable because it was engineered for cooler liquids, a fact well-known at McDonalds University where they invent such bullshit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:A little surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is different because the litigant made the situation worse by placing a container, known to her to be filled with a dangerous liquid, between her legs while trying to operate a moving vehicle.

      Wow. Y'all can't just stop telling lies about this case. It is very telling about lawsuit reform advocates that they can't make a factual argument.

      Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe owned by her grandson Chris, which did not have cup holders

    12. Re:A little surprised... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      the litigant [placed] a container, known to her to be filled with a dangerous liquid, between her legs while trying to operate a moving vehicle.

      WTF? She was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car!

      Having received life-threatening third-degree burns and undergone a skin graft procedure, she asked for $20,000 to cover the medical expenses.

      if she hadn't, her medical insurer would have.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:A little surprised... by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      You have high thoughts about the medical insurance industry and insurance coverage in the US pre-Obama-care.

      But it's a good point that a case like this is unlikely to arise in a country with universal healthcare.

  3. Other rule violations by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They didn't violate the rules 24 other times, they got caught 24 other times. I would be surprised if the packages leak more than 1% of the time so they've probably violated the rules thousands of times at least.

    1. Re:Other rule violations by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The important figure would be number of violations per 100,000 packages shipped. Not raw number of packages in violation.

      Number of times they got caught vs. the number of times they got away with it is mostly irrelevant. Since other people/companies shipping hazardous materials will probably have a similar ratio of times caught to times they got away with it. So you can just compare the easy-to-determine number of times caught per 100,000 shipments across companies, and that'll give you pretty much the same ranking order as the much-harder-to-determine number of times they got away with it per 100,000 shipments.

    2. Re:Other rule violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that should be easy enough to determine, simply find out which products shipped by Amazon are hazmat, which ones come with the labeling, then determine how many times the items in set A but not set B have been shipped.

    3. Re:Other rule violations by Bob_Who · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right you are. Make 'em pay. Hit them so hard they never, ever think its worth the risk of getting caught again. Mega-corps of this magnitude need to be hit in magnitudes greater so that they never fudge again. They only commit these crimes when its profitable. We just make sure it never is, and suddenly it stops, or they just go out of business. Simple.

    4. Re:Other rule violations by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Are these number of times a lot? Or is it a drop in the bucket? Is someone political out to get Amazon for not making their donations for the year?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Other rule violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The important figure would be number of violations per 100,000 packages shipped. Not raw number of packages in violation.
      Not really.
      Amazon ships all kinds of stupid shit like books that would not violate anything.
      The bulk of the orders would be fine.
      What's important is how often they violate the rules on these specific kinds of packages with dangerous materials.
      Otherwise you would end up with 1000s of packages violating the rules, but you saying it's OK, because it's only 0.001% of total packages.

    6. Re:Other rule violations by geoskd · · Score: 1

      The important figure would be number of violations per 100,000 packages shipped. Not raw number of packages in violation.

      That number needs to be further refined to the number of violations per number of hazardous packages shipped. i.e. what percentage of the time were they doing it right, and what percentage of the time were they doing it wrong. Hazardous packages make up only a tiny fraction of Amazons business, so you shouldn't count any of the non-hazardous packages in the determination. When you do that, you will discover that Amazon is improperly shipping hazardous materials 100% of the time. That is because hazardous shipping is expensive and restrictive. That $5 bottle of drain cleaner now costs $50 when it has to be shipped as a hazardous material, and Amazon isn't willing to charge that much. The standard punishment in the shipping industry is for a shipper to be blacklisted for a year after three strikes. The only reason no one holds Amazon to this standard is because Amazon makes up 20% of UPS shipping business. Cutting them off for a year would not only kill Amazon, but would do serious damage to UPS as well. The FAA fine was surely a compromise between UPS and the FAA (possibly including input form OSHA as well).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    7. Re: Other rule violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm curious how many times Amazon followed all the rules when shipping hazardous materials. Also, is this an Amazon issue, or are third parties involved? (I'm not defending Amazon, I just want to be fully informed before flaming them. Yeah, I know, I'm in the wrong place for that.)

    8. Re:Other rule violations by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      This whole issue is bogus. Search for this item on Amazon; look at the details. It's handled and shipped by one of Amazon's partner companies, not shipped by Amazon. How is this Amazon's fault? Is Amazon supposed to police every mom-and-pop that is essentially using Amazon as its marketplace?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Other rule violations by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      lol hu? 24 previous fines for the very same thing? "Quote" It's the 25th time the company has been found to violate hazardous chemical shipping regulations in two and a half years. End Quote"
      and
      "Quote" Amazon has a history of violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations," the FAA said in a statement. In the period from February 2013 to September 2015, Amazon was found to have violated hazardous shipment rules 24 other times. "End Quote" seem to me amazon has only amazon to blame.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:Other rule violations by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      That's a question only a lawyer can answer i believe. unless someone has personal experience of such matters.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    11. Re:Other rule violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole issue is bogus. Search for this item on Amazon; look at the details. It's handled and shipped by one of Amazon's partner companies, not shipped by Amazon.

      Bzzt! Error. First off, you look at the item NOW, doesn't tell you who shipped it when it leaked.

      The FAA announcement indicates the claim that they are making it to have been shipped by Amazon. Amazon could certainly dispute that, I suppose, but they won't be doing so by referring to their website.

      You would have to produce the packaging, and see where it left. I would say the FAA has that. You don't.

      How is this Amazon's fault? Is Amazon supposed to police every mom-and-pop that is essentially using Amazon as its marketplace?

      Ok, let's say this is a third party that is linked on their website. This wasn't a random advertisement, Amazon chose to do business with this third party and place their product in some prominence. That third party's actions reflect on Amazon, if Amazon cannot police the people it does business with to behave properly, how can I, the consumer, trust them?

      What exactly do you want? Amazon not to know that their partners behave responsibly? Not to care?

    12. Re:Other rule violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you may have overhead in certain hyped trivias, peanut butter has a formally defined FDA threshold for how much can contain foreign matter, like a bit of insect material that gets distributed across vats. I won't share the bookmark, but yeah there's ppm (parts-per-million, newfriend) for all kinds of foods and contaminants.

      Point is, we don't have a metric for "the jars that actually get transported and purchased and repurchased and finally retailed four buyers later but not the ones that weren't", there's no metric for "the specific peanut butter packages bought by AC52314049", there's just the production metric measured at the time of production. Amazon doesn't have separate facilities handling hazmats, just endless boxes in and out and a performance accuracy metric there.

      So yeah, if the chemically detectable feces in your food is only 0.00...001% it has, in fact, been recognized as OK. If you're an entitled Normal you might be freaking out about this new reality. But it balances out since you'll believe in some homeopathic garbage that will cure it or whatever. Incidentally, your throat is swallowing a constant stream of mucus and there's nothing you can do about it. And once you get over yourself, you realize there's nothing you should do about it.

  4. Acid Rain from the Amazon Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Acid Rain from the Amazon Cloud by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Sulfuric acid will quickly corrode pipes but apparently has an inhibitor that stops the corrosion.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re: Acid Rain from the Amazon Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what regulatory hurdles you would face trying to transport an Alien by air?

    3. Re: Acid Rain from the Amazon Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is one too many.
      --
      roman_mir

  5. Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party staffing firms at the shipping centers at least some did not die / a plane did not start on fire. They need to fine all party's and not let amazon hide under some 3rd party / sub contractors?

    remember ValuJet Flight 592?

    1. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Everglades Memorial looks like a low-budget version of the Berlin Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe...

    2. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. The guys at the bottom are just following orders from above, and the guys at the top were never informed and of course would have put a stop to it if they had been told. In a rare case where it gets pinned on anyone it's some hapless middle manager with no real authority who, had he spoken up, would have been fired and replaced by someone who didn't.

    3. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party staffing firms at the shipping centers

      Doubtful. I'm pretty sure a company the size of Amazon knows everything in it's inventory and internally tags items requiring special care as such, to not do so puts them at significant risk should an unlabeled box of lithium batteries happens to cause a ValuJet 592 like incident.

    4. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      God bless globalization, the temp economy and ridiculously long supply chains. It only takes one or two steps to remove us from the ethics of slavery and torture, sure sucks when lax safety comes back to bite our own workers. Don't worry they're just brown shirts, easily replaceable.

    5. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by nnull · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You haven't been to Amazon's secret 3rd party suppliers then who masquerade as "Amazon warehouse". Amazon likes to keep this a big secret and not let anyone known. Even the owners aren't allowed to speak about it, but the places I visit who warehouse my stuff, I see the Amazon labels being printed and handling Amazon orders. They're not the brightest people of the bunch (Low skilled minimum wage labor, you think they give a damn what gets shipped?) and Amazon doesn't really have any control of them or what they do (Underpaid management), at least from what I can see. So yeah, I more than likely believe hazardous material is being shipped by Amazon all the time without them notifying anyone.

      And if you think Amazon demands they abide to a certain standard, yeah, good luck. I can't even get these warehouse guys to do it and keep proper inventory. They'll nod their heads, yeah yeah, but the reality is, low paid workers really don't care, but when you need the warehouse space, you really don't have much choice in the matter (They're all like this).

    6. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And if you think Amazon demands they abide to a certain standard, yeah, good luck. I can't even get these warehouse guys to do it and keep proper inventory.

      The software should handle it when printing labels. They shouldn't have to think.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you think Amazon demands they abide to a certain standard, yeah, good luck. I can't even get these warehouse guys to do it and keep proper inventory.

      The software should handle it when printing labels. They shouldn't have to think.

      The "software should" pack the box, too?

      Earth calling!

    8. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The "software should" pack the box, too?

      There's a mention in this very thread of software which does this. It's not a very hard job.

      Earth calling!

      Yes, we don't miss you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you just keep your own inventory by tracking how many you've sold?

    10. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party staffing firms at the shipping centers

      That is precisely why we need to end limited liability shielding. Forget about what Amazon did or did not know. Make it their job to know, and then they are culpable when something happens because they either knew and didn't care, or didn't know and should have. Get rid of this idiotic gray area of "we didn't know"

      Our legal system long ago had to solve this same basic problem, and the solution was simplicity itself: Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    11. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by nnull · · Score: 1

      I agree. But often times you're at the mercy of the warehouse owner/operator. And often times, the reason you're looking for this warehouse is space and low prices to keep your product costs low. And often times, the warehouse owner/operator insists on using his/her own inventory system (If they even have one) unless you provide them a physical label delivered to them or computers to access your system to print out these labels.

    12. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by nnull · · Score: 1

      Of course, you have too, but it also adds to complications. A lot of these warehouses operate on their own system. If you have something else, you have to provide it for them. That means sending people out there to do it.

    13. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Knowledge of the law is not possible. Laws are being written faster than anyone can read them, now that the edicts of regulatory agencies have the force of law.

      This year’s daily publication of the federal government’s rules, proposed rules and notices amounted to 81,611 pages. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/264456-2015-was-record-year-for-federal-regulation-group-says

      Read that carefully, that's over 80,000 pages per day.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you just keep your own inventory by tracking how many you've sold?

      Shrinkage, yep the biggest source of inventory discrepancies is out the back door at the warehouse.

    15. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowledge of the law is not possible. Laws are being written faster than anyone can read them, now that the edicts of regulatory agencies have the force of law.

      This year’s daily publication of the federal government’s rules, proposed rules and notices amounted to 81,611 pages. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/264456-2015-was-record-year-for-federal-regulation-group-says

      Read that carefully, that's over 80,000 pages per day.

      Actually, you need to read it more carefully, or be more informed. The daily refers to the publication itself, which is published every day, not the actual amount published in a day.

      If you go back to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and see their actual claim, which is that the yearly total amounts to some 82,000 new pages, you'll realize that you misread it.

      Unofficially, Mr. Obama’s Administration has once again broken its own record by issuing a staggering 82,036 pages of new and proposed rules and instructions in the Federal Register in 2015. We say unofficially because Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who tracks these regulations, warns that the final number will likely come down by a few hundred pages when the official National Archives tally is released, without the blank pages that sometimes appear in daily publication.

      I suppose you could have inadvertently misread the first article, but if you had checked it out, you might have recognized that your own interpretation was severely in error.

      However, due to your own biased inclinations, you failed to do so, and being uninformed, you just went with a false reading instead. It does seem a bit ironic since you asked others to read carefully, but did poorly on your own.

       

    16. Re:Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd party by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Limited liability shielding is for the SHAREHOLDERS.

      NOT the directors.

      Intentionally violating laws can (and does) put management on the hook.

  6. UPS is union and they need to sue to recover the by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    UPS is union and they need to sue to recover the costs that they suffered.

  7. UPS should send bill... by GumphMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If enough leaked to affect 9 employees handling the box after the flight then there's a reasonable possibility that the escaped liquid now poses a corrosion hazard to the aircraft structure. UPS should send them the bill for the complete inspection and overhaul of the affected areas of the aircraft used to transport it. Perhaps that will be more than the fine.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    1. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the packages were mishandled by UPS employees and maybe Amazon has accelerometer logs to prove it.

    2. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever ignores an invoice!

    3. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mishandling doesn't matter in this case, accidents are expected to happen but illegal shipping is still illegal shipping.

    4. Re:UPS should send bill... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      amazon still failed to give ups / faa the right paper work.

    5. Re:UPS should send bill... by avandesande · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't matter- the packages weren't marked hazardous or proper packaging. This is entirely amazon's fault.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:UPS should send bill... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You don't get to lie about your cargo. The manifest has to be correct. Otherwise you're a smuggler, and the response to smugglers is to throw them off the boat/plane while in transit.

    7. Re:UPS should send bill... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Smooth move.... throw the gallon of smuggled hazardous materials off the flight as unauthorized stowaway, and contact the EPA to designate the place where they land as a superfund site, mobilize a few hundred billion $$$ worth of assets and thousands of full-time highly-paid government workers to commense the clean up, and make Amazon pay every dime of the total cleanup bill plus a 100% penalty.

    8. Re:UPS should send bill... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      If enough leaked to affect 9 employees handling the box after the flight then there's a reasonable possibility that the escaped liquid now poses a corrosion hazard to the aircraft structure. UPS should send them the bill for the complete inspection and overhaul of the affected areas of the aircraft used to transport it. Perhaps that will be more than the fine.

      You say that because Amazon is a rich company. Suppose an old grandmother ships something to someone and doesn't properly fill out the form declaring hazardous materials and similar damage was done. Would you suggest UPS go after her for damages to the aircraft? Double standards shouldn't apply just because a party is wealthy.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    9. Re:UPS should send bill... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      amazon still failed to give ups / faa the right paper work.

      Is it up to Amazon to file paperwork with the FAA? I would have thought that was UPS's responsibility. If you or I ship packages with UPS or FedEX, I don't think we interact with the FAA in any way.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    10. Re: UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just surprised no other entities have brought this to light. 24 violations and no lawsuits? Must be some greasy palms or some very forgiving people.

    11. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grandmother would be most likely a one time violation. With Amazon it is a pattern of behavior and should be treated as such.

      Habitual offenders receive hasher sentences generally, at least when they are real people. Typically corporations don't, they just keep getting fined the same amount so they keep committing the crime until it is no longer cost effective.

      Let's look at it in some proto c code.

      #include "corruption.h"
      #include "business_model.h" /* because slashdot still sucks at parsing in 2016 */
      less_than /* imagine a less than symbol */
      greater_than /* imagine a greater than symbol */

      caught = rand()

      check_price_and_ship(fine_when_caught, profit, caught)
      {
            if caught
          {
              If $fine_when_caught (less_than) $profit_for_times_not_caught
              {
                    pay(fine_when_caught)
                    return profit_for_times_not_caught -fine_when_caught
              }
            If $fine_when_caught (greater_than) $profit_for_times_not_caught
                  assert ("It's too expensive when we get caught, lets stop. \n
                                              Shouldn't get here with government in our pockets");
          } /* Not caught */
          return profit_for_times_not_caught
      }

    12. Re:UPS should send bill... by Bob_Who · · Score: 2

      Double standards shouldn't apply just because a party is wealthy.

      What? No double standards? Sign me up ! Which galaxy and star date is this place?

    13. Re: UPS should send bill... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I submit it is a lack of greased palms, so the palmees are working to see huge fines applied until things get back to normal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:UPS should send bill... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Why? because YOU don't like them?

      Fuck off with that nonsense.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    15. Re:UPS should send bill... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that was UPS's responsibility.

      And UPS is going to open each package and make sure none of it was mislabeled? No. Amazon gets it to the FAA via UPS. It doesn't matter if there's an intermediary if they don't label hazardous materials at all.

    16. Re:UPS should send bill... by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suppose an old grandmother ships something to someone and doesn't properly fill out the form declaring hazardous materials and similar damage was done. Would you suggest UPS go after her for damages to the aircraft?

      That depends. Is the grandmother incorporated? Does she make decisions at the behest of her shareholders' best interests ($$)? Is it likely that her decision to disregard regulations was driven by a profit motive? Is shipping packages a substantial portion of her daily activity? Does she have, or have a legal obligation to have, employees or consultants who are familiar with shipping regulations?

      Double standards shouldn't apply just because a party is wealthy.

      Perhaps not, but it's long been established that double standards do apply when you're running a business, whether it's wealthy or not. I can refuse to let people with seeing eye dogs into my home, but I can't refuse to let them into my business. I can get in my personal car with state minimum insurance and drive for 30 straight hours, but a Wal-Mart tractor trailer driver must carry a much larger insurance policy and is federally limited as to how many hours he can be on the road. When you set up shop and hang out your shingle to the public, you accept a different standard of risk and regulation than a private individual like the old grandmother.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    17. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon is responsible for providing UPS the correct paperwork. As UPS receives a sealed package that can only provide the FAA the correct paperwork if Amazon first provides it to them.

    18. Re:UPS should send bill... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      small mistake vs a big company system that fails to train workers / flag stuff as hazmat / flag stuff as ground only / has a quota system that does not count for things that can take X5-X10 times the time needed to do it safe.

    19. Re:UPS should send bill... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why? because YOU don't like them?

      No, because it's a hazardous material that isn't properly contained and shouldn't be there, and workers need to get as much of the material away from people as safely as possible.

      And Amazon's responsible for it, so they should bear the burden of that, whatever that is, plus penalties to deter further misbehavior or negligence.

    20. Re:UPS should send bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the charge for hosing out a 10'x5'x5' container is really that much. The package was never in direct contact with the plane. UPS loads packages into containers that fit inside the plane, so that's really the only thing that might need inspection, but even contact with that container is doubtful, it's much more likely that it was in the middle of a bunch of packages.

  8. only 24 times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ever? it's probably much closer to 24 times *a day* given their sales and shipping volume.

  9. Negligence ! by invictusvoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine a drone doing that delivery !

    1. Re:Negligence ! by ThatTreeOverThere · · Score: 1

      I've heard people compare Jeff Bezos to Satan, but that would really take the cake, wouldn't it?

    2. Re:Negligence ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free application of weed killer with every delivery? Where do I sign up!

    3. Re:Negligence ! by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      He's just the son of Satan, not Satan himself.

      Satan has several sons, including Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg.

    4. Re:Negligence ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free application of weed killer with every delivery? Where do I sign up!

      I'd like to sign up for killer weed instead

    5. Re:Negligence ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's just the son of Satan, not Satan himself.

      Satan has several sons, including Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg.

      Bill Gates is Eric Schmidt's father? Suddenly it all makes sense.

  10. $350k doesnt go far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $350m is more like it
    Stop giving companies a slap on the wrist and start fucking them up the ass.

    1. Re:$350k doesnt go far enough by hyades1 · · Score: 0

      I'd happily give you a mod point, but the new owners apparently believe that unless you kiss their rosy ass, you won't get those.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:$350k doesnt go far enough by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Well YMMV but I'm getting mod points at about the same frequency as before the takeover, and I'm not an ass-kisser (check my posts).

    3. Re:$350k doesnt go far enough by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd happily give you a mod point, but the new owners apparently believe that unless you kiss their rosy ass, you won't get those.

      So, like the old boss?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Sulfuric Acid by NitWit005 · · Score: 1

    The Amazon reviews of said product suggest it's sulfuric acid.

  12. Yup:Sulfuric Acid by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The MSDS for the product says sulfuric acid and Rodine.

    Rodine is an acid inhibitor that attempts to prevent corrosion of metals by acids.

    The liquid fire MSDS doesn't say specifically the concentrations (I hate that), but other drain cleaners of that type can be nearly 100% sulfuric acid.

    It wouldn't come as a surprise if the thing was almost pure H2SO4.

    Sulfuric acid is essentially sulfur trioxide gas dissolved in water. If the atmospheric pressure goes down, the SO3 gas comes out of solution, where it can hang around and then redissolve on moist surfaces, such as mucous membranes and moist eye tissue.

    1. Re:Yup:Sulfuric Acid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. I have a Rural King around here, and that Liquid Fire is some powerful stuff. It's something one uses when other drain cleaners fail.

    2. Re:Yup:Sulfuric Acid by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      If the atmospheric pressure goes down, the SO3 gas comes out of solution, where it can hang around and then redissolve on moist surfaces, such as mucous membranes and moist eye tissue.

      Well, that is absolutely fucking terrifying.

    3. Re:Yup:Sulfuric Acid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, that is absolutely fucking terrifying.

      It's pretty scary, but don't you already use swim goggles and a respirator when you deal with scary chemicals? Total cost, about twenty bucks. I use the respirator all the time because I do all kinds of things which are bad for your lungs... heat plus galvanized equals gangrenous testicles

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Yup:Sulfuric Acid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you don't know that you're dealing with scary chemicals because it wasn't properly labeled ...

    5. Re:Yup:Sulfuric Acid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, check out the awesome placard on the MSDS.

  13. Tiny amount by SeriousTube · · Score: 1

    Amazon flicks it little toenail to let a small annoyance fly.

  14. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    UPS is union and they need to sue to recover the costs that they suffered.

    Don't get me started on all the double standards that UPS has going on in their shipping departments with their employees. That place is a sweatshop and the Union is in on it and has been since the 1980s!

    By their own rules no loader is supposed to lift a package with a circumference around its widest part greater than 70 inches or weighing more than 70 kilograms.

    That being said, I got a chewing out by a manager who sent down a bundle of solid steel bars that was 3 ft in circumference and was 12 ft long and weighed about 300 pounds and I was told "Just throw it in the truck!"

    I complained about it to a higher up shift manager and the next day was fired.

    They are lucky that I had another job lined up otherwise I would have totally sued their asses.

    Realize though UPS is a shit job, where you pay about half your income in union dues for a union that basically does nothing for the employee and you are forced to work in an environment where safety rules are never followed and in 120 degree heat.

    I ship Fed Ex where possible these days.

  15. Amazing Liquid Fire? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I think that's the green stuff Tyrion Lannister used to destroy Stannis Baratheon's navy.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  16. Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by guardiangod · · Score: 3, Funny

    As mentioned elsewhere, on Amazing Liquid Fire's Amazon page, it is frequently bought with "Red Hot Devil Lye" (Sodium Hydroxide).

    If both substances come in contact during transit on a plane...things would get very exciting very quickly.

    1. Re:Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Sodium Hydroxide is also used in many different "recipes" as an extraction agent for making chemicals like DMT.

    2. Re:Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They're bought together as they're common chemicals used in making bathtub crank and methamphetamines. They're used as catalytic reagents quite often in attempts to produce anhydrous ammonia for manufacture of meth specifically.

      There's almost no other reason to buy those two things together.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's almost no other reason to buy those two things together.

      Almost no other reason, except they are both drain cleaners? I can imagine using concentrated sulfuric acid as a drain cleaner, but from reading the Amazon reviews, people really do it.

    4. Re:Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That's about it, but you don't normally buy two DIFFERING TYPES of drain cleaner (acid and base) because (channeling The Simpsons here) "you know what happens when you mix acids and bases, right Bart?"

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:Its Frequently Bought Together listing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect quite a lot of people don't.

  17. Lemee get this straight... by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My Diet Coke can't make it past airport security but something named "Amazing Liquid Fire" can?

    1. Re:Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Net result of drinking either is about the same...

    2. Re:Lemee get this straight... by bzn · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, the net result of drinking any liquid is the same.

    3. Re:Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security theatre

    4. Re:Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Diet Coke can't make it past airport security but something named "Amazing Liquid Fire" can?

      This is cargo aircraft, very different rules apply compared to passenger aircraft.

    5. Re:Lemee get this straight... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      You are drinking poison.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    6. Re:Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DHMO is also poison. Along with Oxygen.

      The quantity makes the poison.

      Guess what, if you non-stop (except for air) drink Diet Coke until you die, you will die from DHMO poisoning. Not from Aspartame poisoning. Yes, I looked this up once, takes the Aspartame in about 30 gallons of Diet Coke to reach the LD50 for your average person. The LD50 of water is about 1.5 gallons for the same person. Considering that the vast percentage of all colas is water, you do the math.

      Now, riddle me this, what happens if you do the same thing with Coke? You die from diabetic shock. Instead of DHMO poisoning (despite its presence in similar quantities in both items) you'll die from sugar.

      In other words, Aspartame is the least of your worries, and, idiotic consumption-wise, Diet Coke is safer than Coke. FWIW, both also have similar quantities of phosphoric acid, and that's not what's gonna kill you in either situation, either.

      As for long term poisoning, ask any old Type 1 diabetic that enjoys fizzy drinks what they have to say about that.

    7. Re: Lemee get this straight... by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Type 2 is the one associated with sugar consumption/obesity. Type 1 is thought to be closer to an autoimmune disorder.

    8. Re: Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Type 2 is the one associated with sugar consumption/obesity. Type 1 is thought to be closer to an autoimmune disorder.

      Despite having a different cause from Type 2, Type 1 still requires a lifetime of blood sugar level management and is typically discovered in childhood. Thus:

      "As for long term poisoning, ask any old Type 1 diabetic that enjoys fizzy drinks what they have to say about that."

      Translates to:

      "Ask someone old, who enjoys fizzy drinks, who has been diabetic their whole life, if aspartame will give them long term poisoning."

      Because, you see, they are almost certainly consuming copious amounts of aspartame to maintain such a diet, and have been doing so since being a teenager. You can't get a much better study group (since lying would be indicated in their diabetic medical history), unless there happens to be an unlikely relationship between Type 1 diabetes and some special ability to avoid any sort of aspartame poisoning.

      It doesn't translate to:

      "Ask someone old, who enjoys fizzy drinks, who has an immune disorder that they got at a random time, if aspartame will give them long term poisoning"

      Because that simply makes no sense, at least scientifically.

    9. Re:Lemee get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Soda is bad for you :)

    10. Re:Lemee get this straight... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      My Diet Coke can't make it past airport security

      The rule you are thinking of only applies to cabin baggage, not to hold baggage or cargo. If you had put your diet coke in your hold baggage it would have been perfectly acceptable.

      but something named "Amazing Liquid Fire" can?

      If it's in a cardboard shipping box they will probablly never see the name on the bottle. An x-ray may tell them there is some liquid in there but it's unlikely to tell them more than that.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  18. Meh by nbritton · · Score: 2

    Meh, that stuff is weak. When my sinks clog I use fuming hydrochloric acid.

    I'm not kidding.

    1. Re:Meh by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      why?

      I just use boiling hot laundry bleach. Cheap, does not get you on a government watch list, and does the job fast.

      Unless your slow drain is in a fast food place, or a kitchen that uses too much fat. Then you should consider installing a grease trap. Bleach wont do anything to fat, but then again, neither will concentrated HCl. Hydroxides will, but those get you on watch lists, and damage pipes.

    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny story about HCl. I wanted some for PCB etching experiments (HCl won't dissolve copper but if you add H2O2 then it will).
      Couldnt find a clean source locally, best I could get was crappy brick cleaner with soaps added. Amazon UK had sellers that sold it but none would ship to me cos i'm in northern ireland, and getting stuff shipped here is a pain (I had a lot of used dead laptop batteries siezed by the royal mail and destroyed cos they're "hazardous").
      So I ordered something called Spirit of Salts from an amazon seller and it arrived in really shitty packaging.
      Spirit of Salts is just 36% HCl. Nice.

    3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hydroxides will, but those get you on watch lists

      [citation needed]

    4. Re:Meh by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I would be surprise if Sodium Hydroxide got you on a watch list anywhere. In the UK you can buy it in granular form at the large DIY chain stores (hardware store if you are state side), for example

      http://www.diy.com/departments...

      Quick check shows all the local stores have it in stock. Spending a day driving around I could accumulated in excess of 20kg of the stuff in a day using cash if I wanted.

    5. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just use a snake. why dump chemicals into the sewer?

    6. Re:Meh by afidel · · Score: 1

      does not get you on a government watch list,

      Who cares about being on a watch list? I've been on them since the early 1990's, being interested in explosives and cryptography tends to lead that way. Hasn't kept me from working for a defense contractor or one of the largest law firms in the country. As long as I avoid doing anything overtly illegal there's nothing they can really do except come and talk to me and file a report which might or might not get brought up during a security interview (my first one did have a mention of it since my most recent visit from the FBI had been fairly close in time to the interview, subsequent ones it hasn't even come up). In case you haven't been paying attention the other thing that used to come with being on a watchlist (increased monitoring and scrutiny) has applied to everyone in the country since technology made it cheap enough for them to do so a file in a filesystem or entry in a database is really the only difference, big deal.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Meh by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " Bleach wont do anything to fat, but then again, neither will concentrated HCl. Hydroxides will, but those get you on watch lists, and damage pipes."

      Wrong. Bleach in fact destroys lipid (fat) membranes of bacteria - that's why we use it to sterilize surfaces and food handling equipment..

      And concentrated HCl (Muriatic acid up to like 12 mol) most certainly dissolves fat, as fat is a lipid hydrocarbon and HCl breaks hydrocarbon chains.

      I can tell you've never worked with any of this stuff in any serious capacity. I've had Muriatic acid and sodium hydroxide eat my skin, from rock cleaning and kitchen maintenance, respectively.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Meh by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Refined sodium hydroxide is used in meth manufacture. If you buy lots of it, it does get you on watch lists. Just not terrorist ones.

    9. Re:Meh by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      We must be thinking of different substances. Laundry bleach is sodium hypochlorate. Its primary method of action is chemical oxidation. When you oxidize most lipids, they form complex branching polymers. That wont wash them down the pipe, it will harden them into resin.

      Treating them with hydroxide, however, will cause exchange of the fatty acid head with the sodium, making the complex able to form stable mycelles which can be suspended in the water as a colloid.

      Bleach destroys hair and protien by decomposing the amide groups into chloramines.

    10. Re:Meh by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You do know you can still buy bleaches with phosphorous in them, right? Only a few states explicitly ban them (mostly in the Western USA.)

      Those bleaches will eat your ass alive.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  19. Wow, 24 times.. by ssufficool · · Score: 1

    Out of how many million? Raw numbers without context make for headlines in 99% of selected online publications.

    1. Re:Wow, 24 times.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caught 24 times. Logic not your strong point.

    2. Re:Wow, 24 times.. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Out of how many (raw number) packages shipped is meaningless too. You have to have stats on how many hazardous materials they'd shipped. Do you publish the story or wait until after Amazon's numbers are (maybe) subpoenaed and become public record? That would delay the story for at least several months.

  20. Yes but by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Did these UPS employees think it was amazing liquid fire? If not then there is some kind of truth in advertising charge to be answered too.

  21. Proportionality by golodh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.

    You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.

    1. Re:Proportionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.

      You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.

      What those 24 caught events (clearly only the tip of the iceberg) tell us is that Amazon clearly does not have in place a good process for vetting the shipability of stock items. The risk analysis group at Amazon must be shitting bricks. While 350 K$ is nothing to Amazon - bring down a plane with 300 passengers and the liability (~ a billion) will get even Amazon's attention.

    2. Re:Proportionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough but commercial cargo flights typically don't contain ~300 passengers. -Legal.Troll (dodging -1 Karma)

    3. Re:Proportionality by EvilSS · · Score: 5, Funny

      While 350 K$ is nothing to Amazon - bring down a plane with 300 passengers and the liability (~ a billion) will get even Amazon's attention.

      True, but I imagine the fact that someone was smuggling 300 people on a UPS cargo flight would grab most of the headlines.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Proportionality by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You don't want to kill Amazon,

      Why not? If they're not willing to obey the law, and endanger the health of their employees and the public just so they can save money, then they need killing. It's not like they're doing anything vital.

    5. Re:Proportionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax, dude. It's probably just one or two shipping managers who slack at their job, not Amazon willfully ignoring the law. No reason to kill the entire company.

    6. Re:Proportionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to kill Amazon,

      Why not? If they're not willing to obey the law, and endanger the health of their employees and the public just so they can save money, then they need killing. It's not like they're doing anything vital.

      Well, for one that's put all their employees out of a job, and as they provide a highly useful service (efficient distribution of goods across wide areas) and failure slike this are usually because the company lacks the institutional knowledge of how to comply with the regulations, another company will come in and make the same mistakes.

      An intelligent responce is to scale the fines such that it's cheaper to comply with the regulations than get caught, breaking them after correcting for the chance of not getting caught. But that's a complex bit of math to figure out with several unknown variables so starting at an arbitrary number and increasing them on every infraction until the infractions stop is an efficient solution.

    7. Re:Proportionality by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      and endanger the health of their employees

      Actually, it was UPS employees that had to be treated. I suspect that he Amazon ones that required treatment kept quiet about it.

    8. Re:Proportionality by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.

      You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.

      What those 24 caught events (clearly only the tip of the iceberg) tell us is that Amazon clearly does not have in place a good process for vetting the shipability of stock items. The risk analysis group at Amazon must be shitting bricks. While 350 K$ is nothing to Amazon - bring down a plane with 300 passengers and the liability (~ a billion) will get even Amazon's attention.

      You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)

      24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024

      That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.

      I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.

      The numbers suggest that they indeed have a good vetting system, one that can always be improved upon, but ones that most companies can only dream to attain.

    9. Re:Proportionality by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      24 items out of millions and we're ready to tar and feather them already? Damn, tough crowd.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    10. Re:Proportionality by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Less than 10% of packages pass by ANY customs check (there are a variety of scanners, some sites don't even have them all) and that's for international packages. It's even less than that for domestic packages. Unless your package leaks, you can send stuff 'illegally' for years without anyone noticing (happens all the time at labs shipping vials).

      24 times? I doubt Amazon only sent 24 of those in the time they had them for sale, I think it would be on the order of a dozen per day at least that would go on a plane, many more are shipped "illegally" through USPS (UPS/FedEx allows them but not for cheap and MSDS etc all has to be in order).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:Proportionality by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)

      24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024

      That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.

      I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.

      And you suck at statistics.

      Without knowing how many of those billion packages were examined, we can make no inference as to the frequency of their safety violations.

      We would also need to know if those examinations were random samples or the result of incident investigations in order to account for possible selection bias. E.g., it looks really bad if 24 of 24 inspected packages were found to violate safety regulations---until you find out the sample consisted entirely of investigations into incidents reported by the airlines.

      Without comparable data for competitors, we can make no judgments on the effectiveness of their vetting process. You need to assess their output against either a written requirement or a set of baseline data. They failed the regulatory requirement repeatedly, so the only way they could claim to have a good process is by performing better than other companies operating under the same set of rules.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    12. Re:Proportionality by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      It could be more.

      I ordered a container of drain cleaner flakes. It was poorly packaged and popped open in transit. When i opened it I was greeted by a cloud of powder that made me cough. It is nasty stuff.

      I complained to Amazon, the vendor and the CPSC and never heard back.

      I hope they put some effort into evaluating packaging of hazardous chemicals.

    13. Re:Proportionality by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)

      24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024

      That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.

      I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.

      And you suck at statistics.

      Without knowing how many of those billion packages were examined, we can make no inference as to the frequency of their safety violations.

      But that is what you are doing. You do not know the number of failures that have gone undetected in those billion packages, and yet that doesn't stop you in making conjectures. If you have a billion units, and you only have evidence of failure in 24, then you use those numbers and try to reason with what you have.

      Unless you have more data that give us an idea of undetected failures, you are simply talking out of your statistical ass.

    14. Re:Proportionality by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      *Could* be. Sounds like everybody around here is assuming it is.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re:Proportionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24 times they have been caught. How many times have they violated these rules and got away with it?

    16. Re:Proportionality by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I dunno, how many young girls did you rape and murder in 1990?

      We have this thing called "innocent until proven guilty," guys.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:Proportionality by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Emphasis on "caught"

      Without a full audit of their orders it's unknowable how many times they actually sent dangerous goods.

  22. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    the Union is in on it

    That's true of Verizon as well. Don't expect them to protect you as an employee.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Unsurprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This company thinks that rules don't apply to them. This wasn't just a case of them being cheap or anything. This wasn't negligence, it was arrogance. This happened before and they don't give a shit because they've already made UPS their bitch.

    Fuck Amazon.

  24. Prison time by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    It sure doesn't seem accidental, and intentional mis-shipping of hazmat is Serious Business:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    I've even heard of someone who (allegedy) got locked up because he ground-shipped sodium to Alaska, not realizing that in Alaska even ground packages go by air.

    1. Re:Prison time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've even heard of someone who (allegedy) got locked up because he ground-shipped sodium to Alaska, not realizing that in Alaska even ground packages go by air.

      There is ground shipping to/through AK... but not everywhere, and not all year

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Prison time by geoskd · · Score: 1

      There is ground shipping to/through AK... but not everywhere, and not all year

      And even ground shipped hazardous materials need to be properly labeled. In his case, the labeling should have included the designation ORMD (other regulated material), which would have precluded the transportation company from putting the item on a plane. There are far too many people out there who think you can just put anything you want in a box and ship it. That is why, when you bring a pre-packed box to a carrier to ship it, you have to play 20 questions. The Carriers learned long ago that the general public does not understand hazmat shipping, so packages have to be screened at the point of entry. In order to get one of the carriers to accept a hazardous package without proper hazmat paperwork, you would either have to have an account with the carrier, or lie to the customer counter person who accepts your package for shipment. Both of those situations would require the individual to know that what they were doing was prohibited.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  25. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GP's story is a bit suspect when he couldn't be bothered to name just who "the Union" is (Teamsters). Where was the shop steward during this supposed firing?

    What union is found at Verizon, may I ask?

  26. Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    That wouldn't be a slap on the wrist - and is self regulating

    1. Re: Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Um, Bezos draws $1 in salary each year.

      The company does pay for a personal security service for him, but the company's annual reports don't show that as very much ($1-2M, I think?). So even if you include benefits like that, it won't be much of a fine in Amazon's case.

    2. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better on his effective earnings.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary#Notable_one-dollar_salary_earners

    3. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Hey, you! We're gonna take 10% of your worth because one of your hundreds of thousands of hires fucked up doing a couple of the millions of things your company does every day!"

      Boy, you think politicians don't get enough donations already, this much power would be their wet dream.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by geoskd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Hey, you! We're gonna take 10% of your worth because one of your hundreds of thousands of hires fucked up doing a couple of the millions of things your company does every day!"

      The problem with that line of thinking is three-fold.

      First, it *is* the corporate officers (as well as management all the way up and down) to make sure that the employees are properly trained to do their jobs. The vast majority of times an employee screws up, its because they weren't trained to do the job properly (or at all in some cases).

      This is a symptom of point 2: Shareholders (including the CEO) are not liable for the liabilities of the company, even in criminal cases. This gives the shareholders impunity to not care what the CEO does as long as it brings in more money. You want to ensure that CEOs pay closer attention to what is going on, end limited liability, and ensure that the shareholders have a reason to breathe down the neck of the CEO for everything that might get them sued. To those that think ending limited liability would be the end of the world, I would suggest that people with extra money are always going to chase the best interest rates. Business will continue, just the investors will be a whole lot more careful about where they put their money. This kind of limited liability would have killed SCO instantly, as the likes of Microsoft and others would not have been willing to risk any investment with all of the downside risk SCO had.

      Third, the inept employee is largely a symptom of wage inequality. Why would some peon on the bottom rung be willing to go the extra steps when they know that their extra efforts wil benefit the corporate officers and the shareholders far more than it benefits themselves? Employees used to be loyal to the company because the company appeared to do things that were beneficial for the employees. More recently, companies have taken the overriding approach of figuring out how to make absolutely certain that every employee is expendable and replaceable. That cuts both ways, if an employee know they are replaceable at the drop of a hat, and the compensation for their time is crap, then they will do their level best to fulfill those expectations.

      In summary, ethical behavior on the part of a company is directly opposed to profits. Given our societal attitude to capitalism, this will continue to create the kinds of behavior we have seen in the last three decades. In order to fix the problem, capitalism has to go. The big mystery is what do we replace it with?

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    5. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Also the quotas make it so that the employees don't wastes time on non quota stuff and I hear at the warehouse level get canned if they can't make rate.

      So are they willing to have non quota workers do paper work? set the system so that when some does the hazmat forums it counts as 10-20 items as part of there rate?

    6. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      the inept employee is largely a symptom of wage inequality.

      You can't be that stupid. - oh, wait, this is slashdot.
      If a person is paid the same whether he does a good job or bad, why should he go to the extra trouble to do a good job?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a nice 'wall of text rant', but it's complete bullshit.
      Sometimes people fuck things up. If one guy packing shit in a warehouse screws up one time, you want to dismantle an entire company? You're a fucking dipshit.

    8. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by geoskd · · Score: 2

      Sometimes people fuck things up. If one guy packing shit in a warehouse screws up one time, you want to dismantle an entire company?

      I have a great deal of experience both working on a line, and as a supervisor, and I can tell you without doubt that properly trained people do not make mistakes at that level. Mistakes like this happen because an entire series of events, that should have happened, didn't happen. A properly constructed process ensures that all of the critical paths to failure are covered multiple ways with validations in place. Failure to train is one of those basic steps, as is failure to hold your management accountable. If you want a company to ensure a proper process, then yes, I think it acceptable to burn a company to the ground for failing to put in place *any* of the dozens of procedures they should have had to prevent this kind of thing. That kind of behavior (and getting away with it) out of any company needs to be immediately squashed with a violent fury, because anything short of that does not change behaviors.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    9. Re:Base fines on corporations on CEO's wage slip by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      to give you an example it is possible for multiple PALLETS to be sent to ReWork because a STICKER was not on the retail box (or on wrong).

      Hazmat stuff being wrong GETS ENTIRE LINES FIRED.

  27. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CWAor IBEW in the legacy ex-Bell System wireline division. Anything involving a wire that is not long distance is handled by union crews - FIOS, DSL, Phone, special circuits. Local and medium mile.

  28. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have worked at UPS in probably the exact role you briefly did, "part time package handler," for twelve years now. You aren't wrong that it's drudgery and physical hardship, but you're kind of full of shit.

    If you'd wanted to keep your job, wanted to complain, the union and the regulatory environment you live in in the United States are almost the most supportive environment for that you'll find on the planet. Some places are more careful; however all major institutions in society that have a large workforce are by design and nature keystone cop operations. You were the one who had a problem, and you didn't do anything about it. You seem, like lots of people, to want the excuse that those in authority let you down and you had to act as you did in response, that you got fired, not quit; that you were victimized.

    I don't know if I have ever seen a 300 pound object in my building, in all my years there. Yes, I have seen things above the 150 pound weight limit, perhaps three or four a year. Hardly ever on the belt if not never, almost always on the floor, if not always. The people just like you and I who unload the trucks and the people who sort what's unloaded have no incentive to send something like that across. It could have happened, and I'm not calling you a liar. My experience leads me to suspect you're exaggerating the details though, both the severity of the hardship you encountered and the severity of the response.

    I only bother to say all of this because I think this is the Santa Claus myth endangering civilization right now, that people are competent and institutions are as well, and they need to be treated as such and relied on to live up to their promises, and that we as individuals can place some misfortune from our own lives at their feet. I totally disagree. Every moment of my life has taught me the opposite.

    Adult human beings and organizations so comprised are fallible, negligent, and in way way over their heads in exactly the ways you would take for granted that little children are. Looking down on a bunch of uneducated, sweaty middle aged men who yell into walkie talkies and nag other grown men to do physical chores that they themselves angrily thought, mistakenly, that they wouldn't have to do anymore upon promotion to full time management...well, that's mean. Even if they are paid well, and even if they have people beneath them they mistreat, everyone's expectations are too high. The ones in charge at a place like a UPS building are crabs terrified of being dropped back in the bucket. They abuse other people through their incompetence and small amounts of petty malice, but they are simply men who statistically tend to be morons, in charge of others from a larger population which is probably even less competent on average.

    Christianity did a good job of advancing the cause of accepting an imperfect world, but something needs to come along to teach people to deal rationally with an imperfect creation and ultimate authority no more competent than its cast offs.

  29. Not suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Prime customer the one gripe I have with Amazon is their lousy packaging. I don't know what kind of low IQ people run the packaging but lately I think Amazon has been trying to save money in packaging and shipping. Now, that said. Amazon is not the only one's to blame here as I believe the package delivery services are also not as careful about packages either. I ordered a video card and it was packaged in a good solid retail box in a reinforced shipping box. It had been seriously crushed on one end but lucky for me the card was not damaged. Obviously, hazardous materials need to be better protected which does fall on the shipper.

  30. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know if I have ever seen a 300 pound object in my building, in all my years there.

    Oh come on now. I am sure other slashdotters work there, too.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  31. Amazing Liquid Fire??? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    I thought they called that Napalm.

    Next time they skip UPS and deliver by Amazon drone.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Amazing Liquid Fire??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no... napalm is gasoline + frozen orange juice concentrate!

  32. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is UPS hiring competition weightlifters!? 70 kilograms (around 154 pounds) is a seriously heavy object to be lugging around single-handed!

    IIRC freight companies in Europe have a max limit around 40 kilograms for 'parcels' (things you stack up to 8 feet high in a semi / throw in the back of a delivery truck)..

  33. Relatively Easy Fix. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . .because I was on a team that made software to do just that.

    In 2000.

    It was a plug-in to standard shipping systems, that printed labels, generated paperwork, and specified packaging, based on the MSDS of the chemical, the size and type of the container, method of transport, and destination. . . .

    And we were not the only solution in the market. . .

  34. Amazon by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Amazon is rapidly becoming just a bazaar of sketchy products and even sketchier vendors. Just last night I was reading about some OTC eye ointment. Three of the reviews were 1 star, pointing out what they received was actually product that had already been recalled due to quality issues (like shards of glass in my eyes, was one reviewers phrase).

    But since it wasn't directly provided by Amazon, they seem to see their role now more as an ISP (hey, not our problem; caveat emptor).

    I suspect shady crap like this doesn't happen in the EU, at least not with such a prominent retailer.

    1. Re:Amazon by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      I once bought an OBD2 scanner from Amazon and when I got it, it was clear that the thing was a cheap Chinese knockoff with pirated firmware. You would expect that sort of thing on eBay, but Amazon surprised me.

    2. Re:Amazon by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Amazon, they seem to see their role now more as an ISP

      And if it was fulfilled by Amazon, there's no way for the vendor to cooperate with the recall without Amazon's help. I bet Amazon wouldn't even assist with that. I generally don't buy on Amazon unless it's at least fulfilled by Amazon, but that's mostly because of the shipping (both quality and speed).

    3. Re:Amazon by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "You would expect that sort of thing on eBay, but Amazon surprised me."

      Just like ebay, anyone can sell just about anything on Amazon. Why the fuck would you NOT expect this sort of thing where you can't verify by visiting the physical location yourself?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Amazon by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      If Trump really wanted an effective attack on Oh My God That Is A Terrifying Laugh Bezos, he would focus on this, as it would strike a cord with a good chunk of the US populace.

      Actually, I hope he doesn't as the thought of him being POTUS is more scary than even Jeff.

    5. Re:Amazon by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I don't know about medical products but there are loads of cheap chinese suppliers selling dangerous electronic goods into the UK through amazon and ebay.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  35. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    70 lbs is the limit, not kilo's.

  36. Amazon gets away with lots of crazy stuff by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Try buying a pair of Apple Earpods - something like 90-100% of the items listed when I searched for "Apple Earpods" are knockoff brands that fall apart or have horrible dynamic range (even compared to the mediocre performance earpods). I'm surprised Apple hasn't (or can't) come down on Amazon like a ton of bricks for enabling such fraudulent listings/sales.

    I sure as hell don't buy Apple stuff on Amazon anymore; I wonder if some of the other stuff I bought was really branded or a knock off.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Amazon gets away with lots of crazy stuff by wbo · · Score: 1

      Are they actually sold by Amazon or are you simply seeing listing on the Amazon Marketplace? Most of the time when I see stuff like that on Amazon, the items are listed and sold by a marketplace seller - not Amazon directly.

      Almost anyone can setup an Amazon Marketplace account and list almost anything they want for sale (much like eBay's Buy It Now option). Marketplace sellers can put up new listings at almost any time.

      If Amazon receives enough complaints for a particular marketplace seller (selling counterfeit goods for example) they have been known to disable the seller's account and pull all of their items from sale. The problem is, new sellers often pop up faster than they can be removed.

    2. Re:Amazon gets away with lots of crazy stuff by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I really wish that Amazon would do away with the other sellers. Put them off on another domain where they can be searched separately for those people who still want to use them. It's very disingenuous to show all the stuff that comes on the slow boat from China from some random manufacturer mixed in with the stuff that's sold directly from Amazon and usually delivered within 3.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Amazon gets away with lots of crazy stuff by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I really wish that Amazon would do away with the other sellers. Put them off on another domain where they can be searched separately for those people who still want to use them. It's very disingenuous to show all the stuff that comes on the slow boat from China from some random manufacturer mixed in with the stuff that's sold directly from Amazon and usually delivered within 3.

      Doesn't matter - the earpods I saw on Amazon were "prime one-day" deliverable - doubt that's coming from some slow-boat. It's being held in-state for delivery to me (through Amazon's fulfillment centers). It's so close to actually being retailed by Amazon that it's ridiculous they get to just say they're "other vendors". IN fact, those are being resold by being on Amazon's site.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  37. Not a serious offense, small fine by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    To be fined a really large amount, like half a billion dollars, your company would have to do something monstrous like Google advertising low-cost online prescriptions:
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

  38. Re: Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Automation bro. No reason a robit can't go and grab the items to be shipped and deliver them and a label to someone to physically pack it.

  39. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    the union and the regulatory environment you live in in the United States are almost the most supportive environment for that you'll find on the planet. Some places are more careful

    ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ha ha. Phew. Ok got that out of my sys.... nope. hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

    Thanks for providing me some satire / comedy for my afternoon.

  40. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by Theovon · · Score: 1

    I have the opposite problem. The people at the local Kinkos/Fedex have terrible customer service. You walk in when the place is completely empty and still wait 10 minutes for help. When you’re going to ship a package, they always try to sell you in the most expensive option. When the place has a few people waiting, they take customers out of order. If you didn’t box something yourself, they charge an enormous amount of money for packaging, and anything not FedEx-related is also enormously expensive. I dread going in there.

    On the other hand, the local UPS office is run by nice people who are very efficient. All they do is shipping, but that’s usually all I need. They respond instantly to customers coming in, customers get handled quickly, and they make you feel like you actually matter as a customer.

  41. Doesn't matter if it's "sold by Amazon" by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Are they actually sold by Amazon or are you simply seeing listing on the Amazon Marketplace? Most of the time when I see stuff like that on Amazon, the items are listed and sold by a marketplace seller - not Amazon directly.

    Almost anyone can setup an Amazon Marketplace account and list almost anything they want for sale (much like eBay's Buy It Now option). Marketplace sellers can put up new listings at almost any time.

    If Amazon receives enough complaints for a particular marketplace seller (selling counterfeit goods for example) they have been known to disable the seller's account and pull all of their items from sale. The problem is, new sellers often pop up faster than they can be removed.

    I have a hard time seeing how fraudulently labeled "Amazon Marketplace" is different from say, Walmart putting same items on their retail shelves. In both cases, the retailer (Amazon/Walmart) is collecting the cash before the vendor/seller is actually getting the payment for the product.

    Essentially, Amazon gets to poison the well for stuff they can't directly compete with, and compete unfairly with their own vendors (see Rain Design).

    In both cases, it's unclear what Rain Design or Apple could do to prevent the highway robbery.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  42. Would Not Buy Again by dangle · · Score: 1

    Once I ordered an office chair and received a bobcat instead.

  43. Did Amazon confuse 'Liqui' Fire w/ 'Liquid Fire? by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    Really, really poor choice of product name on the part of Liqui-Fire people.
    Apparently they know it, too.

    Doesn't excuse Amazon; just points out the fact you need to confirm.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  44. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christianity did a good job of advancing the cause of accepting an imperfect world

    I was with you until this point. Christianity, at least during my lifetime, has been responsible for more hatred than anything else I can identify. You and your own attitude appear to be very good and decent, but far too many people wield their Christianity as a weapon of intolerance, not a badge of acceptance.

  45. I'm waiting for the amazon drones by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for the Amazon drones to start delivering leaky drain cleaners. Can't you imagine it. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's caustic drone!

  46. Re:UPS is union and they need to sue to recover th by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    Back in the day I worked at RPS. Management feared and hated UPS because it was unionized resulting in something like twice the pay (and, no, half of that did not go to the union). They were on to something because people only stayed at RPS until they could get a job with UPS. I was fired when I put in my two weeks notice because they would not believe me that quitting was due to moving (too far to commute to a hub), not because I was switching to UPS. Stupid, but that they really hated and feared UPS.

    I could relate some anecdotal stories about what RPS was like from the shipping side, but what's the point? They're just anecdotes. But I have a hard time believing that working in a union shop would be worse than what went on there. And our working conditions were much better than what you claim.

  47. Re: Amazon can just pass the blame to the 3rd part by nnull · · Score: 1

    A lot of these warehouse operators aren't going to get into automation any time soon. Their market is cheap available warehouse space and that involves cheap labor, including illegals. They don't have the motivation to invest in it nor do they want too (Even though it would mean less claims and lower prices, but they don't see it that way).

  48. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    How many union meeting have you attended while you were a member? how many grevances did you bring? I say that because to a man its guys like you who complain/laugh the loudest but never have any time for meetings or giving your steward a heads up. or say its not my union. A union is only as strong as its members that's a fact.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  49. Re: UPS is union and they need to sue to recover t by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Not arguing against Unions, but rather laughing at the absurd notion that you think the US is a supportive environment for them.

    Your unions are weak and roll over easily. The refining shutdown in 2015 was laughable, and your collective efforts are quite absymal to some of the things that go on in countries which either respect workers rights, are outright socialist, or actually have a strong union movement.

    But you are right about it now. A union is as strong as it's members and the regulatory environment doesn't change that (lucky for you).

    Also one per month since I started work, and 2 grievances in total, interestingly one of those was against the union itself.

  50. Good, UPS deserves this!!! by stinkyjak · · Score: 0

    Maybe UPS will stop beating the shit out of all their packages. No one ever holds UPS accountable for the fucked up shit they do to my packages. They have shit quality care for their service and it burned them.

  51. hope the drain got opened. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    they could have paid off the wounded employees $30k each and come out ahead, with no bad press.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.