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.
This fine is nothing to a company like Amazon. It's a slap on the wrist rather than a significant penalty.
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.
Imagine a drone doing that delivery !
Mishandling doesn't matter in this case, accidents are expected to happen but illegal shipping is still illegal shipping.
My Diet Coke can't make it past airport security but something named "Amazing Liquid Fire" can?
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.
"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
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!