Slashdot Mirror


Exhausted Amazon Drivers Are Working 11-Hour Shifts For Less Than Minimum Wage (mirror.co.uk)

schwit1 quotes the Daily Mirror: Drivers are being asked to deliver up to 200 parcels a day for Amazon while earning less than the minimum wage, a Sunday Mirror investigation reveals today... Many routinely exceed the legal maximum shift of 11 hours and finish their days dead on their feet. Yet they have so little time for food or toilet stops they snatch hurried meals on the run and urinate into plastic bottles they keep in their vans. They say they often break speed limits to meet targets that take no account of delays such as ice, traffic jams or road closures.

Many claim they are employed in a way that means they have no rights to holiday or sickness pay. And some say they take home as little as £160 for a five-day week amid conditions described by one lawyer as "almost Dickensian"... The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency has vowed to investigate after drivers contacted them to complain about conditions.

49 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this so cheap? by pablo_max · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something you will never hear an American ask themselves.

    Generally speaking, when you are buying so much "shit" for so much cheaper than the rest of the world, there is a good chance that this is only possible because a lot of people down the line are being fucked.
    But hey... cheap tv for you so who give a fuck, am i right?

    1. Re:Why is this so cheap? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that’s probably true for quite a few Americans; but by no means all of them. However if stereotyping makes you fell better, who am I to judge?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Why is this so cheap? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except this article is talking about Amazon in the UK, not the USA. Good job RTFAing...

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    3. Re:Why is this so cheap? by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      If there were common options that were local but slightly more expensive, then I would ask why it is so cheap. On the other hand, why should I go out of my way to spend more?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Why is this so cheap? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course this has nothing to do with any actual merchandise (in the US, OR in the UK, which is what the article is about). Which you know, but are pretending you don't.

      This is about last-mile delivery service, apparently a good deal of which is being done by contractors who sign up to complete the work at a fixed price without having the foresight to contemplate the nature of the seasonal traffic for a few weeks in December.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re: Why is this so cheap? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm the wierd American who prefers quality over cost. I refuse to deal with Black Friday bullshit and just stay away from it.

      I'll happily pay MORE for an item if the quality warrants it.

    6. Re: Why is this so cheap? by hjf · · Score: 4, Interesting
    7. Re:Why is this so cheap? by hey! · · Score: 2

      And when it's you're turn, everyone will return the favor to you.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Why is this so cheap? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Something you will never hear any consumer ask themselves. Well, apart from wondering if it's a "Rollex" they're buying. The whole idea of capitalism is that money should go to the business that's most efficient, how can you tell if they're just brilliant at process automation and reducing overhead or exploiting the employees? And it's usually not their employees, it's a conglomerate of vendors, sub-contractors, partners, shipping/distribution/sales channels and so on that's five steps removed from the label on the box.

      I'll admit that here I expect other regulatory bodies to step in and make sure what's happening is done legally, like those who oversee commercial transportation and work/rest hours, regulations on wages and overtime pay and so on. The general public is not supposed to have that level of internal detail to inspect it themselves, since it'd be a treasure trove of competition-sensitive information. All you'd get are haphazard reactions to real or manufactured scandals leaking to the press.

      True, in a few limited areas like child labor, animal testing of products, trees from the rain forest and the use of certain chemicals pressure from the top has actually made an impact. But on basic working conditions like wages and such I don't think that'll ever be effective. It's either the government stepping in through law or the workers uniting through unions. To expect consumers to solve that problem for them I think is foolish. I'm not always going to go with the lowest bidder, but I'm going with the best offer for me.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Why is this so cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering that Amazon packages are delivered by USPS and UPS in America...yes.

      Every Prime package I have received in the past three months or so has been delivered by an Amazon delivery person, and I live in a medium-sized city in the midwest (big enough to have professional sports teams, but nowhere close in size to New York, Chicago, et al). Odds are a carrier like UPS is moving it from the warehouse to the local area, but the delivery to the home does not always use that same service.

      I am sure if I order next-day delivery on top of Prime it would come FedEx or UPS, but it appears that Amazon are leveraging their in-house delivery for, at the very least, a non-trivial amount of deliveries.

    10. Re:Why is this so cheap? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is actually about Amazon UK, not USA.

    11. Re:Why is this so cheap? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Why are the top executives making so much more than the delivery drivers?

      Tricky one, that.

      I'm in two minds here. It's either because the top executives are anointed by God and paying them less (or others more) would be communism, or it's because they make the decisions on pay.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re: Why is this so cheap? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      You are even less likely to hear an American ask that in Britian where the subjects of this article live.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Why is this so cheap? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Amazon is also subsidized in the USA.

      And then we wonder why bookstores keep shutting down. We are not a bright people.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    14. Re:Why is this so cheap? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Indeed, it was in the US where an Amazon driver was caught on camera hastily taking a dump in a driveway.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Why is this so cheap? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Except this article is talking about Amazon in the UK, not the USA. Good job RTFAing...

      ... with American investors at Wall Street demanding 15% returns every quarter forever and ever and ever with no end in sight or the CEO is fired. I am sure it is not just consumers who are demanding cheaper and cheaper costs right?

      Also Walmart started this not the consumer. Walmart beat the giant Kmart and Woolsworth by forcing suppliers to cust costs so so low. It got the people into the stores and created a culture of budget prices and races to get into Walmart last decade by making it the cheapest.

      The consumer is the last on the list. If you want to do business with Aamazon or Walmart you need to screw people over and use robots. Plain and simple or they won't carry your product.

  2. Re:MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another dipshit who didn't read the summary, let alone the article. It's about Great Britain...asshole

  3. Re: MAGA by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These people are obviously desperate for a job for some reason. Don't pretend like anyone can be a candidate for any job that is available. It doesn't mean they should have to starve, or conmit crimes to make christmas bearable.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  4. Re:MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    s/asshole/arsehole/g

  5. almost Dickensian by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Noting that Charles Dickens' works were often so long because he usually got paid by the word. (My wife was an English teacher.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:almost Dickensian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, when I pointed that out in high school, my English teachers tended to get a tad miffed.

  6. Re:Things to come by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you paid them for waiting, then you'd need to cap the number of drivers active in any given area, restrict the areas drivers are allowed to wait and force drivers to take jobs on a rota, otherwise you could have drivers just "waiting" and getting paid in the middle of nowhere so they won't get any passengers.
    Conversely, sparsely populated areas would never get any service because it would be unprofitable to pay someone to wait there.

    When i lived in a small village there was a part time taxi driver who usually worked on vehicle maintenance/restorations... Because of the low population he might drive one or two jobs a week and make a few extra pennies, and when doing so he'd temporarily down tools on his other job and return to it when he got back. Sometimes if the passenger went to the nearest town he'd use the opportunity to go shopping.
    Calling a driver from the nearest town could mean waiting more than an hour for them to arrive, and paying a fare just for them to arrive, plus wherever you wanted to go.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  7. Re:11-hour days? by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well part of what makes these first world countries is the higher standards of living and various employment laws to prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing their employees.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  8. This isn't very hard by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 2

    Bad job?
    Quit.
    Can't find another job?
    Protest.
    Protest doesn't work?
    Go to war.

    This is how things have always worked before, why shouldn't this work now?

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  9. I don't have to ask by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know. But what do you propose I do about it? We couldn't even keep Trump out of the Whitehouse. His tax plan is going to f'n kill me (kid in college and I'm in a state with SALT). I'm getting the shit kicked out of me. So are a lot of working class Americans. And all I hear from anyone else ever is: "Why don't you go back to school and update your skills?". Like that's so damn easy.

    America abandoned it's working class. Do you really think they care about the rest of the world that abandoned them?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't have to ask by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Liberal whites wanted to be rid of the culturally conservative, economically liberal, working-class white voters whom Democrats had courted in the previous decade. Upper-middle-class whites were embarrassed by these people. After all these centuries of white privilege, they never managed to get into a good schoolâ"or even a state collegeâ"and now they were making demands about trade and immigration.

      One of the themes that emerges from Shattered (a chronicle of the Clinton campaign) is that the Clinton operation didnâ(TM)t want to make a strong play for working-class white voters in swing states. The Clintonites thought these voters were disposable. That's you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:I don't have to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "culturally conservative, economically liberal"

      What does that mean? Because it sounds like it means:

      Someone who thinks homosexual marriage should be illegal, transvestites must use their genetic-gender-determined restroom, civilian gun ownership should be legal but not abortion.....but.....the wealthy should be heavily taxed and the money spent on free providence for the unwealthy (and especially the jobless), including a luxury budget.

      That sounds like a strange combination. Are there a lot of people like this?

    3. Re:I don't have to ask by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trumpists still don't seem to have realised that they were fucked over, even as the tax plans hit and all pretence falls away.

      Clinton lost because she became part of the false narrative. "You are under attack by liberals, immigrants, the political elite. I'll drain the swamp, build a big wall. Simple solutions to complex problems. I'll lead your revolution against this crook!"

      And you got Trump, who doesn't give a shit about you now he has your vote. The plan is to screw you hard, blame someone else and peddle the same lies next election.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I don't have to ask by Rolgar · · Score: 2

      It depends on your situation.

      When I did my taxes a couple of years ago (making 54k), I received a refund (after no withholding) of around 3500-4000 due to child tax credits. Just found a calculator, and put in the same income and other numbers and found one says I would be due a refund of about 4500 on one calculator, and another that says I may be due 6800. Either way, indications are that we'll be better off.

      The majority of Americans don't make the sort of money that will result in itemizing taxes, and so deductions don't matter to most, they have to take the standard. Realize that not everybody's taxes will go down under the plan that passes. When you eliminate deductions in favor of lower rates and larger standard deductions, some people who were using a lot of deductions are going to end up with a larger tax bill, but those who don't itemize are going to come out ahead. For my situation, I'll be giving up a 3,000 deduction for each child, which at my tax rate is about 450 in taxes, in order to receive an increase in tax credits of $600 or $1000 dollars, so I'm going to be getting an improvement in my end position. Multiply this by the number of kids I have, and we will have a lot of new money to help secure our financial future.

      Also, balance the old plan against the new for a lifetime. For somebody who still has young kids at home, they are going to reap thousands of dollars in tax credits (much better than deductions, of which you only get a small percentage back in tax reduction, credits are dollar for dollar decreases), for more than a decade, then when their kids go to school, hopefully they will have done well enough preparation for the previous decades to pay the taxes on money that they will end up paying for education, which will probably be partially offset by their greater standard deduction that they will now be more inclined to take. For me, in the 15% bracket (assuming it is still here when my kids are in college), if I could deduct tuition, I'd get back about 6000 for deducting tuition. Comparing that to the amount of money I'd get back in additional tax credits (18,000 at 1000x18years), I'd absolutely prefer the new tax code.

      You are an individual where you've already missed the main benefits of this new tax code, but also losing out on what something that you've already started to use. But most probably don't take advantage of the same tax benefit you are enjoying, and those that soon will reach the place you are, and may not even be aware of what they no longer might have had, but hopefully reaping a replacement reward in lower overall taxes.

      Consider a couple who is at 30 a year combined income (a low income couple with no dependents). Their taxable income will go down 2700, increasing their refund by $270.

      Consider a family at 30k with 2 kids. Under the new plan without tax deductions, their taxable income goes up, but with tax credits, their tax refund would go from 1960 to 3400.

      Understand, the press and Democrats are demonizing this bill. But when people start doing taxes under this plan, the poor are going to be pleased, and the tax code will be more progressive shifting tax burdens from the lower class to the middle and upper, and is the media going to complain about the poor paying less taxes?

  10. The gig economy has been about this since day 1 by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    side stepping minimum wage laws. Thing is, I'm guessing 99% of /.ers aren't in a position to worry about this. What we _are_ in a position to worry about is how 40 years of stagnant wages mean it's harder and harder for us to make ends meet. So we'll turn a blind eye. Thing is this will come around to bite us eventually, but when you're barely hanging on eventually doesn't really matter. Me? I'm just trying to get my kid through college and to hell with everything else. And that about sums it up. The working class is too busy surviving to band together and make a positive change. It's almost as if somebody designed it that way...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The gig economy has been about this since day 1 by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is: if these kind of stories weren't on the Internet, would it be any different than 20-30 years ago?

      When I was young, I worked as a job student (18yo) which comes with all sorts of regulations, I still regularly worked 14h shifts until 4:00am, I was payed my hourly wages and my boss gave me an extra $50 under the table every week and I was more than happy. IF I had twitter back then, everyone would be outraged but I know everyone was doing it back then too. My boss was making ~$1M/year with his little burger shop on the beach, I never was outraged that he made so much more from my extra hours of "illegal" work.

      This "gig economy" is similar: young people work "on the side" using these apps, perhaps they already work deliveries for a pizza shop or courier and then they'll get a little extra that they will never report to their bosses or the tax man. In the end they'll work more than they should and they get some extra income. But now they get to Twitter because Amazon is making a billion dollars and THEY AREN'T and driving a car somehow entitles them to a profit share from Amazon. Well guess what dimwits: if you don't like it, move on, get a real second job.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  11. Not to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason americans have become so complacent about getting shit cheap even if somebody else is getting fucked is because usually said people have been/still are being fucked themselves, and without a better company that is ACTUALLY AND VERIFIABLY BETTER, paying more just means being a bigger sucker and not necessarily helping improve the status quo.

    America continues sliding further down the shitter because there *IS NO TRANSPARENCY* making the sort of informed decisions that would allow capitalism to work and be beneficial to all, impossible to achieve.

    Capitalism only works with perfect information symmetry, the same as the necessary government transparency (including intelligence agencies!) to make democracy work. You can remain opaque for a short while when a specific operation, or external threat renders it necessary, but the longer you allow it to happen the more out of control the powers and abilities of the 'black box' will get, same as DRM, same as undisclosed government contracts, same as 'casting couch' activities.

    Information asymmetry is the biggest threat to every aspect of the world (dis)order, and only by providing symmetry can the common folk make informed decisions that will allow them to wrest control back from the wealthy/politically connected few, the indignantly proud, the obscenely corrupt.

    captcha was 'leftward', why yes it is... under some definitions of 'left'.

  12. Asd someone that's worked Seattle Hundreds... by greenwow · · Score: 2

    for much of my adult life, I have no sympathy. I'm working several hours more than than that seven days a week. Most of my friends in tech are too.

    1. Re:Asd someone that's worked Seattle Hundreds... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which illustrates why "solidarity" was a principle of the labor movement, back when there was one in this country. It was also the name of the labor union in Poland that broke the power of the Communist Party.

      That is how do you deal with the fact you're too politically insignificant and an indivdidual to do anything about being screwed. Get together with enough other insignificant people that you're not insignificant. It's mind boggling to me that people react with stories of people being treated like shit by claiming they get treated even shittier, as if that were something to be proud of.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Re:11-hour days? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    The peeing into a plastic bottle trick is pretty common for “professional” drivers

    Also small plane pilots. The bottle is way cheaper and more comfortable than buying adult diapers.

    Free advice: Do NOT use a bottle that still has an "Apple Juice" label on it.

    Amazon uses boxes grossly larger than needed

    I have never understood this. I get boxes from Amazon that are WAY too big for the contents all the time. This must be costing them money, for the cardboard, padding, weight, and volume. Why do they do this?

    It seems to me that it would be trivial to write some code to add up the size of the contents to pick the right box. A robot could then pull the box and add it to the picking bin.

  14. Re:11-hour days? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amazon uses boxes grossly larger than needed

    I have never understood this. I get boxes from Amazon that are WAY too big for the contents all the time. This must be costing them money, for the cardboard, padding, weight, and volume. Why do they do this?

    It seems to me that it would be trivial to write some code to add up the size of the contents to pick the right box. A robot could then pull the box and add it to the picking bin.

    There is also a cost to stocking shipping boxes that just happen to be the right size for the products you buy. Making things a uniform size has an efficiency (and hence minimizes cost) of its own. EG look at how cargo containers transformed shipping.

    Do you really think that given the number of boxes that Amazon ships that they haven't looked at the price/performance of differing box sizes?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  15. Re:11-hour days? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    There is also a cost to stocking shipping boxes that just happen to be the right size

    Instead of stocking boxes, they could just stock flat sheets of cardboard, and laser cut the cardboard to the ideal size on-demand.

    But, anyway, I don't think stocking is the main problem. I get boxes that are WAY too big, while on the same day receiving other smaller boxes that would have easily held the contents of the first box. So they clearly had the smaller boxes in stock.

    I realize that the Packing Problem is NP-Hard, but there are heuristics that allow an adequate solution. They should be able to do way better.

  16. Re: MAGA by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It also matters how unemployment is counted. In the US the number is severely skewed in favor of those in office. Those who sign up for such jobs typically have not much else to chose from. More opportunity comes from more education and that is in most places getting prohibitively expensive. As far as the UK goes, once they brexited and the economy tanks worse than during Thatcher's time the number of people who can afford ordering crap on Amazon will go down drastically.

  17. Re: MAGA by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    0.0% since 4 percent means 4 in 100 people can't find work already. What do you suppose will happen to the numbers if everyone who has a less than ideal job quits and refuses to take any less than ideal jobs? You don't seem to realize that most people would rather have a great job, but have to decide if they want to be able to survive and feed themselves and their family or try to live in a perfect world with the perfect job.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  18. THis is why Unions were invented. by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The history of the trade Unions in the US starts with Train Unions. And those formed not to demand higher pay but to demand better working conditions, less overwork and gaurenteed return to home after days traveling far from home. Removal of bars in company towns was another demand (train workers were often left to rot in Railtoad owned hotels (bunkhouses) far from home until such a time as they were needed. They had to pay the hotel cost to the owners and they were in the middle of no where so the only thing to do was drink. Which created alcoholics other railroaders were afraid to work with.

    THey need a union. that's what unions are for.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:THis is why Unions were invented. by Durrik · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only that, there were extreme safety concerns too. It use to be said that you could tell how long a brakeman had been working for the railroad by how many fingers he had left. If he had all of them he was a rookie.

      Brakemen use to have to couple the cars together. Even though there were the same sort of couplers that are used today back then the railroads thought it was cheaper to use the old method. The brakeman held a loop of steel between the two cars as they were pushed together and then pulled his hand back at the last second. Then two pins were hammered into place in the couplers to hold the steel loop in place and the cars together. If there were a fraction of a second too slow getting their hands out of the way they lost fingers. The railway unions helped force the railways to go to the then patented automatic couplers. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_coupling#Link_and_pin).

      Brakes on the cars were also controlled by those big wheels you see at the top of the cars in the old photos. Going around a corner the brakemen had to apply the brakes to the cars to make sure they didn't derail. And there were never enough brakemen for every car on the train, so they would have to jump between cars on the moving train to apply and release the brakes. Again there was a then patented invention that used air pressure from the engine to trigger the brakes on the cars, again the companies didn't care about human life and focused on profit. The railway unions helped fix that.

      The brakemen also had to often run ahead of the train to do the switching. Since switching was another one of those things that could have been automated but didn't. Trains were suppose to stop so that the switching could be done in time and the brakemen get back aboard, but time is money and you know what that means.

      There's a reason that the railway owners were called robber barons. And there were a lot of things they did that we would object to, that unions helped to fix.

      I am in no way saying that unions are pure and benevolent organizations. Often they're corrupt, and as greedy as the people running the corporations. They have their place, and there are a lot of instances in the 2010s that they should come back. The Amazon story is a good example of it. Uber is another good example. A lot of other areas in high tech could use them too. All of these aren't for wages as the parent to the post said, but for working conditions and safety. When there is too much power in the hands of the employers the employees suffer, and there needs to be a balance.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    2. Re:THis is why Unions were invented. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I am in no way saying that unions are pure and benevolent organizations. Often they're corrupt, and as greedy as the people running the corporations. They have their place, and there are a lot of instances in the 2010s that they should come back.

      That's very grey thinking in the black vs white, red vs blue Slashdot of now. Careful before the new folk come and lynch you.

    3. Re:THis is why Unions were invented. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      THey need a union. that's what unions are for.

      Why do we need all these redundant unions when all workers need the same protections? Why can't we just protect all workers from these abuses? Isn't that what government is for? Why should we have all of these private interests involved?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Funny you should mention that by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    See here.. The difference is what you were doing was always recognized as illegal but the law was not being enforced. What Uber's doing is generally being recognized as legal.

    And you should have been outraged. You were being exploited. Just because there is a time in your life when you were no longer being exploited doesn't mean you weren't. I see this periodically, where people wonder why we need all these regulations, laws and rules when the problems they're supposed to solve are gone. What this usually means is either a) the problem doesn't affect me anymore so I don't see why it's a problem (your case) or worse b) the regulations and laws prevent the problem from happening and people can't understand that without those laws the problem would come back...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Re: MAGA by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going through rush hour traffic every single day, dealing with road rage, near-misses, all the time with an unforgiving schedule that doesn't let you deliver just 180 parcels that day.

    For less than minimum wage.

    Yeah, that does fit the definition of a brutal job.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  21. Re:Clinton didn't want to be rid of them by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a party who's central plank is laissez faire capitalism

    Sadly, its worse than that. They want the government out of the picture as long as profits are rolling in, but as soon as shit goes south they're quite happy to beg for giant bailouts on the back of the taxpayer rather than simply letting failed companies fail as should happen in a laissez faire system.

    If we look at ISPs (with all the recent flutter over net neutrality..) Their main argument against NN is that regulations are bad competition will fix it. Yet those same ISPs are continually trying to block competition, frequently by lobbying for you guessed it .. regulations .. that impede if not outright block new competitors.

  22. Re: MAGA by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

    You should seriously try it.

    I haven't, but I've laid bricks, shoveled ditches, built circuit boards, etc... I even held a "Slow/Stop" sign for 10 hours in Florida summer heat at a construction site.

    I think it taught me a few important things in life. And I never did those things for more then a few days each. I did learn to respect the people around me. I also learned that what was easy for me wasn't always easy for other people.

    As for the driving and delivering packages.... you'd be absolutely shocked how much work that really is.

  23. Re:11-hour days? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Read down to the approximations solution. As with many NP-hard problems, getting the optimal solution is computationally infeasible, but getting a good-enough solution is fairly easy.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  24. Re:I don't get this, genuinely I don't. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    It depends on the economy. If things are great (from a wider perspective than that of just the 1%), nobody would take these jobs and conditions would improve (or the problem would be avoided).

    If you have a large enough bunch of people desperate for money, though, suddenly they don't really have much choice but to be exploited.

    We have laws about such things because history shows us enough rich people are OK with defacto slavery that if you let them, they'll enslave everyone they can.