Amazon staff punished for being ill

[Talisman]

I always knew that they weren't a good company to do business with, but this takes the biscuit. The shocking thing is that all of this is perfectly legal ...

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article5337770.ece

[KW]

Yikes. I wonder if it's the same here in the US??? Probably.

[Ernie]

I think that kind of pressure may make some people ill, leading to more days off, which defeats the purpose.

 

I read that staff at Woolworths were getting abuse from customers who expected bigger discounts. Not very considerate when they have just lost their jobs.

[Talisman]

Nothing surprises me - the store I used to work closed recently (thankfully I got a transfer to a different branch), but we got the same thing. The town blog site said the discount offered was an insult to the people of Dorking, but the people who wrote and said those things were imo the real insult ! I really feel for the Woolworths people going through that though, given my own recent experiences.

[CarmenF]

The shocking thing is that all of this is perfectly legal ...

That it's perfectly legal surely makes it a non-issue.

[~Andrea~]

That it's perfectly legal surely makes it a non-issue.

 

Hmm - and this is for casual workers right? Not the full-time staff? If the casual workers don't want to work the 10.5 hour shift then surely they shouldn't take the job???? I assume it's a very short term contract and for the very purpose of working hard over the xmas period.

[Roland Butter]

That it's perfectly legal surely makes it a non-issue.

 

Hardly. Just because it's legal to treat your staff abysmally doesn't mean it's right.

[Iagegu]

I can't say I would want to work there. If you know the score and take the job then you can hardly complain really.

[beef]

Hmm - and this is for casual workers right? Not the full-time staff? If the casual workers don't want to work the 10.5 hour shift then surely they shouldn't take the job???? I assume it's a very short term contract and for the very purpose of working hard over the xmas period.

yeah. I read this in the times on sunday..I kept wondering why I was supposed to be shocked? *gasp* casual workers not allowed to miss more than 6 days of work? *Gasp* shocking stuff. They are evil and must be stopped.

[biffo]

EEKK! a few years ago, I applied to them in Milton Keynes... so glad I didnt get the job!! haha

[Susanne]

Unfortunatly, this is how it is for most companies nowadays.

 

Independant companies are being employed now by big companies ie BT, NHS etc to monitor staff absence levels (costing them millions of pounds). My other half (who works for BT) is only allowed (even with a doctor's certificate) to have either up to two absences a year or 10 days, which ever comes first. If you go over, no matter what reason you are put on report. Be of sick again, you face the sack.

 

I work for the NHS, who now have employed the lovely 'First Care' people making it sound like they want to help you get better and back to work. Yeah right. Nothing but big brother there, and guess what, all local admin staff still have to do all their work so millions of pounds wasted.

 

Talking of NHS.... it is not unheard of that some of our nurses etc work 10 or more days in a row. And guess what..... tough, whether you like it or not.

 

I could give more examples to every point raised but that would take forever. Do I agree with what the companies are doing? Hell no, but what choice is there. Live with it or sign on... that's the message everybody is getting loud and clear, regardless where you work

[biffo]

Whether its what is happening or not, doesn't make it completely right!

 

oh well guess we can't change it.

 

biffo

Edited December 19, 2008 by biffo
bad punctuation

[jemimapd]

I can't say I would want to work there. If you know the score and take the job then you can hardly complain really.

 

Of course you can. In this economy people are forced to take any job they can get but they shouldn't be exploited because of it. Who in their right mind takes a job like this if they don't absolutely feel they have to.? It's masochistic if they do. So, no matter what the economy, right is right.

[Talisman]

Independant companies are being employed now by big companies ie BT, NHS etc to monitor staff absence levels (costing them millions of pounds). My other half (who works for BT) is only allowed (even with a doctor's certificate) to have either up to two absences a year or 10 days, which ever comes first. If you go over, no matter what reason you are put on report. Be of sick again, you face the sack.

 

 

Everyone has a choice - they just kid themselves that they don't, as that way they don't have to take responsibility - it is too easy to pass the decision making on to someone else, and also because we don't want to face our fears - fears around safety and security. That is why it took me four days to resign, after my discplinary last week - I wanted them to make the decision for me. I am a stronger person because of it as now I know what my rights are and that you can fight back. I have faced my fears and seen in through, and I know that there is nothing worse that can happen to me. Safety does not come from a job I hate, or from giving my power to those in authority, who seek to keep me in chains, it comes from within.

[Kell]

Royal Mail also have a disciplinary system connected to abscences due to sickness, which can reult in dismissal eventually. It's not all that unusual. As for long shifts - you fimd out the working hours when you interview - if you accept the job, you accept the woreking terms. If you don't like it, don't take the job. I used to work as a cinema manager where I was supposed to work 4 x 10 hr shifts. I quit when I was working 15 hour shifts and being expected to come in on my days off all without extra pay - it was excessive and I wouldn't accept it as it wasn't part of the job I signed up to do - by the end I was working abou 75 hours per week and only being paid for 40.

 

Like Talisman says - people DO have a choice whether or not to stay with an employer - there are always jobs - perhaps not the ones you'd ideally like, but there are always options to go elsewhere if your current situation is so bad - even if it means you go from being a CEO to the person who cleans the toilets. People often just have to get past their own pride and take what's available till the job they want comes along.

[jemimapd]

I used to work as a cinema manager where I was supposed to work 4 x 10 hr shifts. I quit when I was working 15 hour shifts and being expected to come in on my days off all without extra pay - it was excessive and I wouldn't accept it as it wasn't part of the job I signed up to do - by the end I was working abou 75 hours per week and only being paid for 40.

 

I appreciate your opinion but it occurs to me that the answer to that problem is not simply to say 'no, thank you' to the job; that does not solve the problem that there is an employer out there trying to take advantage of its employees. If you, as the employer, receive services from someone, the employee, you cannot expect to get them for free. That's a basic idea that our economies are founded on; so the proper thing would be for the employer to change its ways and that only comes about through discussion like ours.

 

There will always be someone for whom this is the only job he/she can find. If they "agree" to the terms it might be under the duress of overdue mortgages, rent, utilities bills, etc, similar to what Lovereading06 indicated.

 

There must be a labor law in the UK that would prevent such unfair treatment as you experienced. I'd be interested in hearing more about that.

[Talisman]

There are rules laid down under the working time directive that say for example that you cannot work more than 48 hours a week unless you agree to it, and governing breaks and so on, but there is nothing that Amazon are going that is illegal. They are sailing quite close to the wind, but it is not illegal.

 

The directive states that you are entitled to a 20 minute break after 6 hours of work - in 8 hours Amazon employees get one 20 minute break and one 15 minute one.

 

The Directive also states that staff are entitled to a 24 hour uninterrupted rest break every 7 days, which they also get - assuming they finish work before 6.30pm on a Friday and do not start again until 5am on Monday, they actually get twice that. Technically they do work seven days a week, as that night shift starts on the Saturday and finishes on Sunday, but they get the rest to which they are entitled and this is not outside the law.

 

This doesn't mean that it is okay. As someone who has been badly treated by their thankfully now ex employer I could never condone this sort of behaviour. I used to sell those X-box packages at my old job, and they are heavy - I couldn't lift and pack 140 of them in an hour, or 140 of anything for that matter - that's more than one item every 30 seconds, not allowing for your breaks - it can't be done.

 

While I can understand what lovereading is saying about paying bills, mortgage etc, there has to be something better than this - cleaning, serving coffee etc anything would be better than this. Lets face it, most people who are on this low an income couldn't get a mortgage anyway, and there is always housing benefit to help with rent.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Talisman

[Guest ii]

I wasn't going to get into this discussion at all at first, as I just knew I'd get my head bitten off for it, but this is slightly different so maybe I'll survive all body parts intact...

 

As for the whole "it's legal, but not okay" debate, there's few things to consider there. First off, the companies aren't there to be nice and kind and 'do good'. They're there to make profit. That's called market economy. Make profit, and you'll make it into the next year. Don't make profit, and all those lovely people in your payroll you were nice to won't have a job as your company goes under. The companies are there for the profit, that's their job! So yes, they're going to cut back the costs and boost efficiency every way they can within the limits of law, if they have to. It's just good business.

 

What people need to realise (not anyone here in particular, but people in general who complain about the wages in one company and compare it to the high salaries somewhere else), is that this kind of job as in the case of Amazon requires very low-skilled labor. The more skilled the labor, more specific the skills needed, the more there's going to be competition between companies to get those people working for them. This is what creates the (to some) apparent 'air' in the salaries. The practically-no-skills-required labor? There's no competition! So the companies don't have to push up the wages, they can minimize costs there and thus make their company more profitable for their share owners. Which, again, is their job.

 

And before you all get on your high horse about the greedy share owners, just take a look at who really is in possession of what. I bet you'll find a ton of insurance companies, banks, pension funds and other generally 'do-good' organisations in there, not just some flashy investors who just want more money.

 

If the terms these companies are operating with are not 'fair', or 'right', while being perfectly legal, then it's the law that needs to be changed. More regulated labor market, more power to labor unions, higher minimum wages. Regulated markets and high government control. That's one way to go, for sure. Just remember what happened when we tried that whole "no market economy" experiment.

[Roland Butter]

Just remember what happened when we tried that whole "no market economy" experiment.

 

Fair point, ii, but your timing's let you down . As the events of the last few months have shown, raw, unbridled capitalism is every bit as much a failure as the tightly regulated "command economies" of the so-called "communist" system.

 

I don't accept that the market economy makes it necessary to treat staff badly. Clearly, differences in skill, knowledge and responsibility need a differential reward structure - nobody's saying that a street sweeper should be paid the same as a brain surgeon. But there's no reason why a company can't treat all its employees with dignity and respect, irrespective of their their skill levels. Does the Chief Executive of Amazon get timed when he goes to the toilet? If not, then why should his packers?

 

Indeed, providing good working conditions isn't necessarily inimical to returning a profit. There are many companies in the private sector which do both - the John Lewis Partnership is a shining example of this - even in the present economic downturn, its sales are holding up. Treat your employees well, and you'll have a more stable, better motivated, more productive - and therefore more profitable - workforce. There's been a lot of talk in this thread about choice - well, employers, too, have a choice about which route to profitability they take.

 

But I know you were just playing Devil's Advocate, anyway

 

(You can have your head back now ....)