I actually left an early job because it didn't offer a 4x10.<p>4x10 is amazing. Your work days are your work days, but the extra day off is amazing. You can actually go do stuff.<p>My own view - everyone should switch to 4x10 or at least have it as an option.<p>Now I'm working crazy hours so all a dream anyways these days.<p>Note 4x10 shifts are not new in warehousing (or even in mfg).
> But labor experts say the move to consolidate shifts in the warehouse industry is a tactic long used by employers to cut back on labor costs; hiring and scheduling fewer workers for longer shifts means paying for fewer benefits.<p>It's still 40 hours per person per week, and they run 24/7, so the only way this could reduce the number of benefits they have to pay for is if people on this schedule legitimately work better. While this could very well be the case (doctors and nurses for example typically work long shifts to reduce the risks associated with shift changes), I don't really see that being the case here where it doesn't really matter who is handling a package.<p>Further, the alternative scenario with lots of shorter shifts is a frequent predatory practice which allows employers to hire lots of part time individuals who do not qualify for benefits as well as giving them leverage over their employees by threatening to give them bad shifts and insufficient hours. It would be one thing if day shift workers were being asked to switch back and forth between day and night shifts with short notice, but that's not what's happening here. They are being offered a different position with steady hours to completely replace their current one. It would be silly to say that once you've accepted a day shift position you're ineligible from being offered a night shift position.<p>The article also frames this as exploiting existing workers who will get fired if they don't comply. But would it have been better for either the employees or amazon to just lay off everyone at the closing location and fill the new warehouses with all new hires, thus forcing those who would have been fine with working there into a difficult job market and depriving Amazon of skilled employees? One might make the argument that the current warehouse should not have been closed in the first place, but the factors which caused that decision and its merits are beyond the scope of this discussion. Regardless, giving everyone the voluntary option to remain employed in some capacity when closing a facility is, at least in my opinion, good practice which should not be vilified.
American culture is optimized for consumers. When you're a consumer, it's a great thing: customer service, return policies, payment methods, and the entire process of <i>buying stuff</i> is leaps and bounds above somewhere like the European Union.<p>When you're a worker, though, no one particularly cares about you. If a CEO can squeeze more profit out of his workforce by forcing them to work odd hours at the drop of a hat, he's celebrated for it.<p>We really need to shift this balance in the opposite direction.
From the article it sounds like the spirit behind this decision is to better serve the customer by hitting fast delivery times more. Is this really such an important thing for people? I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed.<p>I’d be interested to see the percentage of people complaining about slow delivery times vs the percentage of people who choose the “slow” shipping option on amazon.
If there was ever a case for a humanoid robot it would be for packing packages in a warehouse. Same for agriculture harvesting: the back breaking nature of picking strawberries could be done by a robot with hands that have the same dexterity and nuance as a human.
US is reverting to early 20th century labor market norms, thanks to 'gig' economy and megacorps subverting unions.
<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/22/tech/amazon-nlrb-union-election/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/22/tech/amazon-nlrb-union-el...</a>
Only thing missing is union-busting Pinkerton thugs...
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-has-pinkerton-agents-surveil-workers-who-try-to-form-unions" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...</a>
I really don't understand this either. I worked a wonderful 12 hour shift once, switching between days and nights every 2 weeks. Some weeks I had 5 days off, it was fantastic, and the frequency of day/night allowed for normal weekends.
Serious question: if these jobs are so awful, and they do sound awful, why are people taking them?<p>I can think of several possible answers, but I haven't the faintest clue which ones are (most) right.
This is a great example of how labor laws in the US are weak (deal with this sudden, dramatic change to your schedule or you're fired). It is also an example of how employers take great advantage of those weak labor laws. It is not, however, an example of how big corporations are evil. There's plenty of examples of that out there, this just isn't one. But for some reason is is surprisingly common for people to blame companies for following the law instead of blaming the actual culprit - the (arguably) bad laws made by (arguably) bad lawmakers. You see this everywhere, but for some reason it's especially common on HN.