Fears of employee displacement as Amazon brings robots into warehouses
Fears of employee displacement as Amazon brings robots into warehouses
www.theguardian.com
Fears of employee displacement as Amazon brings robots into warehouses
68 comments
-
-
Weren't these jobs like, feared already cause they treat you less like a machine, they treated you like shit to the point youd have a good chance that you have to step over a dead body eventually?
-
Their turnover rate is ridiculously high and supply chains as an industry have been steadily moving towards automation. Robots are going to keep replacing unloaders, loaders, and pickers just as AI is going to start replacing buyers and dispatchers in the near future.
-
I worked for FedEx and it seems to me that Amazon didn't start this practice which is why it's confusing to me why they get the spotlight, it's just industry standard it seems (Amazon, FedEx, and UPS)
The place I work at had a 400% turnover rate for the 90 day period. Luckily I've seen other places and it doesn't seem like its a company wide thing, but a location to location issue. They pay higher than minimum wage as a standard, but that still didn't entice me or others to continue working there because of how much labor vs pay it is. Plus the stress of angry managers doesn't help it at all.
-
-
-
I honestly don’t know what to think. Yes, people need jobs, but more importantly, they need GOOD jobs. Amazon treats people terribly and, even at their best, does the bare minimum to comply with the law and keep their warehouses staffed.
Employees are being taken advantage of. Getting people out of there might be a net positive.
-
We need protections for those workers (i.e. UBI, et al) BEFORE they lose their jobs to capitalist dreams, preferably funded by the capitalists.
-
I 100% agree with this, and that's why I can't see robots taking job as bad news.
The problem is with the society. We need to build it better, so these advantages are for us - not for some scummy rich guy.
On another note: nobody should be a billionaire.
-
As it stands right now, we need those workers to be out of jobs and on the streets for protections to be considered. Otherwise "they have jobs," unemployment is low and the machine is "working as expected." Therefore nothing needs to be done.
-
I think this could have worked if the employees being replaced owned the robots. They don't have the capital anymore but when there was a middle class this could have been a possibility.
-
-
-
-
If Amazon doesn't need employees then they don't need tax breaks. In fact add a new tax for any business that switches to robot labor. They can pay the missing personal wages in taxes. Texas makes electric car drivers pay more for not using gas, this seems like the same thing.
-
-
Computers didnt reduce jobs, they created many more.
Amazon (along with others) absolutely destroyed jobs, killed competition and violated antitrust laws. All because they were wealthy and could buy their way out. Then they treated their employees with contempt (piss-bottles) and made them work in unsafe work environments (Illinois tornado). They deserve to be broken up like all monopoly-like businesses.
-
-
-
-
This is why any politicians say they are bringing back the manufacturing jobs back to “US” “Japan” “Germany” or whatever are extremely dumb.
-
If you are worried about your amazon job you need to join a government program that will train you for a better job. Amazon sucks to work for and you deserve better.
-
Why do they need a humanoid robot to move an empty box from one conveyor belt to the other? They could have made a conveyor belt or robot arm instead.
Whatever. I'm glad no human is needed to waste their life doing that shit job.
-
That’s not what these robots are doing. They are picking items out of bins, verifying them, and packing them into totes which will be put on a conveyor. A conveyor is good for moving boxes or totes, but that’s about it. It does really poorly with small items, large items, irregular shapes, and especially anything in a bag.
-
That’s not what these robots are doing. They are picking items out of bins, verifying them, and packing them into totes which will be put on a conveyor. A conveyor is good for moving boxes or totes, but that’s about it. It does really poorly with small items, large items, irregular shapes, and especially anything in a bag.
This guy Material Handlings. Handles Material? Does Material Handling?
-
-
You think this is the only job they will ever do? They gotta start somewhere.
-
I think this whole post sounds astroturfed by people pushing the idea that workers being denied jobs is a good thing. At least I hope it is, because otherwise that means people actually believe that.
Let's face it, the only reason we get by is because rich people need our labor.
-
-
Yep! No one wants these jobs lol
-
-
The big reason corporations are using robots instead of human labor is because people either don't want to work or can't hold a position.
The turnover rate is actually insane in these positions; enough so that they would rather spend more paying a technician to set up an automated cell with robots, PLC's, pneumatic slides, ect.
It's sad af but don't blame the robots or the technicians, this is not their fault.
-
The turnover rate at companies like Amazon is so high because the working conditions are so poor and demanding. People are just liabilities and expenses that should be burned through.
Amazon has burned through so many employees that they worry they will not have enough viable applicants to keep filling positions. That isn’t because of the workers, that is a calculated decision by management.
https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/
There is no need to a shill and push right wing talking points for corporations, they get plenty of help from the politicians and news networks they buy.
-
The big reason corporations are using robots instead of human labor is because people either don’t want to work or can’t hold a position.
For some reason, people aren't big fans of timed bathroom breaks and monitored smalltalk.
-
This take is so horrible - you are the first person i ever blocked in my life
-
I have to admit I've never heard anyone read a high attrition rate and then put the blame on the workers. I really, really, hope this person isn't in any position to make decisions in an organization.
-
It's amazing how they disregard the absolute shit working conditions Amazon warehouse jobs have, that can't totally be why they have a high turnover rate right?
-
-
What are your other hot takes? Trump won the election? The "lizard people" control the media? Slavery was beneficial to black people?
-
-
-
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Amazon is experimenting with a humanoid robot as the technology company increasingly seeks to automate its warehouses.
The company’s ambitious drive to integrate robotics across its sprawling operation has sparked fears about the effect on its workforce of almost 1.5 million humans.
Insisting that people are “irreplaceable” in the company’s operation, Brady pushed back at the suggestion it could one day have a fully automated warehouse.
Digit was developed by Agility Robotics, a startup based in Corvallis, Oregon, and backed by Amazon.
Amazon plans to put Digit to work “in spaces and corners of warehouses in novel ways”, it said in a blogpost.
Separately at Wednesday’s event, Amazon announced it was deploying a robotic system called Sequoia at one of its Houston warehouses in an effort to speed up deliveries.
The original article contains 521 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
-
Digit gone get his ass knocked over.
68 comments
Fears? I'm excited that these jobs where people are treated like machines until they quit for sanity's sake are getting automated.
Exactly! It seems the other people in comments here don't understand that this is just a net positive for workers!
You already have universal basic income where you guys are living ? Failing that it’s solely less low qualification jobs and more concentration of revenues for the few above. I don’t see that as « a net positive » -although semantically, those laid off would not be workers anymore so in that you’re right. Horrifically so.
It's a net positive if those people are able to transition into other roles/ jobs.
What a short-sighted view. Some people sacrifice themselves to be treated like machine because that's the only option for them to. earn a living. You take the job away from them, they'll end up on the street. I fear for them.
We need to find a better ways for them not to be treated badly, not ways where they'll end up badly.
How did we get to a place where awful jobs are the only ones available for people to take? How does holding back the use of technology to keep these awful jobs around help those who are worn out and tossed aside in the long run?
Any company that doesn't automate will eventually get priced out. People are just too expensive compared to robots. We're smack dab in the midst of a technological revolution and just like the industrial revolution the job-scape is about to change rapidly and radically.