Amazon has received much criticism from a variety of sources relative to the labor standards used in its fulfillment centers, both in terms that such measurement systems even exist, and in Amazon’s case the allegedly difficult to reach performance standards being generated.
Supply Chain Digest Says... |
|
|
Many of the article across a variety of media approach the topic as if Amazon is the first company to track labor productivity at a granular level in distribution operations.
The reality, of course, is that “engineered labor standards” have been around since the 1970s, and a whole category of logistics software – Labor Management Systems (LMS) – has been available since that time to measure individual worker performance against dynamic standards that consider the attributes of each task, considering travel time, units handled, heavy versus light products, placement of the product to be handled, etc.
So Amazon is hardly the first to track such performance data in a DC, with ramifications for discipline for low performance, “coaching” activities by supervisors, and in some facilities wages affected by incentive pay programs.
But nevertheless, Amazon has been singled out for its use of performance standards in its fulfillment centers for a number years, with stories of workers who didn’t have time, for example, to visit a restroom due to the impact on their productivity numbers.
Last week, an article in the New York Times (by reporter Noam Scheiber) said critics of Amazon’s approach claim that its success “comes at a large cost to workers, whom they say the company pushes to physical extremes.”
And now there is proposed legislation in California that if enacted into law could significantly constrain how Amazon – and other distribution operations in the state and maybe someday beyond – can calculate and use labor standards.
The bill has already passed the state Assembly, and is schedule for a vote in the state Senate as early as this week, with passage likely. However, it appears the Senate is watering down the Assembly version a bit. The vote needs to be taken by the end of the legislative session on Friday.
According to the Times article, the law as written would require warehouse operators to disclose productivity quotas for workers, whose performance is ominously tracked “using algorithms.”
That could mean nothing more than Amazon - as with most other Labor Management Systems - takes into acount the dffculty of the tasks in terms of calculating goals or performance.
(See More Below)
|
CATEGORY SPONSOR: SOFTEON |
|
|
| |
|
|
 The law would ban any standard that prevents workers from taking state-mandated breaks or using the bathroom when needed, or that leads to non-compliance with state health and safety laws.
Several business groups strongly oppose the law, warning of expensive litigation as a result of the new rules, and – interestingly – “that it punishes a whole industry for the perceived excesses of a single employer,” according to the Times.
“They’re going after one company, but at the same time they’re pulling everyone else in the supply chain under this umbrella,” Rachel Michelin, the president of the California Retailers Association, told the Times.
That even though SCDigest does not believe Amazon’s approach is meaningfully different than how say grocery and food service companies – sectors where engineered labor standards are very popular – use them to drive productivity goals.
The most feared provision for business: the way the bill empowers workers to sue their employers over the impact of standards.
Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, said in a statement that “performance targets are determined based on actual employee performance over a period of time” and that they take into account the employee’s experience as well as health and safety considerations.”
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, which has said it is committed to organizing Amazon FC operations, says it supports the California bill.
What do you think of this California bill? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback section below.
|
