Oh I totally agree and yes we’re already on that path.

The solution here is probably more like no cameras spying on your employees for every second of their shift. Give them a job and let them do it or not do it.

Not necessarily, but there’s a difference between something being illegal and something being perceived by an insurance company as increasing risk. There are a lot of things that are legal and risky.

This isn’t right. Singing also counts as distracted.

Heard about this a while back. I think the real explanation is that amazon wants cameras in their vehicles to monitor their drivers. But Amazon’s insurer says “if you have this video we want to see it, and if your drivers are distracted in general, your insurance rates are going up” and/or when there’s an incident, any evidence of distracted driving will be leveraged against amazon… so instead of getting rid of the cameras, they are micromanaging their employees not to be distracted while driving, where “distracted” includes talking on the phone and also singing or speaking.

It’s all really shitty tbh.

I get that with a company as big as Amazon, small margins can make a big difference, but… pretty sure that’s just an argument against giant fucking companies running everything…

Pretty sure when I counted, the numbers were off. Not even 13 people in the supposed last supper shot.

For what it’s worth, it’s really hard to read this post (which you seem to have put some actual effort into) because you’re writing it with odd abbreviations and slang. I know you’re trying to be edgy or something but when you have something worthwhile to say, it’s best to communicate it in a way that the majority of people who run across it can understand, rather than wrap it in what effectively amounts to lingo and jargon.