Amazon’s answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-09-01/amazons-answer-to-delivery-driver-shortage-recruit-pot-smokers

by numo16 • 5 years ago

135 235 5 years ago

latimes.com

jack_riminton7• 5 years ago

Some of the comments are assuming that all those who smoke pot are irresponsible or unable to do a job if they do smoke pot (this includes people who may only smoke at weekends/parties btw)

oxymoran• 5 years ago

And also clearly have never been high enough to realize that they are more likely to be super paranoid and going 10 miles under the speed limit than driving through a fence or running over children. It’s not at all comparable to being drunk.

throwaway0a5e2• 5 years ago

Your comment is an equally bad generalization.

It's easy to get distracted and then focus on that distraction while high. That's not conducive to safe driving. We don't want people mindlessly blowing through an intersection because they were fixating on how the wind was making the tarp on the truck in front of them flutter.

JshWright2• 5 years ago

Driving high is still driving impaired. The failure modes may be different, but that doesn't mean someone who is high is safe to drive.

I'm not sure what the point of your comment is though, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that these drivers will actually be high while driving. Rather, they are people that use marijuana recreationally and would test positive for THC, disqualifying them from many jobs (despite the fact that urine THC levels do not corelate with how "high" someone is).

hughrr8• 5 years ago

That’s bullshit. Someone rolled their car into my front garden at 70+ mph in a 30 mph limit on it.

The only good thing was it was at 3AM so there was no one around on a normally busy street to get wiped out.

And your whole attitude of irrational justification of it says you’re probably not capable of making a rational judgement about whether or not you should drive.

bserge3• 5 years ago

No, please. I've seen high driving first hand several times. Once after the guy literally told me "it doesn't affect me at all". Proceeded to drive over the kerb and get into the wrong lane.

It is very comparable to being drunk. Some people can in fact handle it, many cannot and severely overestimate their abilities.

eurasiantiger12• 5 years ago

Decades of exposure to intentionally misleading propaganda is difficult to ignore. It becomes a part of the worldview, making it hard to even think outside that box.

jack_riminton7• 5 years ago

True. Once things become 'cultural facts' they're hard to change. Another is explaining remote work to older generations, a lot of them just can't equate it to 'real work'

JoeAltmaier2• 5 years ago

True. But some part of that propaganda is from pot smokers themselves. Some enjoy the image of the laid-back happy carefree pothead. Their cult leaders (used to be) Cheech and Chong.

Maybe they've just bought in to someone elses' worldview. But I don't think so.

da_big_ghey3• 5 years ago

Well no, there are serious health risk associated with weed. Maybe alcohol have them too, yes both deserve legality, but this is not to say it is "safe", especially in young.

linuxftw• 5 years ago

The science is settled. Trust the science, government knows best.

tyingq5• 5 years ago

We don't regulate alcohol use, and it's quite a lot more destructive for some. I don't get the specific puritanism for pot.

Edit: Regulate as in drug testing for past use in an employment context, like what the story is talking about.

throwaway0a5e2• 5 years ago

We don't regulate alcohol use,

Yes we do. And it's a cash cow for the government so we're unlikely to stop anytime soon.

jack_riminton7• 5 years ago

Which country are you in?

Alcohol is one of the most highly regulated substances on the planet.

Also, no puritanism here, just facts about how people can use pot and remain completely in control (again, worth pointing out that someone can fail a pot drug test if they smoked it weeks ago)

phh• 5 years ago

I think you have it upside-down. It's tobacco and alcohol that have special treatment, not pot.

My main guess for that special treatment is merely that tobacco and alcohol were global when we started taking care about global health issues, so we left them, but banned any newcomer

GuB-42• 5 years ago

Breathalyzers tests are a thing you know.

And I don't know if companies do it but I know that monitoring Gamma GT levels of suspected alcoholics is a thing. It is a problem for those who have naturally elevated levels btw.

What is unfortunate is that we don't have a good test for cannabis-related impairment. It is quite reliable for alcohol BAC is easy to test and correlates with impairment, but for cannabis, you don't really know if a person is completely stoned or if he has sobered up.

But yeah, cannabis use is less tolerated than alcohol use, cultural reasons I guess. Plus, it is really difficult to control alcohol since pretty much anyone can turn staple food into alcohol at home.

bjourne2• 5 years ago

But we do regulate alcohol use... Severely...

samstave• 5 years ago

Some of the smartest people I have worked with smoked pot daily and before work. one is a head of engineering at netflix, another a head of IT at a big firm...

some of the highest performers I have ever worked with, and pot was a daily for them.

abledon• 5 years ago

i think for a small % pot will have a positive impact, but in general there is a reason it is considered a recreational drug. If you put 1000 linux kernel developers in a stadium, do they do better work sober, or if the stadium is hotboxed with some exotic kush. (maybe 5%, 10% see gains... but does the majority receive buffs to their concentration, analytical skills and memory?)

Maybe the question has a different outcome if you're measuring a stadium full of Designers with Adobe Illustrator open, trying to brainstorm how a logo looks?

bjourne2• 5 years ago

And many top politicians, business executives, authors, producers, and musicians were alcoholics. Your claim of having met high performing pot smokers is meaningless.

hughrr8• 5 years ago

A larger portion of them are from experience of hiring and being around people who smoke it. I would not employ someone who does because of those people. I have horror stories a mile long.

I know this is unpopular on internet news sites but I assure you that your social reputation isn’t that great if you smoke the stuff generally and that’s not going to change because of the propensity of people to be unreliable or dicks. The only thing that’s faulty is your perception of it.

eurasiantiger12• 5 years ago

Hmm. This is a tough one. Do you think those people come off unreliable because they use cannabis, or would it be more likely that they, for example, suffer from a(n undiagnosed) medical condition such as PTSD or ADHD, which tend to make them a bit unreliable at times, but which cannabis treats so that the person is in fact more reliable when constantly high?

crazy_horse7• 5 years ago

There are lots of people you don't know that smoke pot regularly and you can't tell. I promise you.

hellbannedguy• 5 years ago

Personally, I can't smoke pot. I get very nervous, and can't wait until it's out of my system.

But I have worked with many frequent users who smoked daily, and their job. They didn't mind doing terrible jobs.

I'm suprised people arn't talking about habitual pot smokers vs. occasional. If used to smoking--it's no big deal.

Same with alcohol. An alcoholic can drive perfectly well at .08, or a bit higher. An occasional drinker probally shouldn't be drinking and driving.

I heard TX takes into account tolerance when prosecuting DUI's.

chmod6002• 5 years ago

This is an interesting subject. Most people would be pretty worried about a drunk 747 pilot, and want laws and policies to prevent that from happening. A high delivery driver -- better, but a lot of people still don't like that idea. But tired commuters on the road at 6:30am is acceptable.

Could be better informed by numbers here. But hard to say because there aren't reliable tests for "high right now", and maybe not for "tired" either.

filoeleven2• 5 years ago

Impairment testing was talked about 10-15 years ago. It never really caught on.

https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/artic...

zxcvbn40382• 5 years ago

I’m keeping my camera ready for when Snoop Dogg brings me my package.

jack_riminton7• 5 years ago

When did HN start having such low quality comments?

zxcvbn40382• 5 years ago

What sort of intellectual dialog and witty repartee did you expect? I'm pretty sure that the guy at Amazon who decided to hire the potheads isn't going to win a Nobel.

paulcole2• 5 years ago

People who live in glass houses and all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28338633

new_guy• 5 years ago

How about just having decent working conditions and paying a living wage? Amazon is cancer.

pessimizer• 5 years ago

Those are also good ideas, but you don't have to exclude pot smokers in order to implement them.

missedthecue• 5 years ago

$15/hr is what populist politicians have been calling a living wage. What do you think they should pay?

wutbrodo4• 5 years ago

I think you may be misunderstanding the parent comment. In current usage, the term "living wage" doesn't have any connection to employee wages or what quality of life they buy. It's just a shibboleth reaffirming one's identity as anti-corporation qua corporation.

black_13• 5 years ago

Recruit the undead

loudmax• 5 years ago

Amazon's delivery time targets are more likely to cause accidents than employing pot smokers. As long as their drivers are sober while they're driving, what they do on their own time shouldn't be a problem. What's likely to cause accidents is incentivizing drivers to ignore stop signs and run red lights so they can meet their delivery target metrics.

mynegation• 5 years ago

Of course Amazon is watching out for their business interest, but they are doing the morally right thing here.

I do not smoke anything as a personal preference and do not enjoy when second-hand smoke and smell affects me but I support legalization for the simple reason that criminalization of marijuana and stigmatization of pot smokers is much much worse.

ffhhj2• 5 years ago

Something I learned from a pot smoker: they sometimes mix it with other drugs for higher effects.

crazy_horse7• 5 years ago

Yes, add caffeine...

Hippie speedball.

gunfighthacksaw• 5 years ago

I regularly mix cannabis with a super potent CNS depressant that I buy from a shifty young woman dressed as a waitress in my local bar.

ChefboyOG• 5 years ago

Does CNN know about this?

zardo• 5 years ago

Sometimes I mix cannabis with more dangerous drugs like alcohol.

bserge3• 5 years ago

No way bruh, you should publish these findings!

oblib2• 5 years ago

Someone stuffing crack in a joint is not a "pot smoker". They're a crackhead using pot to burn their crack.

junon11• 5 years ago

I actually inject my marijuanas, personally. Three or four marijuanas is enough to do me in for the night.

But I stay away from the hard shit, like alcohol.

ineedasername8• 5 years ago

Correct... but not really relevant especially if Amazon is still screening for other drugs.

techrat• 5 years ago

Except all Amazon has done was taken a group marginalized by the prison system (war on drugs) and is taking advantage of their position (drug testing vulnerable or felon status due to drug arrests) and putting them in a situation where they are at the absolute mercy of Amazon if anything were to happen. (Get T-boned by someone who ran a red light? We'll drug test you and fire you for cause even if you were sober at the time.)

This is an extension of prison labor.

gruez7• 5 years ago

This is an extension of prison labor.

You lost me with that hyperbole. I fail to see how you can equate voluntarily working for a company earning at least minimum wage and other benefits, as "prison labor".

ineedasername8• 5 years ago

This is an extension of prison labor.

Work in prisons is often not optional, and if it is the inmate may not earn "good behavior" time if they choose not to work. It also averages something like $0.60/hour across the country.

I don't think $17/hour & mandatory sobriety are anything close to prison labor, but I will grant you that it isn't consistent or fair to fire someone that tests positive for marijuana if they weren't high at the time of the accident. Is there a way to test if someone is currently high on weed vs. has simply had some recently?

da_big_ghey3• 5 years ago

Well I am all in favor of legalizeing, but there is side effect: those who are smoking in public, cigarette but especially pot, must have harsh consequence. I go to some place in US and it is stinking everywhere on public streets. People can not force everybody to inhale their drug fume only because they want their high.

Edit for clarifying: maybe a $200 fine is good point for starting, go up to $500 with repeating. I also think many smoker drop cigarette butts and we need greater fine for that if it will stop.

resoluteteeth• 5 years ago

If by "harsh consequences" you mean a $20 fine for smoking pot/cigarettes/cigars in a crowded public places I guess maybe. If you're proposing locking people up that seems a bit extreme.

pitched• 5 years ago

Just out of curiosity and this isn’t meant to be mean, but, what kind of harsh consequence do you think would be appropriate for imposing that smell?

koheripbal• 5 years ago

Not gp, but I think a fine is pretty reasonable.

Jogging in the park and inhaling pot constantly is getting really annoying. I know a number of families that moved to the burbs, and one of the reasons they voiced is the sharp increase is pot smell/smoke in the kids' playgrounds.

hughrr8• 5 years ago

I’m with you on the fines. It’s about as pleasant as snooting up someone else’s bowel contents on a train.

It is antisocial behaviour, has a health impact and needs to have a consequence.

silicon2401• 5 years ago

Hopefully somebody introduces this. Weed stinks and people who smoke it outdoors are as much a nuisance as people who smoke cigarettes. Both should be legal but banned from any public places.

ralfn2• 5 years ago

To be consistent we would have to ban cars for the same reason too. At least near where people live or work.

LargoLasskhyfv2• 5 years ago

Harsh? Like caning, or what?

Do you fart in public? Should your butt be plugged in public too?

deadbunny• 5 years ago

Hey, we wouldn't have to stand around outside if the busybodies hadn't stopped us lighting up in bars.

denton-scratch10• 5 years ago

Oh, I'm all in favour of "harsh consequence" for people for making bad smells. I'd start with drivers with engines that belch fumes and particulates because they are defective or out-of-adjustment.

We should aalso inflict "consequence" on the SUV drivers who clog the roads in the town I live in; I have medically-compromised lungs, so the stink of diesel fumes isn't just an annoyance for me.

Let's also punish people who use wood-fired stoves in built-up areas. I live in a smoke-controlled zone, but for some reason builders are allowed to install these stoves in new-build homes, provided the model of stove meets certain standards. Well, that's cool; if the stove itself is safe, it must be the owner, operating it incorrectly. So let's give them some consequence too.

These offences aren't much like smoking a ciggie, which last about 7 minutes; the amount of fumes produced by a ICE per minute is much greater than that produced by a smoker, and the ICE generally runs for much longer than 7 minutes. Wood-fired stoves are normally run continuously for several hours, and not for heat; they are used to generate a nostalgic and aesthetic effect. If that harms others, or even if it just creates a bad smell, let's be harsh.

I'm also keen to impose "harsh consequence" on dog owners who allow their dog to deposit smelly stuff at my front gate, and who then fail to pick up that shit and take it away with them. This is a particular problem if you get a 3-week cold snap; 3 weeks-worth of dogshit all thaws at the same time, and the smell of dogshit coming out of deep-freeze pervades entire neighbourhoods. And of course, pot-smoke doesn't contain toxoplasmosis.

canti2• 5 years ago

As marijuana becomes increasingly legalized, I'm not sure why any company would continue to test for it, other than maybe using saliva tests to make sure workers aren't getting high on the job.

AmericanChopper2• 5 years ago

From a safety point of view, it’s difficult to test for marijuana intoxication. There’s a simple test any employer could do to test whether their forklift driver is drunk right now. The best a marijuana simple marijuana test can do is whether you’ve had it in the past few days.

canti2• 5 years ago

You make a decent point. This is why I mentioned a saliva test, but in truth I'm not sure how effective it is. Anecdotally, I can tell you I once smoked at night before bed and passed a saliva test the next morning.

southpawflo• 5 years ago

after all, what's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoner driver?

the drunk driver runs the red light, and the stoner keeps waiting for the stop sign to turn green!

duskwuff• 5 years ago

More realistically:

The drunk driver will tell you that they're basically sober, and will be shocked when everyone can tell from their behavior that they're drunk.

The stoned driver will tell you how stoned they are, and will be concerned that everyone else on the street can tell from their behavior.

(These are, of course, broad generalizations. There will be exceptions.)

jack_riminton7• 5 years ago

I wonder if they'll eventually introduce some sort of sobriety or reaction-time test on their phone apps to see if you're in a state to drive

PragmaticPulp• 5 years ago

I’m guessing they can do this because they’re big enough to push back on insurance requirements.

The drug testing requirement for delivery drivers isn’t necessarily a moral imperative from management. It’s a condition of their insurance requirements. The article touches on this:

Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal.

didgeoridoo• 5 years ago

Or perhaps they are underwriting their own insurance. Once companies get big enough, it makes more sense for them to hold onto the premiums themselves and just pay an insurance company to administer the paperwork.

BEEdwards• 5 years ago

Other places that don't' drug test and you'll probably be paid better and not work in sweatshop like conditions - most office jobs...

samizdis• 5 years ago

I'm not sure how one might reliably assess/assert impairment for a cannabis user. Traces can last for weeks and result in positive tests (blood analysis), even if the user isn't remotely stoned at the time. Don't know whether there's a breath test nowadays that indicates use in the past n hours, which might give a better idea of likely impairment.

nmstoker• 5 years ago

It's not an idea I've explored seriously in any depth, but it seems like testing for capabilities required for a specific task might be a way to go here over actual drug tests.

Thus if it's determined that people need a certain reaction time to drive safely, that could be one thing tested.

Clearly setting the levels and the particular capabilities might well be contentious, but by aligning the test(s) with what's needed for the task it's fairer and in certain ways more robust: for instance, you could be under the threshold for alcohol/cannabis but if you combine that with legal medicines that cause drowsiness or simply happen to be extremely sleep deprived, you might pass a traditional test but the combined effects would lead one to fail a capability test.

It also helps in other ways too, such as fairly treating older people - you might be a sharp 75 year old and yet come up against some age limit. This let's you continue so long as you maintain the capabilities. Then if things start to change it's clear and takes some of the awkwardness out of the discussion about whether one is still fit for a job.

Of course the risk is that people are pseudoscientific or arbitrary in setting the capabilities to a level that doesn't align. We've all seen the unrealistic hiring prerequisites that managers ask for if left to decide (must have ten years experience of XYZ!) In the wrong hands these could be used unfairly (eg setting totally unrealistic levels precisely to screen out groups they don't want).

cwkoss• 5 years ago

"Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use13—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.14–16 However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol."

from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...

I wonder how much marijuana actually contributes to crashes. I think people can certainly get too high to drive, but unlike alcohol which lowers inhibitions, being 'too high' could even increase inhibitions somewhat (more anxiety, paranoia), so I'd expect people too high to drive are much less likely to get behind the wheel than drunk people. I certainly buy that 0.1% BAC + marijuana is probably worse than 0.1% BAC alone, but I'm curious what a just legal limit would be in comparison to 0.08% BAC regulations. What BTHCC produces equivalent impairment to 0.08% BAC, and how does that interact with THC tolerance?

Are people who consume thc multiple times per day worse drivers than people who never consume thc, when both groups are sober? I'd imagine there is a tolerance effect where stoned frequent-users are better drivers than stoned infrequent-users.

Would be interesting to try to make a cabinet arcade-style driving game that would accurately predict actual-road driving ability. Could even be used as a tool to demonstrate the dangers of drunk driving by putting it into bars and letting people try when above the legal limit (definitely some dangers of giving people good scores when they perform well while drunk though...)

indymike• 5 years ago

My company fixes recruiting process and software problems. Hats off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something or older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.

Pot is radioactive for many employers because insurance discounts and employment regulations are stuck in the "Refer Madness" era (Refer Madness was a propaganda film about the dangers of pot). So, employers face two surprises: increasing liability, workers comp and other insurance AND potentially, "hi we're from a government agency and under regulation XYZ 202 sub paragraph 293888 you need to drug test and immediately fire those that flunk or we will fine you. Have a happy day!"

wolverine8763• 5 years ago

50-something or older executive

Do you mean to imply or assume that 50-somethings are unfamiliar with marijuana? It was already common for Baby Boomers, who are older than that.

What happens is that open-minded, pot-smoking 20-somethings think 50-somethings are close-minded and ignorant. Then 30 years later many of those 20-somethings are the exact same as their predecessors. Instead of dismissing the older generation, the 20-somethings might consider how they will avoid that fate.

mLuby• 5 years ago

My company fixes recruiting process and software problems. Hats off to Amazon for this. I probably have the pot smoker conversation about once a month, usually with a 50-something or older executive that is running a factory short-staffed.

Reading between the lines, the exec is trying to hire more workers for their factory, and wants to know if they can stop testing for marijuana so they'll be able to hire more workers. To which the poster, who has recurring experience with this issue, must (unfortunately) recommend against it because of the reasons they enumerate.

Or maybe it was just a close-minded, ignorant ageist comment. Better to assume positive intent though.

neonate• 5 years ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20210903083804/https://www.latime...

outside1234• 5 years ago

This company is just a nightmare. Seriously, do we really need more folks that smoke pot on the road?

batch122• 5 years ago

Seriously, do we really need more folks that smoke pot on the road?

Who cares if they smoke pot when not working. We don't need high/impaired people on the road.

TulliusCicero• 5 years ago

The hell kind of comment is this? Would you ask, "Do we really need more folks who drink beer on the road?"

As long as they're not high/drunk when they're working, what's the issue?

ComputerGuru• 5 years ago

The money quote:

Other delivery companies are continuing to screen applicants, concerned about the insurance and liability implications in the many states where weed use remains illegal. […]

“If one of my drivers crashes and kills someone and tests positive for marijuana, that’s my problem, not Amazon’s,” said one

Amazon is just looking out for Number One and to hell with their so-called “partners.” This isn’t anything new.

If I were an ADA prosecuting such a case, I’d charge Amazon as a co-conspirator.

a9h74j• 5 years ago

Especially with their new corporate slogan, "Puff hard and break things."

drewg123• 5 years ago

boost the number of job applicants by as much as 400%

Anybody else think they meant 420% ?

KingMachiavelli• 5 years ago

Damn, I always forget that drug testing is still a thing.

If you were under the impression that Amazon & other companies are actually screening for cannabis use, you should realize that in any legal state they basically did everything they could to make sure their employees would not test positive. It's extremely hard to find people that would work minimum wage and are completely weed/drug free - especially if you need young, physically fit workers. Having higher turnover because you have to fire people after a while because of a drug test just means you have less experienced drivers.

It's funny that, as the article points out, school bus driver jobs would outbid Amazon since that means that schools are having the same issue but really have no choice when it comes to drug testing and are generally more restrictive.

ipaddr• 5 years ago

Bus companies cannot compete. Bus companies will simply claim a shortage and your child will be left at home if the route has no driver.

To get the contract you must be the lowest bidder. In order to do that you need to pay drivers as little as possible. Raising wages means losing money.

adrusi• 5 years ago

Uhh no. Leaving kids stranded at a bus stop is a huge liability for the school because if the kid wanders off and gets hurt or gets in trouble, the school could be held at fault. If a bus company is leaving kids stranded more than once in a blue moon, they will lose their contract.

honksillet• 5 years ago

One underappreciated aspect of this. They will ignore marijuana at time of hire. But they will absolutely test you if there is ever an accident or if you are injured at work (even if you just strain your back picking up a heavy object) before you see an occupational health doctor. If you come back positive in the course of injury, they won't cover your workers compensation bills. They'll fire you (for being intoxicated) and you'll have to cover your own medical expenses without access to workers comp coverage or the emoyee health plan (because you've been fired).

tbrownaw• 5 years ago

Is that not a different kind of test, for current presence rather than past use?

caymanjim• 5 years ago

There aren't any reliable tests for active marijuana intoxication. Blood tests are sometimes used in DUI situations, but the science is weak. It's not as definitive as alcohol testing. You can test positive for marijuana in hair and urine tests weeks after last use, and test positive in blood tests well beyond the point of intoxication (like the next day).

__blockcipher__• 5 years ago

No, cannabis is quite unique in that thc metabolites get stored in the fat, and there's not really a way to just check for acute intoxication. I've had friends who were heavy, heavy users who took 1.5 months to clear up. (Casual smokers can clear up in a few days or 1-2 weeks at most)

userbinator• 5 years ago

The article seems to allude to that:

“If a delivery associate is impaired at work and tests positive post-accident or due to reasonable suspicion, that person would no longer be permitted to perform services for Amazon,” she said.

shbooms• 5 years ago

I mean, this has always been this case with alcohol hasn't it? it's legal to consume but not while at work or operating vehicles. if you do so and injuries/death result, you are held liable.

Seattle3503• 5 years ago

The test for marijuana aren't as useful as the tests for alcohol. Marijuana test may still come up positive long after you are impaired.

tyrfing• 5 years ago

One large brown delivery company also rarely drug tests. Drivers of school buses, semi trucks, and similar have federally mandated drug testing, non-CDL delivery drivers don't. Particularly when liability is transferred to contractors, the surprising part is that this wasn't the encouraged policy from the start.

Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.

MeinBlutIstBlau• 5 years ago

That delivery company also has a union which could've been negotiated for.

gruez7• 5 years ago

Also, any shortage is entirely self inflicted from offering poor wages.

Yeah! All the millennials who can't buy a home are just self-inflected by not bidding high enough! Government policy certainly didn't' contribute to either!

ineedasername8• 5 years ago

There's a difference: Amazon can pay more. As you said, the millennials can't. If there's a millennial out there flush with cash but didn't get the house they wanted despite having $$$ more than needed, then yes-- that would be their own choice. Just like it's Amazon's choice to live with a driver shortage if they can pay more but won't.

Based on their 2020 profits, they can pay more. $20B in profits, 170,000 deliverers worldwide. They could take 10% of that and pay those folks an average of about $10,000 more/year.

They have the money, so if their business suffers at all as a result of too few drivers, then it's absolutely self-inflicted.

ghoward6• 5 years ago

Drivers of school buses, semi trucks, and similar have federally mandated drug testing, non-CDL delivery drivers don't.

False, at least where I am.

I learned to drive school bus, and they drug tested my class before we were allowed to test, and every month, there were random drug tests.

I quit after 1.5 days because of the stress and the constant push to get kids to school on time over safety.

ghoward6• 5 years ago

I thought I would reply to myself and admit that I read the quote wrong. The quote is correct.

oblib2• 5 years ago

I wouldn't work for Amazon even if they gave me weed to smoke.

peanut_worm• 5 years ago

It is strange to me that the only job I have ever been drug tested for was a movie theater as a janitor.

No tech job has ever even mentioned it.

wutbrodo4• 5 years ago

Marijuana testing is an arbitrary bar, but a fairly well-known one, so you do actually improve the distribution of your candidate pool by using it for low-skilled jobs with a large, undifferentiated labor pool.

Specifically, if it's known that these jobs test for Marijuana use, you're cutting off the portion of the applicant pool that knows this but still uses anyway, which stochastically reduces the likelihood that a candidate will eg show up to work intoxicated (fwiw, I'm a big fan of marijiana: I use it regularly, am a commensurately lighter drinker relative to my peers, and I'm pretty sure I'm making the right choice in terms of health and responsibility)

Like I said, it's an arbitrary bar and a path-dependent one, and a counterfactual equilibrium in which alcohol or another intoxicant was tested for would work just as well. But it's not irrational for employers to use it in certain labor market conditions. There are analogues in other labor markets, like requiring a college degree to be a firefighter; the false positive rate only really starts to matter if you start finding it difficult to find qualified applicants.

Tech jobs, by contrast, already have plenty of bars that their employees need to clear. In this context, any candidates swept up in blunt drug tests are likely to be false positives, and the use of the bar is a net negative for the employer.

mikewarot2• 5 years ago

One solution is to raise their wages. But that can happen only if Amazon agrees to pay its delivery partners more for their services, which the company can be slow to do.

It's not a labor shortage, it's just a correction in the price of labor

bpodgursky2• 5 years ago

Amazon delivery contractors are often outbid by school bus companies. Drivers who work for those can make more than $20 an hour and be home for dinner. Amazon contract drivers typically earn $17 an hour and often work late into the night to keep up with demand.

I mean, sure, Amazon can raise their wages to compete, and then we run out of... school bus drivers? I'm not sure that's any better.

At a point, you either need to increase the labor pool (by pulling people out of unemployment, retirement, etc) or seriously automate the profession, and we're just not there with delivery services right now.

spfzero• 5 years ago

School bus drivers are carting human lives around, not inanimate packages, so I guess it's good that they make more. It's a different job and the pay should reflect that.

mikewarot2• 5 years ago

Sadly, at the rate Delta is spreading, it's likely we're not going to need school bus drivers for a while.

programmarchy• 5 years ago

For warehouse workers, this would not be a problem. Although I imagine that could impact Amazon's bottom line.

For delivery drivers, it's a terrible idea. Driving large vehicles around people's neighborhoods while high is dangerous. It's a negative externality Amazon is recklessly putting onto the public.

Cue mental gymnastics of potheads claiming they actually drive better while stoned.

chmod6002• 5 years ago

What are the numbers?

chownie• 5 years ago

You can drive sober every single time and still come out positive on a drug test or weed, they can't screen for active intoxication only evidence of metabolites.

Amazon’s answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers

Related Stories