[giantg2]

Injuries per item picked or per capita might be a better metric. It's pretty easy to say the injuries are higher if you have more employees and higher volume than the competitors. Same thing with fraudulent items on Walmart.com.

[rat9988]

The hour is a way better metric. It already takes into account the capita. It's a work hour.

[fleetwoodsnack]

Injuries per item picked is obviously the inferior of the two, and fairly poor on its own as well.

[sebzim4500]

Inferior in what way? If you are trying to do some kind of moral calculation to figure out how many marginal injuries you are creating by ordering an item, then injuries per item picked is probably the right metric.

[giantg2]

If I sit on ass all day, I assume my injury rate will be lower. Using an injury rate on items picked (or items picked per man hour) could at least show the correlation between increased productivity and injuries.

[jiminymcmoogley]

That's a good point, but if i put myself in the shoes of one of Amazon's warehouse workers, i would probably weight not being injured more heavily than being more productive, so for instance if i had an opportunity to double my productivity at the cost of doubling my likelihood of injury, i'd choose to be less productive if that decision were up to me. However I'd imagine corporate would look at it differently, where injuries are liabilities for the company but productivity is the end goal, so a situation that increases employee productivity proportionately greater than it increases probability of injury might be looked upon more favorably. I am trying to come across as neutral as I can here but bringing it back to the previous commenters' discussion on "the good of the world", I'm finding it hard to defend the injuries/item picked metric here

[rat9988]

The point is that then you'd have a job that would let you sit on ass all day in this case. if Amazon warehouse workers could sit their ass half the day or have better working conditions, their injury rate would be lower too.