Remember, kids: don’t try this at home!

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    14 days ago

    Actually it’s only a warehouse if it comes from the warehouse region of France. Anything else is just a “storage shed”

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    I’ve said that on Reddit and people got mad at me.

    A single warehouse burning because of low wages is like a single healthcare CEO getting shot: Funny to read about, but ultimately not going to change much.

    Turn it into a monthly thing, and it becomes a revolutionary act that will change things!

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Hypothetically, I really hope this happens. Hypothetically, like once a week for the next year.

  • thenextguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    14 days ago

    If they used to be houses, then they are were-houses.

    If it used to be a house, then it’s a was-house.

  • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    I’m not a lawyer, but this sounds perfectly feasible to me. So insurance companies simply choose to not treat low wages as a risk factor. I wonder why 🤔

  • minorkeys@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    So they run without insurance, lobby to mitigate their liability and the conditions of workplaces plummets.

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Right. A more likely one is that having staff in a building at all are a liability and so all these warehouses are moving to robots. There will be an oversaturation of warehouse workers vs sites still using them, and so these fires are just going to bring wages lower.

  • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    14 days ago

    If the cost of keeping humans is higher than the cost of automating, they’ll just automate the process. Or have the place ran by wire, where humans pilot lifts remotely.

    • rainwall@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      14 days ago

      There were only 8 people in that whole warehouse when it burned. It clear they already cut staff to an insanely low level. If they could have automated those 8 jobs away, they already would have.

      Stop preemptively giving up your power by assuming you have none.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        Honestly probably easier as there are less eyes. Just walk in with a clip board and say your from XYZ company and you have a contract to service the robots. If they seem hesitant at first, immediately get irate and say the contract is hourly and your technically already on the clock. In 98% of circumstances this will be your ticket in, if not try again on a different day of the week two weeks later.

        Then just leave behind some incendiary devices as your “servicing the robots” and now not only did you burn the warehouse down, they also have no clue who you even are.

  • 1dalm@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    14 days ago

    Ironically, arson is a felony and it’s unlikely that insurers cover such events that are due to criminal acts.

    Insurers are likely not paying out anything.

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      14 days ago

      What? No. Arson usually covered on standard policies. Most likely what would happen in the scenario portrayed here is that insurance would go up and future insurance contracts would specifically exclude arson / vandalism.

      • 1dalm@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah have someone burn down your house and then file an insurance claim.

        See how that goes for you.

        • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          14 days ago

          If you set a fire or otherwise intentionally cause your home to be burned down, then no insurance would not cover that. However in this case it is arson committed against the owner of the property, which is absolutely covered by insurance.