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

  • bigfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s like the best way to prevent police brutality and murder: simply make them individually liable for damages and require them to carry insurance for it. Bad actions make you uninsurable, and the rest of your department more risky (expensive).

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      3 days ago

      Ironically the reason we have this problem is because the armed guards of capital are one of the only jobs that still have strong unions.

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 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!

    • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      Every few generations everyone seems to forget the existing social contracts exist for reason, and that reason is never the benevolence of the plutocrats.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    3 days ago

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

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 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
    22
    ·
    3 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.

    • x0x7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 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
    ·
    3 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
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
        ·
        3 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.

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

        There’s plenty of technology that could be, but isn’t yet because the incentives aren’t there.

        If we turned all this wasted ingenuity towards the betterment of humankind, then everything could get much better very quickly.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Depending on which oligarch you believe, we’re just about there. General purpose humanoid robots are almost ready to take over warehouse work

  • 1dalm@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 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
      35
      ·
      3 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
        2
        ·
        3 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
          20
          ·
          3 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.