Amazon is in violation of OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i) in numerous

     REDACTED at 2015-07-17 02:19:10PM GMT-0700
Actions

One simple mitigation that could be put into place is signage on the inside of the stall doors, gently reminding users of the facility to put away their phones and focus on the task at hand. I am not normally based in Seattle, but several times during my visit this week I have overheard tap-tap-tapping away on phones, and even sound effects from phone games coming from stalls. Email, games, and social media are not part of the intended duty cycle of the fixture.
    REDACTED at 2015-07-17 01:51:26PM GMT-0700
Actions

Chiming in on behalf of the Arizona building, the 8th floor specifically, with data. I have worked in this building since January 15th, 2015, and every day after 5PM, there are no paper towels in the men's bathroom - the containers remain un-replenished until the next day.

I have now developed a routine of stocking paper towels in my cabinet to take with me if I'm working after hours and need to use the bathroom, so I can properly dry my hands after I wash.
    REDACTED at 2015-07-17 01:01:35PM GMT-0700
Actions

I'll just leave this link here for anyone who would like to use it: https://www.osha.gov/pls/osha7/eComplaintForm.html
    REDACTED at 2015-07-17 11:53:34AM GMT-0700
Actions

Our team moved from Port99 to Blackfoot and our situation actually worsened as we have less space now & bathroom situation is also slightly worse. So even the stated solution of building moves is not actually a solution.
    REDACTED at 2015-07-17 11:35:03AM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED, my team is hiring!
    REDACTED at 2015-07-17 11:22:58AM GMT-0700
Actions

One of the root causes for this case seems to be GREF's assumption that there's an equal number of both genders in each building. We all know this is not the case, but it's difficult to come up with actual numbers since Amazon doesn't appear to track people's gender's in LDAP. Nevertheless, it's possible to make pretty good guesses about people's genders based on their names (I considered badge photos as well, and found several external services such as Microsoft's Face API that can perform gender detection on photos, but I suspect infosec would not be happy with the bulk uploading of badge photos to an external service). I settled on https://github.com/malev/gender-detector which isn't great but works well enough.

Using Arizona since it's the most recent complaint, I fed the first names of all blue badge employees in the building into it (details in work log):
female: 452
male: 752
unknown: 535

There's a large number of unknowns, most likely because it's using a US dataset and we have a large number of foreign first names here at Amazon, but this doesn't matter. We can extrapolate the overall percent males in Arizona:
752 / (452 + 752) = 62% male.

There are 1739 names total, which means about 1078 of them are male. Using the floor maps for Arizona ( http://tiny/19lq6iy5r/insiamazenMyWoAmazGlobAmer ), we can see there are a total of 21 water closets as defined by OSHA for floors 2 - 11 (I'm not counting the ones on the first floor since Arizona regularly hosts large meetings which fill those to capacity, and nobody's desk is on that floor anyway), which at 40 people per WC works out to a capacity of 840. Note even if we assume an equal gender split this is still insufficient. If we include all employees in Arizona - not just blue badge - the total number of people jumps to 2134, so 1078 males in the building during normal working hours is a pretty conservative estimate.

So in short, Arizona taken as a building - not even floor by floor - is blatantly in violation of the OSHA rules cited by a surplus of over 200 people. GREF's assertion that this issue is solved is laughable.
    benneh added to the Work Log at 2015-07-17 11:22:58AM GMT-0700
Actions

# Get a list of all first names of all blue badge employees in Arizona.  To use a different building change "SEA29 - Arizona" below to something else, to remove blue badge filter remove '/amznbadgecolorcode: F/' in the awk statement.

/usr/bin/ldapsearch -x -h ldap.amazon.com -p 389 -b "o=amazon.com" -s sub "amznlocdescr=SEA29 - Arizona" amznbadgecolorcode givenname | awk 'BEGIN {RS="\n\n"; FS="\n"; OFS=" "}; /amznbadgecolorcode: F/ { print $4; }' | awk '{print $2;}' > /tmp/arizona_names.txt

================================
# Python script to determine gender

from gender_detector import GenderDetector
import sexmachine.detector
from collections import defaultdict

# You'll need these to run this successfully:
# pip install sexmachine
# pip install gender-detector

g1 = GenderDetector('us')
g2 = sexmachine.detector.Detector()

def genderize1(name):
    return g1.guess(name)

def genderize2(name):
    return g2.get_gender(name)

genders = defaultdict(lambda: 0)

try:
    while (True):
        name = raw_input()
        genders[genderize1(name)] += 1
except:
    pass

keys = sorted(genders.keys())
for g in keys:
    print "%s: %d" % (g, genders[g])


==============================
# Invocation:
</tmp/arizona_names.txt python genderize.py

    REDACTED at 2015-07-16 06:32:53PM GMT-0700
Actions

It's been less than a week that we've been back in Arizona and things seems as bad as they ever were. Will we see current employee counts per floor, or are we going to pretend like shuffling 1400 employees around must have fixed everything?
    REDACTED at 2015-07-09 12:56:37PM GMT-0700
Actions

TOS has reviewed this ticket and the circumstances surrounding it and has cut COE https://coe.amazon.com/coes/53288 to REDACTED for this event.

This is an issue that has affected a large number of people at the company. Per Amazon's Standard Operating Procedure, an investigation should be launched into why this event occurred and how to prevent this from occurring in the future. The COE should be the take off and collection point for that investigation.
    REDACTED at 2015-07-09 12:23:41PM GMT-0700
Actions

When it was announced that this ticket was going to be resolved, the following request was made:

GREF:
Please share the calculations used to maintain compliance with Federal regulation: OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i)
Please share a link to your project or other tracking ticket so progress can be tracked when this emergent ticket is closed.

In light of the fact that this ticket is still highly visible throughout multiple organizations (See CC list) , I think these are reasonable requests. There are multiple buildings, organizations, and managers that are concerned with our status in relation to OSHA and want/need to be kept up to date on how this is being tracked.

Regarding the update from REDACTED on 6/17, the update is appreciated, however Amazon is a data-driven company. Per the request above, is there data that demonstrates that the rebalancing has put us into compliance with OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i) ?

Thanks to GREF team for continuing to work on this issue.
    flx-a9-search added to the Work Log at 2015-06-22 03:43:37PM GMT-0700
Actions

+++ Reopening ticket, auto-assigning ticket to the lowest support order in the resolver group.
+++ The previous assignee was: lahi
    REDACTED at 2015-06-22 12:46:35PM GMT-0700
Actions

Should there be a closure code, root cause, root cause details, and resolution listed for this ticket now that it's being resolved? Those will help GREF track how these types of tickets are handled, and will help to summarize the results for those affected - especially since the "Correspondence" summary was removed. Wading through tickets of this size isn't fun for anyone :)

For more information, see the TT user guide: https://w.amazon.com/index.php/TT/UserGuide#Resolving_Tickets
    REDACTED at 2015-06-22 12:25:36PM GMT-0700
Actions

Per John Schoettler's update on 2015-06-17, GREF is closing the ticket.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 01:21:35PM GMT-0700
Actions

FWIW, I just moved to the new KUMO building, and on each floor the men's restroom has *3* stalls and 2 urinals. That's one more stall than before! Wee!
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 11:39:35AM GMT-0700
Actions

I'm less concerned with trying to construct office buildings that reflect the current gender disparities in tech fields- those will improve over time, and teams will come and go from those floors; let's not project current gender disparities in the design of buildings that will be up for decades.

I'm more interested in ensuring proper compliance to code. So, for whatever reason, if a floor is occupied by 90% men (or women, for that matter), there may have to be a lot of empty space on that floor to comply with code. Optimizing office locations to minimize such wasted space is left as an organizational planning exercise.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 11:17:16AM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED, I appreciate the clarity you are driving, but there's another important fundamental question: what is the mechanism for preventing this category of failure from continuing or recurring? We have ample evidence that this is a widespread, RECURRING problem in Amazon's space-management. One-time projects like "SLU expansion" do not address this systemic problem.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 11:01:57AM GMT-0700
Actions

I think all people want to hear (or at least most of 400-odd folks cc'ed on this tt) is how this affects *them*, their plight.

It is completely understandable why asking GREF to openly admit violation of a law in a public tt is ludicrous (and not just from a legal standpoint), and I don't think that is what people really want.

It would greatly soothe the collective teeming frustration of all those affected, if Amazonians got insight into the mitigation timeline i.e. when is the ballpark estimate that building X will be dealt with. This will answer their fundamental question - 'when will *my* situation get better, if at all'.

I think it is fair, at the very least, to expect such a response from GREF, that would answer that fundamental question.

REDACTED: Can you speak to that a little bit? And if you cannot, would it possible to mention that you can't?
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 10:35:17AM GMT-0700
Actions

Will the new buildings also have equal number of restrooms for men and women ? If so then this is just maintaining status quo and not taking into account the actual distribution of Amazon employees by gender especially in tech departments.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 08:51:17AM GMT-0700
Actions

GREF:
Please share the calculations used to maintain compliance with Federal regulation: OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i)
Please share a link to your project or other tracking ticket so progress can be tracked when this emergent ticket is closed.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-17 07:17:51AM GMT-0700
Actions

As of our last communication, GREF has moved over 1,400 people into new, unoccupied space to relieve pressure and re-balance existing buildings to our planned occupancy levels.

Moves will continue through 2015 as new buildings open, and we will be closing this ticket on Friday, June 19th. We appreciate your patience as we move forward with the South Lake Union expansion. In the interim, if you have a specific individual need, please reach out to your HR business partner.
    REDACTED at 2015-06-15 02:17:25PM GMT-0700
Actions

The last response from GREF was approximately a month ago. Is there any new information on the timeline for migrations or a write-up regarding how this is going to be handled in the future?
    REDACTED at 2015-06-10 11:19:29AM GMT-0700
Actions

    REDACTED at 2015-06-03 03:58:20PM GMT-0700
Actions

Seconding the Wainwright comment - It's not uncommon for all stalls on all 5 floors to be fully occupied, as well as the less well known unisex & locker restrooms.

Something else to consider is that the high-density seating may be in violation of the fire code (or close to it, I am not a lawyer): 8th floor Arizona was cited to have 335 employees on it. Measuring the outline of Arizona on Google Maps gives an area of ~40,000 sq. ft., and I eyeball that as having 70% usable business space. That would yield 28000 sq.ft. of employee space, which is a maximum of 280 employees under NFPA 101-61.

Currently, I see 2577 employees in Arizona. Assuming 8 "real" floors (1,2+3,9,10,11 are all half floors), that yields an average of 323 employees per floor.

~~~

Employees: /usr/bin/ldapsearch -LLL -x -h ldap.amazon.com -p 389 -b "o=amazon.com" -s sub "amznlocdescr=SEA29 - Arizona" uid | grep uid | wc -l
(yields 2577)

Measurements: http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm

Arizona: https://inside.amazon.com/en/MyWorkplace/AmazonBuildings/GlobalCorporateOff...

NFPA: ftp://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/004/nfpa.101.2000.html (under "Occupant Load Factor")
    REDACTED at 2015-05-28 10:38:39AM GMT-0700
Actions

Since ticket is covering numerous buildings, I'm changing the ticket title to properly reflect the fact that this is an issue in numerous buildings and not just Varzea.

GREF - We look forward to concrete public plans/review on how this issue is going to be addressed in all affected areas of Amazon. Thanks!
    REDACTED at 2015-05-27 03:26:04PM GMT-0700
Actions

seems like the TOILET idea might have some merit as a short-term solution and also helping build up data of usage patterns. Is there any possible initiative from GREF to reach out to this team or build something similar?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-22 11:58:04AM GMT-0700
Actions

I'm not sure if we're violating any other policies by having to use a key to unlock the door to the bathroom in NY (LGA3). It's pretty inconvenient when you reach the bathroom and realize you forgot the key at your desk, or even worse at home.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-21 04:52:59PM GMT-0700
Actions

In response to previous suggestions about using a device to reduce the time wasted looking for available stalls we would like to reveal T.O.I.L.E.T.: https://w.amazon.com/index.php/T.O.I.L.E.T .

We created this several weeks ago for the wireless hackday and now that we have presented it at the CE all-hands we are ready to reveal it to the rest of the company. We realize that this does not solve the capacity issues but we believe this can be used to reduce the amount of time wasted searching for available restrooms.

Since this ticket focuses on the actual bathroom capacity issues please use the aloha-REDACTED mailing list to discuss how we can continue developing T.O.I.L.E.T.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-21 12:58:18PM GMT-0700
Actions

In addition to what REDACTED reports below, we're on the same floor that were moved to Rufus literally 2 weeks ago from Obidos and since the issue still persisted - it clearly proves with a live example that the problem is in no way being alleviated as people are moved using our move this month as an example & goes against everything that GREF representatives mentioned below when they said "will alleviate pressure and reduce density across all South Lake Union buildings. " - any reason why a recent move like this wasn't accounted for if such a statement was made when in reality it clearly wasnt considered?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-21 11:04:32AM GMT-0700
Actions

Reporting in now from Rufus. My entire org just moved from Obidos (where the problem was occurring 100% of the time) to escape high density and the problem still persists in Rufus.

It is extra irritating here, since our new floor (Rufus2) is a secure floor with no access to the stairwell (in either direction) outside of emergencies. This means that one floor changes to search for a free stall require the use of an elevator, dramatically increasing energy consumption and time required, but also causing substantial feelings of shame for taking an elevator up, or even worse down, a single floor.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-20 05:21:38PM GMT-0700
Actions

Can GREF please reply whether they are able to answer the questions asked in the historical correspondence?

In addition to those questions, based on WAC 296-800-23020 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-800-23020 ) here are a few additional questions:

1. Are conference room capacities included in the current floor headcounts? --the specific wording of the WAC is "maximum number of employees present at any one time during a shift."

2. Does GREF require engineering assistance to upgrade their tools and alerts to better track this in accordance to the WAC requirements of "at any one time?" Assigned seating does not capture this dynamic very well, unless there is a large buffer of available bathroom facilities (which currently there isn't). As evident by the number of eyes on this ticket and many of the correspondences, I believe you'll find a large amount of enthusiastic engineers willing to help GREF on this issue during their free time, as a grassroots effort. i.e. please leverage the *mountain* of intellect available to you as partners.

3. If GREF is unable to answer these questions, can you please provide an official channel to where they can be answered? Please be aware that many of us have experience with confidential environments, and are willing to find ways to makes things work within those constraints.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-19 12:34:22PM GMT-0700
Actions

I have the same question regarding Wainwright.

** Will this ticket address Wainwright? **

I regularly traverse 4 floors and fail to find an available bathroom. The problem has become so pronounced in our building that it is more time efficient to forgo the linear search and head directly to Specialities even though this takes at least 10 minutes round-trip. The bonus is that they maintain a higher standard of hygiene, the trash cans are empty and toilet paper is stocked.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-19 12:03:15PM GMT-0700
Actions

Is GREF considering Varzea specifically or is this recognized as a global (or at least Seattle-wide) problem? Specifically, is Port 99 on the list of sites considered?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-19 09:54:10AM GMT-0700
Actions

I agree with REDACTED.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-19 09:22:18AM GMT-0700
Actions

Given our processes at Amazon for ensuring that errors are understood so as to prevent repetition, would a COE be appropriate for something that affects a significant portion of the company? It would seem wise for us to understand what metrics we've been using for planning headcount, where our blind spots have been and how to avoid similar issues in the future. The same structure would help fill in a lot of the questions being asked in this thread.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 08:32:22PM GMT-0700
Actions

* 1. Is there a plan document that can be shared somewhere?

For something this large, I imagine there is a writeup.

* 2. Is there a wiki page where status will be updated?

With all due respect, this is not about being caught off guard, and to treat it as such misses a large part of the necessary remedy. There has been a practice for years of brushing off employee complaints and spreading misinformation to shut down any discussion. Past tickets were consistently closed; they were responded to with incorrect information, and the corrections provided were ignored. It is important to know that these practices will be halted, and that we can rely on Facilities to be diligent and to act as a partner.

* 3. As was asked, can you identify the teams considered 'high-density'?
* 4. Does this include all teams in areas that are not OSHA-compliant?

* 5. Does the plan really free up enough occupancy to be compliant?

It seems like the impact on teams will be significant. On SEA30.05, for example, Amazon would need to relocate or have work from home 2/3 of the employees. This will be highly disruptive to team operations, but it might be the only short-term option.

* 6. Will teams be required to comply with this, and will employees be required to work from home?

(Merely making it an 'option' will not be adequate if not enough stay home.)

Finally, as far as I can tell, it is insufficient to return to the planned density levels. The planned density levels appear to have been far from OSHA-compliant. We need something that will fully address all compliance.

* 7. In case I am mistaken about the original plans, can you provide the target levels for the areas to be remedied?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 06:42:33PM GMT-0700
Actions

This past weekend, we began executing our short term plan starting with moves out of Varzea and more move activity is planned out of high density buildings through June. On an ongoing basis, we will closely monitor headcount to ensure planned density levels for each building are not exceeded. We’ve carefully analyzed the spaces where teams will be relocating to and confirmed density levels for those buildings will be within plan.

Building space administrators will be in contact with teams regarding move plans. If you have specific individual needs, feel free to speak to your manager or HR business partner.

We appreciate your understanding during this transition.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 12:19:43PM GMT-0700
Actions

I think what all of us are asking is:
1. Is there a GREF defined threshold on density. If yes, what is it wrt (a) headcount per 100. sq ft (b) headcount per each bathroom stall per floor.
2. What all proactive steps will be taken so that the threshold is not breached. ? Clearly, there isn't any, today.
3. How will GREF be alerted when the threshold is breached? What all reactive steps will be taken to fix the breach.

I work for HR Business Intelligence team and my team could partner to setup such alerts(threshold breach or close to breach point alerts). Definitely, this comment is based on my personal capacity. Actual priority and timeliness and efforts(like bringing in no:of stalls info into DW) needs to be worked out.

-Jais
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 12:06:34PM GMT-0700
Actions

I've attached a BRD (Bathroom Requirements Document) that I wrote a couple of years. I got some intestinal thing from a visit to India, it was summer, the 9th floor of Varzea was packed with not just FTEs (almost all male), but a fresh crop of summer interns (all male), and I couldn't find a stall anywhere within 3 floors up or down.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 10:54:30AM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED

I work on the 2nd floor of Bigfoot and the majority of our floor was just converted to high-density seating over the weekend. My understanding is that this is to handle a significant expected influx of new developers to several of our teams. Prior to this the bathroom wait/hunt times weren't too bad (certainly not as bad as they had been in Dawson when our team was there) but I'm concerned that now as more new people are moved in to the floor we will start having significant problems like others haven mentioned on this ticket. Were there any studies done prior to this move that show that the bathroom facilities on the floor are sufficient to handle the new employee population prior to the redesign being approved?

In your comment you said that you'd be focusing on identifying teams in high-density and working to move them out of it, but what about preventing teams from entering high-density in the first place? Will GREF be implementing bans on moving floors to high-density in the future to prevent this problem from re-occurring?

I understand that the increase in office space that is coming in the next few months will help reduce the need for high-density seating, but that was the same argument we got when we moved from Dawson to Bigfoot a couple months ago and now we've gone back to high-density again. So it seems to me that we've got a repeating pattern of: not enough space for headcounts so go to high-density > buildings crowded so open new buildings > empty space so let's expand! > not enough space for headcount so go to high density > buildings crowded so open new buildings > ...

How do we break this cycle when it may be causing the company to violate building health codes?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-18 07:45:03AM GMT-0700
Actions

Reply sent by email:

John, THANK YOU.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-15 06:39:24PM GMT-0700
Actions

Is there a plan document that can be shared somewhere? For something this large, I imagine there is a writeup. Is there a wiki page where status will be updated?

With all due respect, this is not about being caught off guard, and to treat it as such misses a large part of the necessary remedy. There has been a practice for years of brushing off employee complaints and spreading misinformation to shut down any discussion. Past tickets were consistently closed; they were responded to with incorrect information, and the corrections provided were ignored. It is important to know that these practices will be halted, and that we can rely on Facilities to be diligent and to act as a partner.

As was asked, can you identify the teams considered 'high-density'? Does this include all teams in areas that are not OSHA-compliant?

Does the plan really free up enough occupancy to be compliant? It seems like the impact on teams will be significant. On SEA30.05, for example, Amazon would need to relocate or have work from home 2/3 of the employees. This will be highly disruptive to team operations, but it might be the only short-term option. Will teams be required to comply with this, and will employees be required to work from home? (Merely making it an 'option' will not be adequate if not enough stay home.)

Finally, as far as I can tell, it is insufficient to return to the planned density levels. The planned density levels appear to have been far from OSHA-compliant. We need something that will fully address all compliance. In case I am mistaken about the original plans, can you provide the target levels for the areas to be remedied?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-15 05:44:34PM GMT-0700
Actions

Thanks for the update. Can we see the list of teams you've identified and information about planned density levels in the work log please?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-15 05:33:58PM GMT-0700
Actions

We on the facilities team are admittedly embarrassed here. We shouldn't have been caught off guard by the headcount growth, we apologize, and we're putting in place short term plans to improve the situation now. We've identified the teams working in high density locations and will be working over the next week with leaders of those teams to (1) arrange relocations to available, unoccupied office space in other buildings, and (2) arrange for short term "work from home" options where that's practical. In addition to those short term measures, the significant office space we're bringing online in the coming months will bring us back to planned density levels. We will continue to update this ticket as we execute quickly against this short term plan.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-14 09:44:43AM GMT-0700
Actions

Random Hall at MIT had a mechanism to do this: https://web.archive.org/web/20130510182532/http://bathroom.mit.edu/FAQ.html...

The system worked using a magnetic door close sensor and then provided a graphical display of what bathrooms were in use and what were not. The bathroom system appears to be down, but the laundry system is currently up: http://laundry.mit.edu .
    REDACTED at 2015-05-14 09:03:09AM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED They are responding by leaving the ticket open; that means they know / acknowledge it is a problem. They also said they would keep us updated on people moving out, again admitting there is a problem by attempting to communicate about it. I think REDACTED has the correct solution. We shall see if GREF is willing to take it on.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-14 08:16:16AM GMT-0700
Actions

In the mid 70s engineers ant CMU had devised a way to report count and temperature of cans in a soft-drink machine so that people could check from their desks whether it was worth going to the machine (admittedly using the now-obsolete "finger" command). I wonder if any of the engineers who performed that groundbreaking work might be available to consult on any of the occupation-sensing systems suggested below.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 11:31:03PM GMT-0700
Actions

IMHO there isn't much that anyone can do in the short term, except for leasing out office space and relocating folks there (if that is possible) while Rufus 2.0 is being worked on.

However, a wiki with
1. recognition of the issue
2. a target for the number of people / lavatory ratio
3. a metric to track #people / lavatory ratio for each floor in each building
4. a project plan to resolve this issue
5. a target timeline for the project
would be great for assuaging concerns of the effected parties and eventually driving resolution.

GREF do you think this is a reasonable request?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 08:57:43PM GMT-0700
Actions

It cannot be "too costly" to comply with regulations, virtually by definition. You either do so as part of operating as a business, or you pick things up and go home.

Nothing happens instantaneously, though, so interim measures are still interesting.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 04:44:42PM GMT-0700
Actions

I don't know if this would help but I had an idea... Since it may be too costly to renovate the restrooms in each building if it would be feasible for the interim to develop an app or internal tool of some sort that would allow employees to check and see which stalls/urinals are vacant or in use on each floor of a building. I don't know if anyone has been to Las Vegas lately but the newer hotels have lights installed in their parking garages that monitor each parking stall. The lights are located above each stall, and when a car is parked in one, the light above the stall will turn red signifying that the stall is being utilized and not available; if it's vacant the light above will turn green letting the patron know it's available.

I do not have any significant coding or technical background but I would think that a remote device of some sort attached to each stall's lock may be able to do the same thing where it would be connected to a program letting employees know which stall/urinal is vacant or occupied. Same with the urinals - perhaps a pressure sensor of some sort? I know this will not solve the OSHA issue but may possibly help those looking to find an open stall/urinal quickly. Again it is just an idea :)
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 04:36:59PM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED: I don't think they can actually respond to the OSHA violations; Doing that may have legal and liability implications that they are trying to avoid. I.e. there may be some legal ramifications for merely acknowledging a problem this serious in a place like this.

Not saying I agree with the strategy of non-communication, but trying to picture this from their perspective, it might explain why they have not addressed any of these OSHA concerns directly.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 04:31:04PM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED, you have not responded in over 48 hours. It would be great to hear that for once GREF actually is considering this as a serious issue across the entire SLU campus and not something to be swept away by citing Seattle plumbing code and ignoring the significant pressures (no pun intended) that I would guess several thousand employees experience on a daily basis. If you are not the person to respond to such an issue, let us know who can.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 11:41:19AM GMT-0700
Actions

On the issue of frugality, no one has said how much searching for a toilet must cost amazon.

If we assume that half the 1349 people (from a few comments ago) go to the toilet on any given day and it takes around 10 minutes to find a free stall then that's around 112 hours spent searching for a free toilet.

According to http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#15-0000 the average salary for a developer in the US is around $50 per hour.

Rounding numbers down ,for convenience and to avoid accusations of inflating these numbers, then people searching for toilets in varzea costs amazon around $5000 a day.

If people are in the office for 200 days a year then that's $1million spent for people to find a free toilet in varzea.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 11:11:25AM GMT-0700
Actions

I have made the same trip in Arizona multiple times. My best guess is that I spend about 20 minutes each week looking for an available bathroom stall. If I assume that of the 335 desks on my floor (the aforementioned 8th floor), 280 are occupied by men (which seems to be in the right ballpark) and that all of them experience this issue, this means that at any given time during an 8-hour workday, an average of 2.3 male 8th-floor employees are wandering around the building looking for a stall. This does not appear to be frugal.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 10:45:58AM GMT-0700
Actions

Not that this will add much value, but this is a big (and sadly comical) issue in Arizona as well. There have been times I've walked up to 11 (I'm on 9), down to 4 (checking every floor in between), back up to 11. In that instance, I ran out of time searching and needed to get to my next meeting. It was an excruciating, miserable meeting. Most men on the floor are aware of it and somewhat joke, however it's really not a laughing matter.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-13 10:41:24AM GMT-0700
Actions

In Arizona there are about 335 desks on the 8th floor (See map attached in related items) There are 2 stalls and 2 urinals in the restroom for men.

Would you have an update for alleviating the issue in all the buildings mentioned in this TT?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-12 08:57:50PM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED :
Are these relocations actually a reduction in occupancy, or are they simply shuffling to fill the new office space, backfilled with an equal or larger headcount?

If these are just people moving to the new space from Varzea, and the same number are moving to Varzea from other locations or as new hires, then it really means nothing for crowding, right?

I look at the numbers from a month ago:

Assigned:
 92 Floor 05
182 Floor 06
128 Floor 07
218 Floor 08
186 Floor 09
236 Floor 10
232 Floor 11
205 Floor 12
= 1479 total

And your statements about relocations (either net or not):

•    April –    110 employees – COMPLETED
•    May & June – 250 employees – SCHEDULED

And I expect to see a reduction. I see:

 92 ->  81 Floor 05
182 -> 179 Floor 06
128 -> 104 Floor 07
218 -> 221 Floor 08
186 -> 180 Floor 09
236 -> 230 Floor 10
232 -> 139 Floor 11
205 -> 215 Floor 12
= 1349 total, -130

Perhaps that is on-track. However, most floors seem changed only at a noise fluctuation level, and Floor 08 and Floor 12 actually increased. Only Floor 11 significantly decreased. Is that at least the model for the other floors?

However, I notice that fully 100 of the current residents of Floor 11 are from the 720 block, and *none* are from the 780 block. It looks rather like a team has temporarily moved out of one side of the floor, not like a reduction in density.

https://inside.amazon.com/en/MyWorkplace/AmazonBuildings/GlobalCorporateOff...

If that is true, than Varzea has seen almost no reduction in density in the last month.

Is the plan a true transition out of 800 people, with no backfill or influx? (Although that will still not meet OSHA regulations, it is helpful to know.) Is that plan on track, and are the planned numbers still accurate?

    REDACTED at 2015-05-12 05:26:48PM GMT-0700
Actions

Does anyone have access to these previous / related tickets? It would be great to see what other issues / progress were made on these related issues. Please let me know if you have any more information.

http://tt.amazon.com/E007035522
http://tt.amazon.com/E007035474
http://tt.amazon.com/E007035532
http://tt.amazon.com/E007035533
    REDACTED at 2015-05-12 04:41:36PM GMT-0700
Actions

The ticket I opened for Fiona (E006652622) on 4/22/2015 has been updated by a facilities vendor that they will be researching according to this ticket. Given that, I suspect that additional tickets for this issue for other buildings will also follow this ticket (if/when created).

It is suspicious that previously related tickets have been converted to E-Tickets and have removed access to the historical records for most full-time employees. One would reasonably expect access, as there is no risk to IP for not allowing access. I hope this is just a default effect of the conversion process and not someone deceptively trying to cover-up the historical problem.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-12 08:32:40AM GMT-0700
Actions

Why not edit the title to state that several building are in violation, and then promote a summary which lists all buildings determined to be in violation, with dates the determination was confirmed?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 04:00:18PM GMT-0700
Actions

That is hard advice for those facing a current and pressing problem in their daily work environment. The regulatory agencies prefer that you inform the employer directly of an issue. Having others hold back and wait on a Varzea 'test case' is not fair.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 03:01:34PM GMT-0700
Actions

While individual problems that differ across buildings should be different tickets, we should avoid fragmenting this high-level discussion, especially until we have some concrete information from the GREF org regarding this issue and their response plan, given that there are literally over 300 people CC'd here waiting to hear from them. We shouldn't require everyone here to go find or start a new ticket just so we can hear what the solution to this is.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 02:33:57PM GMT-0700
Actions

It seems clear that each building must be an independent issue. I believe that people contributing to this are acting in accordance with Ownership: 'Leaders are owners. They think long term and don’t sacrifice long-term value for short-term results. They act on behalf of the entire company, beyond just their team. They never say “that’s not my job”.'

Tickets seem commonly tagged with toilet-interest.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 02:20:23PM GMT-0700
Actions

Does this ticket only address the issue as it pertains to Varzea? I ask because so far in the course of this ticket, employees located in Varzea, Blackfoot, US1, US2, Port 99, Obidos, Ruby, Dawson, Fiona, Wainright, and Arizona have all checked in to the ticket confirming the issue, some even providing data as to the numbers of employees vs. bathrooms available.

If this ticket only addresses Varzea, then a new ticket should be created for each other building that is experiencing this issue. If this ticket aims to address the issue with all of the sites in SLU, then the ticket title should be updated to match this, example "SLU Campus Locations May Be in violation of OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i)"

REDACTED and REDACTED have posed some excellent questions that should be answered not just in the scope of Varzea, but in the scope of all of the buildings that are experiencing this issue.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 01:49:49PM GMT-0700
Actions

To Leah's point - intern season is starting in right about now. so there is going to be an incremental increase in team size by about say 20% for the next four months.

What the response I read so far is "we haven't accounted for that either". So more issues for employees then.

Let's push that aside for a second and focus on the other aspect - Amazon's overall reputation. We don't have a stellar reputation across the board; I'd like to not see "Oh and Amazon doesn't even have bathrooms you can use." added to the list of issues.

This problem has existed since US1/US2 9 years ago. We were promised at that time things would be taken into consideration; it hasn't. So for the next 8 months what additional steps will be in place to support a large influx of hires?

Additionally, how will you be vetting your solutions with others in the company along with a plan to expand as needed?
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 01:43:44PM GMT-0700
Actions

I remember back when our high-density seating issues in US2 were going to be resolved by moving to SLU/Varzea. Ah, those were the days!
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 01:40:33PM GMT-0700
Actions

I just want to chime in to make it clear that there are a lot of people who care about this issue, in case these concerns are dismissed as some sort of tiny localized problem.

This is a problem, and not just in Varzea. It is a problem in Fiona where I work; every day I need to check at least 3 floors to find an empty stall. It may not be as bad as other buildings but that doesn't make it acceptable.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 01:34:23PM GMT-0700
Actions

Lara,

This isn't the first time this issue has been raised. Jesper Johansson and I escalated several years ago when the SLU buildings were being designed and were shut down. It has been with some frustration to see that it is ongoing and unresolved.

So I have 2 questions:

1. If Amazon knows that it has a significantly higher percentage of males vs. females in some buildings that house technology groups than can you tell us if it is designing buildings to accommodate the health needs of said workforce?

2. Given this is a potential health issue, wouldn't it be prudent to audit all Amazon buildings by floor, # of employees by gender, # of facilities, to determine how far from the OSHA standards we are? And maybe (as an interim solution) provide additional water closets in discreet locations?

Telling folks to wait 8 months (knowing we will still push towards high density seating when needed) is not a satisfactory response. Or another way to put it, if someone told you - that you had to walk up and down 5 floors to find an available bathroom EVERY time you had to go - wouldn't that be a problem? It would for me...


Leah
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 01:27:41PM GMT-0700
Actions

I think one of the main takeaways I have from this ticket, and others like it in the past, is that it has been very easy for leaders to take a problem like this, which we all implicitly assume and take for granted would be a non-issue at a Fortune 50 company, and dismiss it as a joke. The fact is, sanitation is a huge deal for a lot of people. There are state and federal laws and policies surrounding these things. I would love to hear from GREF what the immediate and long term solution/timeline for this problem is. I think if this ticket is resolved while there is data that legitimately demonstrates we are violating e.g. OSHA standards, then I would think peoples' only course of action to resolve this is to start contacting these governing bodies. Is GREF comfortable with letting things get to that point? Thanks to everyone who has kept this a serious discussion -- I'm genuinely interested to hear how we deal with this, given it's been an issue for years.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 12:48:46PM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED / the rest of GREF - Not acknowleding the situation is truly frustrating for all employees on this ticket as REDACTED noted. This issue is present and applies to more than just Varzea. This situation, as demonstrated by numerous folks on this ticket, applies to most Amazon buildings.

Others, if you believe the situation is a violation of OSHA regulations, as an employee you can file a complaint with OSHA https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/complain.html
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 12:41:34PM GMT-0700
Actions

It's great to hear that the crowding will be reduced in all South Lake Union buildings. I have conflictingly been hearing the opposite message.

Unfortunately, even if all 800 were yet to be removed from Varzea, and there was no replacement, the building would still be in violation of OSHA, so the issue will stand.

Taking the numbers below:

Assigned:
92 Floor 05
182 Floor 06, 143 male (78%), 39 female (22%)
128 Floor 07, 73 male (61%), 45 female (39%)
218 Floor 08
186 Floor 09
236 Floor 10
232 Floor 11
205 Floor 12
= 1479 total

Unique badges used FIVE times or more on each floor of SEA30 during the week of April 13th - 17th.
313 Floor 05
231 Floor 06
172 Floor 07
256 Floor 08
234 Floor 09
276 Floor 10
272 Floor 11
233 Floor 12
= 1987 total

If we take only the 'assigned' numbers, and assume that the 800 are uniformly removed by ratio of current occupancy, then we still end up with floors with 75 males. Even 56 males would require 4 fixtures, and these bathrooms currently have 3 (two stalls and one qualifying urinal, since only 1/3 of capacity may be urinals).

https://inside.amazon.com/en/MyWorkplace/AmazonBuildings/GlobalCorporateOff...

To cut the barest minimum that complies with regulations, with a fragile balance of gender ratios and no growth, would require removing approximately 986 people. (It also would not address the fact that the employee count is more accurately represented by the actual occupants in a given time period.)

In short, even if the reduction plans have maximal impact, Varzea will still be very far from the barest OSHA compliance. The ticket stands.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 12:24:17PM GMT-0700
Actions

Thanks for the update, but this doesn't answer the actual ticket questions.

Are we currently in violation of OSHA or other building/occupancy codes?

What's being done *now* to resolve these issues (building new buildings/moving people "soon" doesn't solve the problems that we have today).

Who's tracking the over-crowding of all the buildings?

Why don't the restroom facilities support the actual gender distribution of each floor?

How are we insuring that this problem doesn't return? Historically, opening new buildings has had (at best) only a temporary relief of over-crowding.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-11 12:14:01PM GMT-0700
Actions

To accommodate Amazon’s exciting and expanding growth, Amazon is opening 1MM square feet of new office space in South Lake Union. Over the next 6 months, over 7000 employees are scheduled to relocate into this new space, which will alleviate pressure and reduce density across all South Lake Union buildings.

Varzea specifically has over 800 employees scheduled to relocate in the next 6 months. The following outlines moves that have occurred, or are scheduled to occur, from Varzea:

•    April –    110 employees – COMPLETED
•    May & June – 250 employees – SCHEDULED
•    July – Dec – 500+ - SCHEDULED
•    Total employees relocating between April – December = 860+

I will continue to update the ticket as the moves occur and density in Varzea continues to reduce. In the interim, please connect with your HR Business Partner for any personal issues that need to be addressed urgently.

    REDACTED at 2015-05-07 05:15:44PM GMT-0700
Actions

While not solving the fundamental issue mentioned in this thread, I wonder if we should not use our collective ingenuity to maximize the utilization of the stall resources.

Some companies like http://www.tooshlights.com/ seems to be selling some solution.

The main idea is to have:
- some kind of occupation sensor for every bathroom stall.
- some green/red lights inside the bathroom to tell what stall might appear occupied but is empty (reduce wasted time / resources)
- processing of the sensor data (we are the right company for that)
- a companion mobile app (or maybe just mobile-friendly web site).
- possibly some occupancy information lights outside the bathroom in the hallway to avoid unnecessary and unpleasant wait (think airplane lavatory light function)

So assuming one needs to use the bathroom, a quick check on the app would show any currently available stall in the building. (or +- x floors for tall buildings like Blackfoot). This would *not* be perfect, but would likely lead to an even spread of the usage of the resources.

Additional features / benefits:
- Collect data long enough, and a stall occupancy model and associated forecast could be provided to the app. Some percentage of employees might possibly adapt their habits to avoid 'peak time'. (not saying this is desirable, but just a possible outcome, based on long distance flight behavior observations)
- facilities would have real valuable historical data they could then use for future building planning, as well as potential retrofit of the existing buildings.
- if facilities converts some urinals to full stalls, the need to know if a closed door means someone is inside using it, or the door just closed becomes even more important. The lights in the bathrooms would solve that.

Conclusion:
This would NOT solve the main issue raised on this TT, this could result in less time wasted, hopefully resulting in less discomfort for employees.

[For the comments about Fiona, it's only very recently that some floors got a little better because some teams vacated the building.]
    REDACTED at 2015-05-05 11:52:55AM GMT-0700
Actions

Can we at the very LEAST get a date by which we can expect some further information about what is being done here? This is such a basic need of all employees. I'm personally fed up with going up and down the stairs in Obidos several times in a week to find an empty stall. Also, please do not use 'a move is happening' as an excuse to ignore the problem because those of us who have been here long enough are intimately aware of how crowded the buildings will become in a very short period of time.
    REDACTED at 2015-05-04 11:01:45PM GMT-0700
Actions

I am so glad that I found this! Thanks REDACTED

I thought I was the only one that noticed and cared. It happens in Sydney too. Not only that but it seems being dunny trained was not checked during the loops. :-\

I remember when I was in Seattle 2 years ago the situation was awful then too. Not enough and stupid dirty. I ended up trawling phone tool to locate the marketing and events depts - assuming that they had higher percentage of females. Then located their floor and went there to use. Marginally better as less male demand but still awful.

In Sydney I suggested that we convert the disabled toilet into a dual use female/disabled as we have 3 females and 90 males - so that the female stalls could be converted to male and urinals added too. However in Australia if you don't have a dedicated disabled toilet ready it is breaking HR codes even if no disabled employee's!

In any case, sending out my dunny issue respect and love from SYD10 to our SEA brothers.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-25 12:06:51PM GMT-0700
Actions

If helpful, the WAC imposes essentially identical requirements to OSHA, in 296-800-23020.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-800&full=true#296-800-2302...

Both appear to be more critical than some foreign plumber's guild suggestions.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-24 04:08:15PM GMT-0700
Actions

My manager and I are waiting in line for the 10th floor restroom right now. There are no urinals or stalls available. I'm on call, so I'm not only hurting my team's productivity, but all teams that are waiting on me to resolve their tickets.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-24 02:01:54PM GMT-0700
Actions

This washroom design should work:
http://www.dramafever.com/st/news/images/phzqbyb8a7esex0cjyo4rxkr010sgmh.jp...
    REDACTED at 2015-04-23 04:48:07PM GMT-0700
Actions

Unisex bathrooms need to be single-roomed that can be locked. I don't think it is feasible.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_...
1910.141(c)(1)(i)
"...Where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet, separate toilet rooms for each sex need not be provided."
    REDACTED at 2015-04-23 04:25:47PM GMT-0700
Actions

Converting restrooms to be unisex on alternate floors might be a much feasible/easier option.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-22 03:58:45PM GMT-0700
Actions

Thank you for your continued updates and feedback, which have helped us inform our approach. We want to update you on our inquiry. We are actively reviewing a number of possible options to resolve this issue as quickly as we can. In the interim, please connect with your HR Business Partner for any personal issues that need to be addressed urgently.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-21 02:26:33PM GMT-0700
Actions

This issue just came up today in our team in Port 99. We are located on the 10th floor of Port 99. We had an engineer check on the 10th, 9th, 8th, and then back on the 10th again for an available stall, but could not find one. They had to go home due to this shortfall, so our team is now short an engineer for the rest of the day due to this issue.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-21 01:05:16PM GMT-0700
Actions

"Consider replacing the paper towels with Dyson Airblades" please don't even consider this. http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/02/19/hot-air-and-paper-towels-i...
There are many available studies that show that machines like the air blade increase spread range and number of contaminants. paper towels, although moderately wasteful, are much safer.

Let's leave this conversation at assessing adequate available facilities.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-21 12:58:23PM GMT-0700
Actions

Re: switching from paper towels to air dryers - please don't! Air dryers are proven to be less sanitary than paper towels.

But seriously, let's please keep this on topic (overcrowded bathrooms) - concerns about other bathroom issues should be raised in different tickets.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-21 12:50:40PM GMT-0700
Actions


A few additional things to consider while troubleshooting the issue.

1. Carbon Footprint / Replace Paper with Hand Dryers: Consider replacing the paper towels with Dyson Airblades. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 28.5% of municipal solid waste produced in the United
States is paper waste. A study at RIT, states that a campus hosting over 30,000 individuals daily, can have a
significant impact on the carbon footprint associated with the use of paper towels. Each
high traffic flow bathroom studied uses approximately 22 rolls of paper towels. Link to a cost best analysis of paper vs. Airblades is below. Many universities such as MIT, RIT are going down this path already.

http://www.rit.edu/affiliate/nysp2i/sites/rit.edu.affiliate.nysp2i/files/12...

2. Frequency of Cleaning: Consider increasing the frequency with which restrooms are cleaned.

3. Water Temperature: One of my colleagues indicated that there isn't a way to adjust the water temperature in the bathrooms in Dawson. Need validation.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 01:39:45PM GMT-0700
Actions

My apologies for conduct unbecoming in this thread. I will refrain from any further comment.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 11:50:12AM GMT-0700
Actions

In the interests of Frugality and to limit the (hundreds of) engineer-hours being spent analyzing this issue, I propose a stop-gap solution that would also alleviate the temporary strain on limited resources (stalls) during construction:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006V2B4G
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006WPQNB2

Install in a Conference room on each floor and require users to reserve the conference room as a single-user appointment (No group appointments, please).

Compared to the bureaucratic barriers of designing, provisioning and installing new toilet stalls, I think that this would be a valid expense in the spirit of Bias for Action. Unfortunately, the cabana is only rated at 3 stars, so it would fall short of Insisting on the Highest Standards, but you can't win them all.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 11:44:30AM GMT-0700
Actions

One other issue that needs to be considered, according to OSHA regulations:
* Restrooms must be easily accessible to all employees including those with physical disabilities.

I would argue that restrooms on different floors are not easily accessible to those with disabilities.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 11:35:07AM GMT-0700
Actions

I took Kenny's suggestion and ran some quick badge counts for Varzea as seen below. It's interesting to see how much more traffic there is through each floor compared to those who have assigned spaces there. Perhaps the additional traffic is causing some of the contention. On the other hand it can be the other way around and the frequent search for a restroom could be causing a portion of the added floor traffic. :)

Unique badges used FIVE times or more on each floor of SEA30 during the week of April 13th - 17th.
313 Floor 05
231 Floor 06
172 Floor 07
256 Floor 08
234 Floor 09
276 Floor 10
272 Floor 11
233 Floor 12

Unique badges used ONE time or more on each floor of SEA30 during the week of April 13th - 17th.

1349 Floor 05
799 Floor 06
856 Floor 07
825 Floor 08
848 Floor 09
851 Floor 10
825 Floor 11
744 Floor 12
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 11:21:23AM GMT-0700
Actions

One note of potential interest, especially given the ticket below for IAD13:

As I understand it, the ladies' rooms in Varzea have 4 stalls. The mens' rooms have 2 stalls and 2 urinals. Assuming the two rooms are equivalent in size, the mens' room should have enough space to convert 1-2 of those urinals to additional stalls.

In my experience over in Varzea, the problem was not usually that the urinals were taken (those usually free up quickly, for obvious reasons); it was that the stalls were full. Adding 1-2 stalls per mens' room, even at the cost of losing 1-2 urinals, would help alleviate much of the problem.

(Of course, the construction needed to do this would exacerbate the problem temporarily.)

This is assuming we aren't willing/capable of taking the more radical approach of converting all the restrooms to be unisex. ;)
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 10:58:19AM GMT-0700
Actions

Thanks, Paul (btw, the 5th floor in Fiona only has two stalls).

This particular ticket is about Varzea (as I'm sure you know). But, it is really a problem with (1) the architecture planning of *all* buildings in SLU, and (2) the bad "minimum plus one" policy facilities has w.r.t. using data appropriately (ldap counts are something, but don't we all have to scan a badge to enter our building?.. why not use that data?), fixing issues correctly, and in-general just severe leadership incompetence spanning years.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-20 09:06:48AM GMT-0700
Actions

Just a note, current ldap counts for Fiona:
      4 SEA24.01
    176 SEA24.02
    295 SEA24.03
    237 SEA24.04
     75 SEA24.05

At a glance gender split isn't anywhere close to the 50-60% - it's easily 5:1 or higher, am not sure how to get accurate numbers.  Even if we assume a 50-50 split, we're still not even close to the listed values (each floor above the 1st has 3 stalls and 2 urinals).

Definitely a factor that needs to be considered when cramming more and more people into smaller spaces.

    REDACTED at 2015-04-18 08:07:48PM GMT-0700
Actions

Where there's a will, there's a way. https://tt.amazon.com/0044493727
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 05:30:54PM GMT-0700
Actions

http://www.amazon.jobs/principles

"Insist on the Highest Standards

Leaders have relentlessly high standards - many people may think these standards are unreasonably high. Leaders are continually raising the bar and driving their teams to deliver high quality products, services and processes. **Leaders ensure that defects do not get sent down the line and that problems are fixed so they stay fixed.**"

Please note the "**" in the above quote. How many tickets need to be opened and closed as "we are within OSHA requirements..." before facilities' leadership realizes that they are in violation of our company's most sacred principles?
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 04:22:26PM GMT-0700
Actions

The toilet situation was equally horrible in both Wainwright and Arizona, going back almost 4 years now.

REDACTED I wouldn't be confident in anyone at this point, with the problem going on for so many years and at least one manager many levels above me joking about it in his all-hands meeting.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 04:21:50PM GMT-0700
Actions

Yes, Aaron, I realize Lara is a facilities rep... but she also will need to sync with a greater facilities manager.

I completely disagree with the gender bias exception, however... one simply cannot be aware of it in full context (if you attended the conference we had recently, you would also know this... but maybe you did?). It is exactly the type of problem that the other gender does not have motivation to see. We need to constantly remind ourselves of such a thing.

Given my past experience with this problem, I see this ticket closing exactly the way it did for me: they will come back with their minimum plus one policy excuse. I did not take the time to write the below because I wanted "to detract from resolving the concerns highlighted below." I did so because I have personally spent hundreds of hours researching this problem months ago. --yes, and before you flip the bozo bit on me, I did this because I seriously did not want to quit my first month here. I've deep dived through all the data given in the correspondence below, and more. I developed a statistical model to simulate the problem (because we cannot collect bathroom data on employees) and to correlate my experiences in Fiona. Fortunately the problem has been temporarily fixed for me.

If you have ever personally experienced this problem, and were forced to leave work because of it, and see your formal complaint used as a joke, I doubt you would be so confident too.

Their is an absolute lack of empathy demonstrated by people who claim to be leaders in this company, I have very little faith in the greater facilities teams' ability to see this as a significant problem. That's why I went on with my "rant." Yes, it is harsh, but it wasn't unprofessional.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 04:17:02PM GMT-0700
Actions

Franky, I don't care much about how the bathroom situation affects me personally; it's a minor annoyance. I care about two things. First, in the short term, if we're breaking the law, we should fix it. Second, in the long term, I'd like to see Amazon be more transparent about gender diversity and do more to improve it. We've provided metrics to the public, which is a good start, but they aren't divided by role and hide the disparity that exists in the industry. I feel that the lack of transparency about the disparity and doing things like assuming a 50%/50% split projects an image of us not acknowledging the problem. I've provided some metrics myself, and I trust Lara to make an appropriate decision after investigating, whatever it may be.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 04:08:18PM GMT-0700
Actions

Whatever the outcome is, the discussion here should be included as part of the design for the new building we are standing up in downtown (not sure if it's too late), which I assume will be high density from day one?
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 04:01:18PM GMT-0700
Actions

As someone that's been here 4+ years I've seen the restroom situation go from a non-issue to a pretty big inconvenience (currently in Blackfoot). In 4 years our company has grown massively, much more than anticipated by most of our leaders. Some people understand its a direct result of a rapidly growing number of employees, however, these same people are also expecting it to be a temporary problem.

If we are currently in violation of any OSHA standards here then I hope this is being taken very seriously. Something silly like using the restroom should not be a problem but it's came up multiple times over the years, let's fix this so we can keep this ship moving full-speed.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:54:32PM GMT-0700
Actions

I would just like to chime in and point out that Lara here *is* Facilities (a fact that could be easily discovered by looking at the phone tool). I'm confident in her (and any other women involved) to verify if our obligations with regard to restroom facilities are being met, without requiring a male chaperone, regardless of the particular gendered restrooms they themselves may use. Suggestions otherwise are not helpful and detract from resolving the concerns highlighted in the correspondence below.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:32:32PM GMT-0700
Actions

Hi Lara,

I've been at Amazon six months now, and almost quit over this issue my first month. I work in Fiona. Since my initial problem, there have been re-orgs that caused the fifth floor to be almost empty (which has fixed the issue, temporarily).

I escalated this issue to my VP (who inappropriately used it as a icebreaker joke in our all-hands), and subsequently assigned a *female* HR rep to investigate. She had a meeting with facilities and was *impressed* by the fact that they actually track the genders of the assigned employees to each floor. --as if that was impressive that they would be aware of their legal obligations (btw, the law says that urinals can be substituted for toilets but cannot exceed 3/5ths of the minimum requirement). She reported back to me that facilities will not do anything to fix the problem, because their policy is to provide the minimum plus one, which is "more than generous." So an obvious question is, where did the plus one come from? --obviously there is some logic behind it, likely due to the fact that if there was only a minimum, upon a damaged toilet they would be out of spec of the law.

Amazon has recently spent *a lot* of resources to make us aware of gender bias in decision making, and I take my past experience of this matter as a total failure of HR's and facilities' ability to handle the most basic problem. I am expected to perform with the highest standards and I insist that you do too. Please, Lara, realize that you do not have intimate context to this problem, when you go through your investigation and are told by facilities that there is nothing they can do to fix it. Please bring one of us (a male employee, who has experienced this problem first-hand) with you to any meeting you have with facilities. And also, please be aware that for facilities to do anything to fix this problem, they will have to admit to making a huge mistake for years (something that requires a true sense of being Vocally Self Critical, which they do not have).

Please leverage our Leadership Principles for this problem. i.e. who is facilities' customer? --to answer that, simply think about who is the user of their "product." They have failed for years to show any amount of Customer Obsession; they have failed to Think Big; they have failed to Dive Deep to see that there is a Simple and Inventive solution (which is less than a few thousand dollars to convert some of the urinals to stalls); they have failed to show any Bias for Action (this problem has existed for years!!); they have failed on interpreting the concept of Frugality, because it is absolutely idiotic to be frugal with the toilets (this is a basic need where for one to simply Disagree and Commit means that one must defecate in their pants to show that they Have a Backbone! --how absolutely silly is that?); since this has been a problem for years, across multiple buildings, they have failed to be Right A Lot; they have failed to Deliver Results; and they, at least for me, have totally failed to Earn Trust of Others.

If the amount of failure that facilities have demonstrated for this problem were abstractly applied to any product team in this company, Jeff would send out pink slips to every manager on that team.

One last thing... the law was written in the late 1980's before cell phones were prominent. It does not consider the impact that smart phones have on extended usage durations in the stalls.

Thanks,
Kenny
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:30:58PM GMT-0700
Actions

As someone whose floor in Bigfoot isn't currently in high-density seating, I'd want to know that going to high-density seating won't result in the employee population exceeding the capacity of the bathrooms in case we ever do. Does HR check this before authorizing high-density seating (including the actual numbers of men and women who will be working on that floor instead of assuming 50%/50%)?
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:28:44PM GMT-0700
Actions

https://phonetool.amazon.com/search?&search_query[filter_type]=All+fields&s...

So, exactly how many people are in Varzea? Phone tool says 1974, REDACTED numbers add up to 1469 (unless I'm mathing wrong), and REDACTED ldap query gives between 1442 and 1944, depending on what exactly you're looking for. That's pretty critical for the issue at hand.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:21:13PM GMT-0700
Actions

It may be worth auditing all the high density seating buildings in the Seattle campus, including the actual male to female split per floor (not a 50/50 assumption).
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 03:08:06PM GMT-0700
Actions

I grabbed some sample numbers out of curiosity for Varzea:

5th floor: 92 people
6th floor: 182 people, 143 male (78%), 39 female (22%)
7th floor: 118 people, 73 male (61%), 45 female (39%)
8th floor: 218 people
9th floor: 186 people
10th floor: 236 people
11th floor: 232 people
12th floor: 205 people
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 02:47:58PM GMT-0700
Actions

Thank you all for bringing further details to light. We are reviewing the feedback and investigating next steps.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 02:38:19PM GMT-0700
Actions

REDACTED:

Thank you for explaining that the Varzea building was constructed to IPC specifications. However, aren't private sector employers occupying the building also subject to the more restrictive OSHA standards?
- https://www.osha.gov/workers/index.html#3

"We acknowledge that at certain times of the day, the volume of use does fluctuate and creates wait times."

According to the OSHA memo explaining their regulations, "Timely access is the goal of the standard."
- https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=interpretati...
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 02:14:46PM GMT-0700
Actions

Tagged this and related tickets with "toilet-interest".
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 02:05:10PM GMT-0700
Actions

This is also affecting the availability of wheelchair-accessible stalls in Dawson and on some floors of Port 99. I don't think I should be forced to go to another building to find a restroom I can actually use.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:57:57PM GMT-0700
Actions

Please keep all correspondence professional and factual so that we may drive an appropriate resolution.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:57:16PM GMT-0700
Actions

I have added several related tickets.

Please keep all correspondence professional and factual so that we may drive an appropriate resolution.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:54:13PM GMT-0700
Actions

Blackfoot is also impacted by this and getting worse by the day. It is a regular occurrence to trek through three or more floors to find adequate facilities. For employees with bathroom specific medical conditions, this issue is deeply concerning. Several other engineers and I were joking about designing a mobile application to let you know when a toilet is available and on what floor. Although mostly in jest, even this lighthearted suggestion underscores a serious problem that is at best only impacting employee productivity and morale, and at worst is damaging their health. Please address, as currently the two options most employees have is stay home, or go for a hike to find a bathroom.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:29:06PM GMT-0700
Actions

I regularly visit 3 or more floors to find an open stall in Port 99 especially early in the afternoon after lunch.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:28:13PM GMT-0700
Actions

Also, is this the correct CTI for this issue..?
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:27:03PM GMT-0700
Actions

| If the maximum headcount per floor is 236 and Varzea has 8 floors occupied with Amazon employees, the maximum headcount for the building should be 1888. LDAP shows 1944 people located in Varzea. Please advise on this discrepancy.

There's also the small problem with 5th floor: the majority of the 5th floor is large conference rooms, plus the lobby, mailing room, and showers; headcount for the floor should be, at max, half the other floors. This yields 1944/7.5*0.63~163 males per floor, just using the Global Gender Overall statistic provided by REDACTED link. Unless not all of the people listed as working in Varzea actually work in Varzea, or there's some other strange double-counting method. This of course ignores whatever the actual breakdown is, which anecdotal evidence would give as higher than 63% males per floor (possibly varying per floor).
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:24:56PM GMT-0700
Actions

I can say I've personally modified my morning schedule to avoid the issue entirely.
More coffee, more waiting - possibly less hours clocked in at work from minutes shaved off each morning.
I'm sure there's similar time lost for people on a 'stall hunt.'
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:21:11PM GMT-0700
Actions

This also is a problem in Ruby, SEA28.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 01:11:24PM GMT-0700
Actions

Amazon Diversity info is published here:
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=10080092011
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 12:39:17PM GMT-0700
Actions

Please dont assume 50% male, 50% female. It varies floor by floor, but using that assumption can easily mean we are in violation on all floors in every building. In general it may be safer to expect 70% male 30 % female, since that is comparable for other tech companies that actually do publish diversity statistics (we do not).

If we are to claim we are compliant, then we need to prove it with actual numbers of men and women.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 12:22:22PM GMT-0700
Actions

+1 This is also constantly an issue in Obidos as well, if not even more than in Varzea. I usually look on my floor first and 90+% of the time its guaranteed to be full, then I have to trek through all 5 floors of Obidos to start my hunt for The One precious stall thats available...and sometimes I do find one with an open stall, but more often than not I actually end up finding all floors are taken up. During these scenarios I end up having to leave the buildikng and go across to Fiona or Rufus to find a stall! Its a little ridiculous that I have to do that.
To provide perspective Its like if Frodo trekked through all of middle-earth to reach Mordor and came to find that the the volcano was extinguished - its not like he can give up on the critical mission because it has to happen, so he continues on his lonely journey to find the next fiery mountain.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:46:46AM GMT-0700
Actions

Taking a look...
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:42:42AM GMT-0700
Actions

I hesitate to mention it, but also employee morale is being impacted here. I've been with Amazon nearly 2 years now, and the subject of insufficient toilets has been a regular one I've heard people in all sorts of teams routinely grumbling about for the entire time I've been here.
It leaves people resigned and annoyed at best. During the time I've been here we've gone to HD and beyond for seating, cramming even more people in (and they're just about to rip out a whole bunch of the remaining offices so they can cram even *more* on to our floor). These are not things that engender warm and fuzzy feelings, and very likely contribute to desires to leave the company.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:41:36AM GMT-0700
Actions

It's also worth noting that the IPC requires one drinking fountain per 100 people: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ipc/2012/icod_ipc_2012_4_par008.htm
Floors reaching 201+ people may be in violation of this too.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:37:52AM GMT-0700
Actions

Based on the 2012 IPC (not sure which version Seattle has adopted), I think the substitution for urinals mentioned below is incorrect

"In each bathroom or toilet room, urinals shall not be substituted for more than 67 percent of the required water closets in assembly and educational occupancies. Urinals shall not be substituted for more than 50 percent of the required water closets in all other occupancies. "

We're neither an educational nor assembly facility, so urinals can only replace 50% of the required water closets.

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ipc/2012/icod_ipc_2012_4_par097.htm
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:33:52AM GMT-0700
Actions

Neither Seattle's Plumbing Code nor the International Plumbing Code override OSHA standards.

Also, being a data driven company, we have the information regarding gender distribution at our fingertips which means we know we aren't 50/50 divided on gender.

Since the IPC was brought up - we may fail in many locations to meet IPC standard 403.3.

403.3 Number of occupants of each sex.

The required water closets, lavatories, and showers or bathtubs shall be distributed equally between the sexes based on the percentage of each sex anticipated in the occupant load. The occupant load shall be composed of 50 percent of each sex, unless statistical data approved by the code official indicate a different distribution of the sexes.

---

The Seattle Plumbing Code (SPC) is even more clear on dividing by gender and not just assuming a 50/50 mix.

SPC table 2902.1 shows that, per gender, you need:
4 for 105 employees of each gender
5 for 155 employees of each gender
6 for 205 employees of each gender

---

The OSHA section mentioned also requires the counts be based on gender, and 111-150 males would require SIX fixtures. "The number of facilities to be provided for each sex shall be based on the number of employees of that sex for whom the facilities are furnished."

---

Now, we may well meet the minimum requirements if you count all of the conference room/meeting floors/reception area restrooms in a building. Thinking big on this, however, why is it that we are skating by on the bare minimum? How much money and productivity are we losing by forcing people to wander between floors to deal with necessary bodily functions?
    REDACTED at 2015-04-17 11:03:16AM GMT-0700
Actions

Over half of the floors of Blackfoot are at greater than 150 person occupancy, with only four fixtures in the mens' room:

    152 SEA33.23
    153 SEA33.13
    153 SEA33.19
    154 SEA33.12
    157 SEA33.26
    158 SEA33.16
    159 SEA33.24
    160 SEA33.22
    163 SEA33.27
    168 SEA33.05
    170 SEA33.09
    175 SEA33.08
    175 SEA33.18
    189 SEA33.06
    205 SEA33.17
    213 SEA33.07

This might include the support floors (which have multiple shifts sharing a desk) but e.g. floor 16 is all developers and actually has 158 people there regularly.

Is this not in excess of both the OSHA and IPC limits?

    REDACTED at 2015-04-16 10:54:07AM GMT-0700
Actions

Hi Lara,

Any updates?
    ryanwl added to the Work Log at 2015-04-10 03:44:10PM GMT-0700
Actions

5 06.201
13 06.480 D/E
12 06.480 B/C
5 06.480 A 06.780 I
10 06.780 G/H
11 06.780 E/F
12 06.780 C/D
9 06.780 A/B
9 06.720 Q
16 06.720 O/P
18 06.720 M/N
17 06.720 K/L
16 06.720 I/J
18 06.720 G/H
17 06.720 E/F
16 06.720 C/D
16 06.720 A/B
7 06.545
7 06.550
--------
234
    REDACTED at 2015-04-10 03:39:20PM GMT-0700
Actions

If the maximum headcount per floor is 236 and Varzea has 8 floors occupied with Amazon employees, the maximum headcount for the building should be 1888. LDAP shows 1944 people located in Varzea. Please advise on this discrepancy.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-10 03:38:23PM GMT-0700
Actions

Hi Lara,

I've been following this tt in the background as the toilet situation in Varzea is one of my biggest pain points with the facilities on a day to day basis as it usually takes five floors to find a toilet for me. I just wanted to point out that it felt like there is a lot more people than the current headcount of 180. Since Amazon is a data driven company I decided to do a stroll around and tally it up in the last ten minutes and found we have 234 desks on the 6th floor. Details in work log.

Not based on any hard data but I would find it hard to believe that the building is split 50/50 gender wise based on my visual assessment over the last couple minutes as well. At least in this floor it tends to have a lot more males in each section on average, but I don't have actual data to back that up.

I also am interested in why OSHA policy doesn't apply since we're in the US and. A link to the IPC reference you are including would be great! Their website isn't the most user intuitive.

It's great that this is being considered for future buildings, but unfortunately that doesn't help us out a ton and it really is a burden on a day to day basis, time wise and hygiene wise.

Thanks for your time and help with this!
    REDACTED at 2015-04-10 02:50:24PM GMT-0700
Actions

Thank you for reaching out regarding availability of restroom facilities in Varzea.

For the construction of high rise buildings such as Varzea, the quantity of fixture counts is regulated by the International Plumbing Code (IPC).

To clarify the specific question about(Varzea); given the maximum headcount for any floor is 236, the number of fixtures required by Seattle’s plumbing code per gender is 4. See breakdown below pert SBC:

With 118 (50%male/50%female) per gender, per floor:

Employee 1-25: 1 fixture
Employee 25-50: +1 fixture, total of 2
Employee 50-100: +1 fixture. Total of 3
Employee 100-150: +1 fixture, total of 4

In total, 4 fixtures per sex is required if we were at full occupancy, however, the current headcount for your floor (6th floor) in Varzea is 180, meaning the code requires us to have 3 fixtures per sex, (90 male, 90 female), and we currently have 4.

We acknowledge that at certain times of the day, the volume of use does fluctuate and creates wait times. We have also taken this feedback into consideration when designing and constructing future buildings. In buildings where we have the ability to influence the design of the restrooms, we build them out to code +2 (an additional fixture per restroom).

Lastly, I am concerned that you reference unsanitary conditions, and will ask we audit the space and increase frequency of cleanings and supplies accordingly.

Please feel free to reach out to me directly with any questions.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-10 11:48:28AM GMT-0700
Actions

Similar issue in Port 99. We're watching this closely.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-10 11:21:09AM GMT-0700
Actions

This is the total count of people present in Varzea:

$ /usr/bin/ldapsearch -LLL -x -h ldap.amazon.com -p 389 -b "o=amazon.com" -s sub "amznlocdescr=SEA30 - Varzea" uid | grep uid | wc -l
1944

Excluding vendors:
$ /usr/bin/ldapsearch -LLL -x -h ldap.amazon.com -p 389 -b "o=amazon.com" -s sub "amznlocdescr=SEA30 - Varzea" roomnumber | grep SEA30 | wc -l
1462

Blue badges:
$ /usr/bin/ldapsearch -LLL -x -h ldap.amazon.com -p 389 -b "o=amazon.com" -s sub "amznlocdescr=SEA30 - Varzea" amznbadgecolorcode | grep "amznbadgecolorcode: F" | wc -l
1442
    REDACTED at 2015-04-06 02:47:14PM GMT-0700
Actions

See also this OSHA memo offering background for the policy:
- https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=interpretati...

The emphasis is on providing readily available toilet facilities to maintain good health. The widespread unavailability throughout Varzea puts employees at risk of suffering adverse health effects.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-06 10:53:15AM GMT-0700
Actions

Hi, just confirming that we are pulling together the metrics and response for this week.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-02 12:03:24PM GMT-0700
Actions

Hi all,

We have escalated this and will be responding formally shortly.

Thank you,
Sean
    REDACTED at 2015-04-02 11:34:07AM GMT-0700
Actions

Contact info for the OSHA regional office: https://www.osha.gov/oshdir/r10.html

Employees currently walk multiple floors before finding a vacant restroom/stall. This causes employees to rely on adjacent restaurant's restrooms.
    REDACTED at 2015-04-02 09:12:37AM GMT-0700
Actions

Even if we have 80 or fewer men on the floor, there’s a further violation in the men’s room. From the linked policy:

"Where toilet facilities will not be used by women, urinals may be provided instead of water closets, except that the number of water closets in such cases shall not be reduced to less than 2/3 of the minimum specified.”

Only 2 out of 4 toilet facilities are water closets in the men's room: 2/4 < 2/3. So really we’re only meeting code if we have 55 or fewer men on the floor — then we'd need 3 facilities minimum, 2 of them water closets.

***Amazon is in violation of OSHA 1910.141(c)(1)(i) in numerous buildings***

According to OSHA policy 1910.141(c)(1)(i), a facility needs to have at least 6 water closets (defined as a toilet or urinal) for every 150 employees of each gender. There are only 4 per floor which leads to unacceptable wait times and unsanitary conditions in the restrooms. Please confirm that there are fewer than 80 employees of each gender per floor to justify having 4 water closets per gender per floor, or reduce the amount of employees in the building to comply with OSHA policy.

1910.141(c)(1)(i)
Except as otherwise indicated in this paragraph (c)(1)(i), toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section. The number of facilities to be provided for each sex shall be based on the number of employees of that sex for whom the facilities are furnished. Where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet, separate toilet rooms for each sex need not be provided. Where such single-occupancy rooms have more than one toilet facility, only one such facility in each toilet room shall be counted for the purpose of table J-1.
Number of employees Minimum number of water closets1
1 to 15 1
16 to 35 2
36 to 55 3
56 to 80 4
81 to 110 5
111 to 150 6
Over 150 (2)

Link to policy:
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9790