That is about requirements, though. The failure in this example reflects a gap in the spec where there should have been a requirement for proof of building inaccessibility, in the form of e.g. a video of the worker trying and failing to open the door.
At it happens, this exact thing is 99% of the reason Amazon requires its delivery people to take+submit a photo proof of a delivery when they mark the package as "left at door." Without that requirement, they'd be able to just toss the packages out and mark them as "left at door." Amazon doesn't show those pictures to customers to show them where the package was left — that part should be obvious. They show them to customers so the customer can drive the complaint process when the picture shows that the driver did something stupid! The fact that customers are handed this evidence, in turn disincentivizes drivers from doing something stupid with customers' packages in the first place.
(This personally happened to me just last week: I ordered an Amazon package, and the driver left it at — and took a picture
of — the door of a condo within a building that, per the picture, was a completely different building from the one I live in. That picture was very helpful in getting [Amazon's customer service to contact the driver to get] me my package. That was an accident on the driver's part, but it should be clear to the drivers that this is a system that would track — and automatically punish — any attempt at intentional malfeasance at this step, on the basis of this same evidence.)
Not everything has proof, or has proof that is cost-effective to generate.
Amazon requiring its workers to photograph packages is a great idea, and one I applaud them for.
But most instances of employees running into difficulties don't have such elegant solutions. Unless you want employees to be wearing bodycams their whole shift... and then you're going to have to pay other people to review the footage which can take serious time...
> Unless you want employees to be wearing bodycams their whole shift... and then you're going to have to pay other people to review the footage which can take serious time...
Proof can (and should) be positive, rather than adversarial. You could have a bodycam that's recording for the whole shift, but — like in the case of the Amazon driver's photograph — the onus is on the worker to (hopefully with app assistance) trim their bodycam footage down to a short clip that proves the building was inaccessible, and then submit that clip as part of their report. If they choose "building was inaccessible" as an option, then this clip would be a required field on the form; they can't "complete" their job without it.
Yes, there's a bit of video evidence to review. But it's very small amounts of evidence at a time, and evidence only generated in an edge-case. (At least, at game-theoretic equilibrium. There might be more evidence generated at first as workers test the water to see what they can get away with.)
At it happens, this exact thing is 99% of the reason Amazon requires its delivery people to take+submit a photo proof of a delivery when they mark the package as "left at door." Without that requirement, they'd be able to just toss the packages out and mark them as "left at door." Amazon doesn't show those pictures to customers to show them where the package was left — that part should be obvious. They show them to customers so the customer can drive the complaint process when the picture shows that the driver did something stupid! The fact that customers are handed this evidence, in turn disincentivizes drivers from doing something stupid with customers' packages in the first place.
(This personally happened to me just last week: I ordered an Amazon package, and the driver left it at — and took a picture of — the door of a condo within a building that, per the picture, was a completely different building from the one I live in. That picture was very helpful in getting [Amazon's customer service to contact the driver to get] me my package. That was an accident on the driver's part, but it should be clear to the drivers that this is a system that would track — and automatically punish — any attempt at intentional malfeasance at this step, on the basis of this same evidence.)