[Hitch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

One measure is the longer best employer lists, such as this:

http://www.greatplacetowork.com/best...es-to-work-for

Year after year, Amazon is the biggest tech company not on the list.

Am I the only one who knows that to be ON the list, a company has to actually APPLY to be put on the list? And your operating assumption is that, what...Amazon did, and didn't make the cut? Anyone think that maybe, they didn't bother to apply?

Oh, BTW: Funnily enough, Apple wasn't on that list, either, were they? But every Jobbleshead I've ever known practically had to undergo deprogramming, they were so crazy for the cult of Apple. What's that say, then? Oh, and their average turnover? Every two years. Yeah, that's long-term happy-happy joy-joy employees, all right.

With all due respect, the fact you "haven't seen ANY turnover, of any person I've dealt with, in nearly 5 years" is proof that your sample isn't random. So your experience, while I can't fault you for basing your opinion on it, shouldn't influence others.

Larger samples have repeatedly shown Amazon to have extraordinarily high employee turnover. See:

http://www.ibtimes.com/amazoncom-has...panies-1361257

Really? Wow. that certainly explains why Google, the #1 ranked "best company to work for," from your FIRST link, has the third-highest turnover, and 3rd-lowest employee loyalty, from your SECOND link--right? Amazon's "median employee tenure" is 1 year. Google's is 1.1 years. Doesn't that mean that Google's the Second Big Satan? Oh, but, wait, no...you said, in your FIRST link, that they are the BEST place in NA to work! Gosh.

And it's really bizarre--shouldn't those lists correlate? Shouldn't those WONDERFUL to work for companies have low employee turnover, and high loyalty? So...when they don't, is that another "skewed sample?"

Ordinary warehouse workers are mostly not included in these statistics because the non-managers tend to work for staffing firms.

Is is possible for a good employer to have high turnover? Sure. That's just one factor. But it seems to me that if everyone you know at Amazon is still there years later, and everyone likes it, your sample is, by happenstance, skewed.

Oh, yes, that's it. It's statistically skewed. The fact that not one person I've dealt with has left, in 5+ years, PROVES that my opinion and my sample is skewed, and that Amazon = "bad place to work." Come on. It's obvious you have some axe to grind either with corporations, or Amazon specifically, or you would have noticed that the BEST place in America to work, Google, had equally high employee turnover as did Amazon, while paying a LOT more. Or that Apple wasn't on the first list, while it occupied a solid "lack of employee loyalty" on the second.

Or that the spokesperson for the second data set explicitly and expressly stated that:

A high employee turnover rate isn’t always because the company isn’t a good one to work for. When workers are willing to hop from job to job, it is usually an indicator of an improving job market, Payscale’s lead economist Katie Bardaro said.

"Workers might be job-hopping more than before. This means that the industry is hot and the economy is improving," she told Business Insider. "Some of the firms on [the high turnover] list are there, because they're a hot market."

So, really...these lists prove nothing. The first is highly, grossly misleading, due to its "apply here" nature; the second seems to indicate that Google employees are higher-paid and just as unhappy. And wait: no screwed-over warehouse employees THERE to blame THAT on, are there?

Hitch