Quote:
Originally Posted by Angst
The salient point for me was Amazon's employee turnover ratio of <1 year. It doesn't matter if Amazon fired them or if they left of their own volition, such a high turnover does not speak well for Amazon's workplace.
|
Have you looked at the turnover at Google?
Microsoft?
B&N?
OVERSTOCK?
Wal-Mart?
Try to look at this one:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._stack_up.html
Guess what? Technology and retail employ a lot of young people.
Young people switch jobs.
Oh, and Amazon works both categories.
(Plus, nobody's caught them them running "no poaching" conspiracies to keep employees from leaving. And if the NYT's six month hunt didn't find it...)
Or this one:
http://buzzmachine.com/2015/08/16/hacking-amazons-jungle-coverage/[/url]
Quote:
Where is the context about work as a whole? Is every office as wonderful as Google and Facebook are supposed to be? No, of course not. We all know that. So to what standard is Amazon being held? Is it better or worse than comparable and realistic (read: unGoogle) workplaces? That’s not in the piece. It needs to be.
Now to balance. Nick Ciubotariu, an engineer and executive at Amazon, wrote a very long rebuttal on LinkedIn, which I found only thanks to a Dan Gillmor link. Amid some amusing techcospeak (an issue “gets actioned”) are clear and sincere explanations for much of what The Times thinks it has exposed. For example, the orientation at any company, taken out of context, might sound like brainwashing; that’s normal. He says that the cases of how employees with pregnancies and health and family issues were allegedly mistreated are appalling and the company must address them. He acknowledges that Amazon might have changed between its founding and his hiring 18 months ago. But he likes working there. He, like many colleagues, is attracted to tackling huge problems — and that is obviously not easy work.
|
But really, all you need to know is the NYT piece is by Streitfeld.