Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace

[Dr. Drib]

Moderator Notice


Posts 76-97 simply and quickly deleted. --- Now, try to start fresh.

Avoid the personal attacks...and if you can't, then you are advised to go to another website that allows personal attacks, temper tantrums, scolding, mindless 'jargonizing' argumentative short-fused rhetorical statements.

Any further outbreaks will result in a deleted post and/or further action taken - if necessary.

Take the time now to read or re-read our Posting Guidelines. For your ADDED CONVENIENCE, you'll find a link at the bottom of every page.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Angst

Why not?

Because those are entry level jobs.
Usually hard sweaty labor at low pay. Avoided by everybody who can, disliked by everybody who can't. Nobody stays there longer than they have to.

Not everybody can make a living leading the circus parade; some have to do it cleaning up after the elephant.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Because those are entry level jobs.
Usually hard sweaty labor at low pay. Avoided by everybody who can, disliked by everybody who can't. Nobody stays there longer than they have to.

Not everybody can make a living leading the circus parade; some have to do it cleaning up after the elephant.

I believe the quoted figures for staff turnover period (one year) for Amazon is for highly-paid executive positions. The average is given as 98k. The stats were given context on a discussion over on the digital reader. So its not low wage warehouse positions (or elephant-coolies as fjtorres imaginatively portrays them) we're discussing here.

[pwalker8]

In the programming world, businesses with high turnover are called sweatshops. The whole business model is to hire someone, work him or her like a dog until they quit and then hire someone else. Typically in a sweatshop like that, you have a core of people who keep the continuity and who have either learned how to manage the work, or simply like the lifestyle. I worked in such a place for five years (start up where the stock options turned out to be not quite as lucrative as hoped for). So, no, it's not just the elephant coolies who end up in jobs with high levels of turnovers. What makes the Amazon story somewhat different is the level of back biting and callous ruthlessness that was described.

I also agree the earlier post that pointed out that just because someone else does it, doesn't make it all right. That argument didn't even work with my mother when I was a little kid.

I think ultimately, assuming that the stories are true, the only thing that will change the culture is if the publicity hurts Amazon, both from a hiring point of view and a consumer point of view. I suspect that given that Amazon doesn't have any serious competition as a one stop online shop, the consumers won't punish them. I think it is more likely that it will hurt them from a hiring point of view. Good programmers rarely want to work in sweatshops.

[Angst]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Because those are entry level jobs.
Usually hard sweaty labor at low pay. Avoided by everybody who can, disliked by everybody who can't. Nobody stays there longer than they have to.

Not everybody can make a living leading the circus parade; some have to do it cleaning up after the elephant.

According to this report Amazon contracts it's warehouse workers from ISS. They wouldn't be employees of Amazon. I'm not sure if this applies only to Pennsylvania or not.

[SteveEisenberg]

(edited out this first part because Angst just made the point better)

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I also agree the earlier post that pointed out that just because someone else does it, doesn't make it all right.

Yes.

However, to give the other side its due, if everyone does it, then it wouldn't be fair to single out Amazon. Or, at least, it wouldn't be fair unless you made it clear that this was an example of something most companies do.

Amazon is just like the rest in resisting unionization. Almost all US employers who don't already have unions (with the rare exception of Volkeswagen of America) seem to be like that. So I don't normally mention it.

As to why Amazon is a corporate outlier, I thought I had a couple good posts on this in the deleted block. But it might be better not to repeat them

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think ultimately, assuming that the stories are true, the only thing that will change the culture is if the publicity hurts Amazon, both from a hiring point of view and a consumer point of view. I suspect that given that Amazon doesn't have any serious competition as a one stop online shop, the consumers won't punish them. I think it is more likely that it will hurt them from a hiring point of view. Good programmers rarely want to work in sweatshops.

All that will change Amazon's attitude is if people start shopping elsewhere. I certainly will be looking for alternatives.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rizla

All that will change Amazon's attitude is if people start shopping elsewhere. I certainly will be looking for alternatives.

"Will be looking?" You been anti-Amazon ever since you've been on MR. Surely you already avoid them, don't you?

[eschwartz]

He's looking for alternatives for me and you.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Will be looking?" You been anti-Amazon ever since you've been on MR. Surely you already avoid them, don't you?

No, I use amazon from time to time. But with these new revelations I will endeavor to place my $$$ elsewhere.

Don't you feel the same way? Don't these latest revelations cause you to question whether you should encourage their amoral working practices with your money?

[HarryT]

Nope.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope.

That is your privilege.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Rizla

No, I use amazon from time to time. But with these new revelations I will endeavor to place my $$$ elsewhere.

Don't you feel the same way? Don't these latest revelations cause you to question whether you should encourage their amoral working practices with your money?

Not at all. I've been in an HR position. When employees are having problems in completing work assignments (for a variety of reasons), eventually they find themselves without a job. Occasionally, I will hear of their "anecdotal evidence" as to how badly they were treated. Their "evidence" usually has some elements of the truth but events were misremembered to their benefit. That's human nature. Some disgruntled employees have a reason to feel wronged but many don't. Since I don't know both sides of a given situation, I decline to accept unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by TimW

Occasionally, I will hear of their "anecdotal evidence" as to how badly they were treated.

An average employment period of only one-year is hardly "anecdotal evidence." Why do you seek to characterize it as such?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Don't you feel the same way? Don't these latest revelations cause you to question whether you should encourage their amoral working practices with your money?

Trick question. All corporations are amoral.

Here's a new wrinkle: I'm pretty sure many of the "horror" stories have some basis in truth (with the exception of the "avid cyclist" who couldn't handle the physical requirements of the warehouse gig--that's just straight-up B.S.). I just don't consider them particularly horrific--or even noteworthy for that matter. Certainly nothing that suggests a pervasive attitude. Besides ... you're going to work ... not to Grandma's house for cookies.