Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Their ruling will concern the bare minimum a company can get away with, whereas my post was about what a good company would do.

May I ask, upon what are you adjudicating this? A "good company" versus the "bad company" that only does the bare minimum? Are you an Amazon employee, with a dog in the fight, so to speak? Do you own a corporation that selflessly employs a lot of people, for whom you pay wages, benefits, etc.? Are you a union rep or organizer? What's your background and expertise in labor, labor relations, P&L, etc., that forms, informs, and weights your opinion, for those of us reading it? Are you the Eisenberg with the PI practice, or...? Seriously?

What's your frame of reference, here? Everybody (who has any interest, for whatever reason) knows (boring) mine: nearly 3 decades in corporate America, for small, medium, and enormous corporations, and now I run my own small business. That's my frame of reference, both as employee, contractor, and now employer. I've been on all sides of the "payment" and "benefits" argument. ALL sides. You seem to take the "Amazon is Evil" side, so...what corporation do you think is a "good" corporation, in comparison?

I agree. The three judge appeals panel ruled unanimously for the workers, and it could have ended right there.

Yes, to have it resolved as you believe was "right."

I mean, let's posit this: a company moves to another building, in the same town. It's 30-45 miles away from where it was located previously. Should it now be paying for the additional employee time for commuting? If some of the employees now live closer than they did before, should they be paid LESS? What's "fair" here?

As I stated previously, NO company in its right mind would put up such draconian security measures, costing it money in 9 bajjilion ways (equipment, personnel, time, and the lawsuit) unless they needed it. The irony here is thick as old-style LA Smog. The employees, or some bad apples amongst them, have cost other employees time, effort, etc., because (obviously) they stole from Amazon and Amazon's customers. Now, those bad apples have caused their fellow honest employees to suffer up to 25 minutes a day in lines, waiting for security. That's direct cause-->effect. Maybe some of the good apples even knew who was doing it, but didn't turn in their friends. More cause-->effect.

Near-direct comparison? Everyone here who's read my "honesty" rants knows that 3 years ago, I had to go to "pay upfront" for our services, because a few "bad apple" authors ruined it for everyone else. Not a mere few--not 2 or 3; MANY. I was ripped off for thousands one year, thought it was anomalous, was ripped off for more the following year. Now, everybody pays upfront. Should I have continued to sit there and take it, unto bankruptcy, or am I entitled to take business measures to prevent theft, keep my business running, which then allows me to pay my employees, who ALSO need the income from my company, so that they can pay THEIR bills? Sure, I could have been a "good guy" and cheerily run right into bankruptcy, which would have taken my employees with me. Now they'd be unemployed. But they're NOT. Because I took "security measures" to ensure that I was receiving what I paid for.

Amazon is not paying (the contract) employees to steal from them. Nor is the interim, contract company. They are paying them to work. I, as an Amazon customer, have the right to not pay higher prices because Amazon has a loss column due to theft. Amazon has a right to their profits. The employee has a right to be paid, for an honest (HONEST) day's work. Not to sit there and steal. That the thieves ruined it for everyone else? Unfortunate, agreed. But hardly the fault of Amazon.

(And, last but not least: I speak to real, live, Amazonians--they all love their jobs, and their employer. Not customer service Amazonians; corporate ones. I haven't seen ANY turnover, of any person I've dealt with, in nearly 5 years, and that's a good number of people. I find it amazing that I have yet to have a SINGLE Amazonian tell me how horrible their employer is, but boy...outsiders sure think it's Dante's 15th Level of Hell!)

</rant>

Hitch

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You seem to take the "Amazon is Evil" side, so...what corporation do you think is a "good" corporation, in comparison?

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.

(And, last but not least: I speak to real, live, Amazonians--they all love their jobs, and their employer. Not customer service Amazonians; corporate ones. I haven't seen ANY turnover, of any person I've dealt with, in nearly 5 years, and that's a good number of people.

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

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.

[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

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Hitch

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?

I wasn't aware of the free application process for that particular list, but reading your statement, and after googling, now I am. But there are other surveys like that which I have never seen Amazon listed on, and I doubt companies have to apply to all of them. I don't have time now to verify this and get a reasonable sample of them but may be able to do it in the next couple days.

Oh, BTW: Funnily enough, Apple wasn't on that list, either, were they?

Often, not always, Apple is on best employer lists.

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?

Silicon Valley culture is famous for job hopping, and that's where Google and Apple are headquartered. I do not believe job hopping is the primary way to measure employee satisfaction -- although it can raise questions open to differing answers. I was using job hopping not to bash Amazon, but to measure whether your private sample of Amazon employees was random.

So, really...these lists prove nothing.

The kind of evidence I prefer to apply in these threads is publicly available evidence, and they are that.

I agree they prove nothing. The reason we can discuss this reasonably and at length is that there is good evidence for multiple positions without any one being scientifically proven.

[murg]

I remember a story from many years ago, about a reporter's resume that stated that she had been twice nominated for a particular press award.

This particular press award was one where you had to nominate yourself...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wasn't aware of the free application process for that particular list, but reading your statement, and after googling, now I am. But there are other surveys like that which I have never seen Amazon listed on, and I doubt companies have to apply to all of them. I don't have time now to verify this and get a reasonable sample of them but may be able to do it in the next couple days.


Often, not always, Apple is on best employer lists.

And that was precisely my point. The much-vaunted, much-loved Apple wasn't on the "Best Employers" list that you linked to, and has essentially the same rate of turnover--which was the entire point of the second link, which purported to show employee dissatisfaction--as Amazon. What's sauce for the goose...

Silicon Valley culture is famous for job hopping, and that's where Google and Apple are headquartered. I do not believe job hopping is the primary way to measure employee satisfaction -- although it can raise questions open to differing answers. I was using job hopping not to bash Amazon, but to measure whether your private sample of Amazon employees was random.

The argument, then, if I understand you correctly, is that showing a list that says that both Amazon and Apple, neither of whom were on the first list, but both of whom were nearly-identically ranked on the second, proves that Apple has high employee turnover due to famous job-hopping, but Amazon is there because it's a bad employer? Come on, Steve. Saying that you used the list to show me that my known employees are somehow outside the norm is fine, but the evidence on the ground--at this point in this conversation--isn't compelling. it is, in fact, contraindicated, if you take the data thus far provided.

The kind of evidence I prefer to apply in these threads is publicly available evidence, and they are that.

I agree they prove nothing. The reason we can discuss this reasonably and at length is that there is good evidence for multiple positions without any one being scientifically proven.

Well, I'm certainly constrained from listing the Amazon folks I work with, obviously, so...no, I can't "prove" that assertion. People will, in this single instance, have to determine whether or not I seem credible. I don't really post pseudonymously; I'm easy to find and see, etc. They are free to judge for themselves. But other than the occasional complaint from what seem to be highly disgruntled former employees--and what company does NOT have that?--and extremely hyped and hyperbolic assertions made by other folks who DO have a dog in the fight (labor organizers, etc.), I think it's quite hard to judge, honestly and objectively.

Just as there was and is a great deal of utterly unwarranted Gates-Hate on the Net, along with the inexplicable worshipping of Jobs--instances which still boggle my mind to this day, if you view the two men individually and in light of their collective works, both personal and professional--there's a boatload of Amazon-hate (and Microsoft-Hate), while at the same time, Apple is worshiped, a line of thought that is perpetuated by former Applers, like Guy Kawasaki, etc. They are all simply corporations. Apple has a magnificent spin machine whilst the others simply don't. Jobs knew how to tap into the Zeitgeist; the others don't. In my experience, both MS and Amazon are heavily focused on giving customers what they think the customers NEED; Apple is entirely focused on delivering what's perceived as what a client WANTS, or thinks he wants, the next great toy. Apple discards customers's devices, OS's, etc., like knickers, because they want you to FORCE you to buy the next thing; Amazon bends over backwards supporting an out-of-date device you bought 6 years ago. But Apple's loved; Amazon's hated. And thus the endless headlines. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

(One wonders...if all those contract-employees in the Far East could be polled, how great an employer Apple would be? Instead of only those living in the rarified air?)

Hitch

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The evangelical title of this thread is absurd. As if Amazon is on anybody's side but their own. Amazon the class warrior

As if anyone is on anybody's side but their own

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The kind of evidence I prefer to apply in these threads is publicly available evidence, and they are that.
I agree they prove nothing. The reason we can discuss this reasonably and at length is that there is good evidence for multiple positions without any one being scientifically proven.

Nothing can be scientifically proven.

[rhadin]

If nothing is proven isn't that proving something?

[Glorfindel]

I said nothing can be scientifically proven

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

I said nothing can be scientifically proven

Eh?

Also it is a silly statement. When we talk about to scientifically prove things we do not mean that the result is not fallible.

[Rizla]

S&S to Go Agency With Amazon

The deal is believed to keep the amount of money authors earn from the sale of e-books at current levels.

Amazon the working/middle-class hero

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Rizla

S&S to Go Agency With Amazon



Amazon the working/middle-class hero

More interesting is this in article:

will let S&S set the e-book prices while giving Amazon room for some discounting.

So it is not agency with fixed prices, but price ranges? Interesting.

[murg]

Agency, when you boil it down to it's bare minimum, is a 30% margin, without the ability to discount.

The 30% margin seems fairly standard, whether agency or non-agency. The Amazon deal may cut the margin at a lessor rate the discount.

[ApK]

duplicate post