Amazon pays workers to quit, no strings attached

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It would make far more financial sense to lay off those staff and off-shore.

Uh, those are distribution center workers getting those offers.
The very centers Amazon is spending billions to automate and locate reasonably close to their customers. So offshoring is the very last thing they want.

These initiatives aren't about cutting costs, but about employee satisfaction: weeding out the dissatisfied and challenging the ambitious...

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Jyster

In California, if you quit, its very difficult to get unemployment benefits. So to me, it just wouldnt be worth it.

I think the point is you quit if you are unhappy and move on to a job you are happier in, not move on to feeding at the public trough indefinitely.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Jyster

In California, if you quit, its very difficult to get unemployment benefits. So to me, it just wouldnt be worth it.

I have seen over the years when these general reduction plans were put into effect, some of the people would first find another job, and then accept the offer. Finally the company realized they were losing too many people they wanted to keep, and became more specific about who could accept the offers.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by frahse

I have seen over the years when these general reduction plans were put into effect, some of the people would first find another job, and then accept the offer. Finally the company realized they were losing too many people they wanted to keep, and became more specific about who could accept the offers.

Hmmm...if it were my company, I wouldn't want people working for me who thought it was ok to do that.

Shari

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...if it were my company, I wouldn't want people working for me who thought it was ok to do that.

Shari

It's perfectly OK to do that. That's precisely what the offer is there for.
What on Earth would you expect them to do otherwise? You think the intent is to put them on unemployment??

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh, those are distribution center workers getting those offers.

Aren't most of those workers actually employees of other companies that supply the labor? Or is this really for the distribution center managers?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So offshoring is the very last thing they want.

Of course, it just won't work when it comes to warehouse operations. But if it did work, offshoring still might be "the very last thing they want" because workers outside the US often have more rights and protections.

Here's what's going on offshore this week:

Amazon workers in Germany strike

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

because workers outside the US often have more rights and protections.

Yeah...cuz when US companies 'off-shore' they hire workers in Germany and Sweden.......

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's perfectly OK to do that. That's precisely what the offer is there for.
What on Earth would you expect them to do otherwise? You think the intent is to put them on unemployment??

I think the point is that they want to keep the people who are loyal to the company, and who want to work there. If someone is looking for another job, I don't want them working for me, and I imagine Amazon doesn't, either.

Shari

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Aren't most of those workers actually employees of other companies that supply the labor? Or is this really for the distribution center managers?



Of course, it just won't work when it comes to warehouse operations. But if it did work, offshoring still might be "the very last thing they want" because workers outside the US often have more rights and protections.

Here's what's going on offshore this week:

Amazon workers in Germany strike

No, Amazon warehouses don't all rely on sub-contractors. It depends on the business climate. Hostile markets they use contractors, business-friendly ones get Amazon contracts and long term commitments. Common practice.

And, no, the german operation is not off-shoring since it supports the region it is located in. Relying on "Brian from Bangalore" to provide user support for New Jersey is offshoring. Shipping products from a German warehouse to Sweden isn't because the entire EU is effectively a single market/service region.

Neither would be closing their German warehouses and serving that market form Poland or Switzerland since those are part of the same service region.

From Wikipedia:

Offshoring is defined as the movement of a business process done at a company in one country to the same or another company in another, different country. Almost always work is moved because of a lower cost of operations in the new location. More recently, offshoring drivers also include access to qualified personnel abroad, in particular in technical professions, and increasing speed to market.[2] Offshoring is sometimes contrasted with outsourcing or offshore outsourcing. Outsourcing is the movement of internal business processes to an external organizational unit. Outsourcing refers to the process by which an organization gives part of its work to another firm / organization and makes it responsible for most of the applications as well as the design of the enterprise business process. This process is done under restrictions and strategies in order to establish consistency with the offshore outsourcing organizations. Many companies nowadays outsource various professional areas in the company such as e-mail services, payroll and call center. These jobs are being handled by other organizations that specialize in each sector allowing the off-shoring company to focus more on other business concerns . However, subcontracting in the same country would be outsourcing, but not offshoring. A company moving an internal business unit from one country to another would be offshoring or physical restructuring, but not outsourcing. A company subcontracting a business unit to a different company in another country would be both outsourcing and offshoring.

Related terms include nearshoring, which implies relocation of business processes to (typically) lower cost foreign locations, but in close geographical proximity (e.g., shifting United States-based business processes to Canada/Latin America); inshoring, which means picking services within a country; and bestshoring or rightshoring, picking the "best shore" based on various criteria. Business process outsourcing (BPO) refers to outsourcing arrangements when entire business functions (such as Finance & Accounting, Customer Service, etc.) are outsourced. More specific terms can be found in the field of software development - for example Global Information System as a class of systems being developed for / by globally distributed teams.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

I think the point is that they want to keep the people who are loyal to the company, and who want to work there. If someone is looking for another job, I don't want them working for me, and I imagine Amazon doesn't, either.

Shari

And that's what the offer is about: a satisfaction test.
A facility that gets too many acceptances will likely soon find itself with new managers. These tests run both ways.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by shalym

I think the point is that they want to keep the people who are loyal to the company, and who want to work there. If someone is looking for another job, I don't want them working for me, and I imagine Amazon doesn't, either.

Shari

I agree with reservations. Ambitious, intelligent, competent people are usually open to opportunity and thus keep up on the job marketplace. Unambitious or incompetent people are generally easily replaced. An ambitious person may leave or they may move up the career ladder and become a bigger asset. The incompetent are more likely to take the first $1000 and be looking for their job back in a few weeks.

I think I would prefer ambitious, intelligent, competent employees in most instances over those that were merely loyal. Oops maybe I don't agree but I thought I did for a moment

Helen

[shalym]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I agree with reservations. Ambitious, intelligent, competent people are usually open to opportunity and thus keep up on the job marketplace. Unambitious or incompetent people are generally easily replaced. An ambitious person may leave or they may move up the career ladder and become a bigger asset. The incompetent are more likely to take the first $1000 and be looking for their job back in a few weeks.

I think I would prefer ambitious, intelligent, competent employees in most instances over those that were merely loyal. Oops maybe I don't agree but I thought I did for a moment

Helen

Ah...but this is slightly different from what started this branch of the conversation. Frahse said:

Originally Posted by frahse
I have seen over the years when these general reduction plans were put into effect, some of the people would first find another job, and then accept the offer. Finally the company realized they were losing too many people they wanted to keep, and became more specific about who could accept the offers.

This implies somebody hearing about the deal and actively looking for a job just so they can take the deal. What you talk about is different--That's something that I think most people do--they keep their skills up to date, and don't throw away opportunity if it comes their way.

Would you really want someone working for you who was actively looking for a new job?

Shari

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ah...but this is slightly different from what started this branch of the conversation. Frahse said:

This implies somebody hearing about the deal and actively looking for a job just so they can take the deal. What you talk about is different--That's something that I think most people do--they keep their skills up to date, and don't throw away opportunity if it comes their way.

Would you really want someone working for you who was actively looking for a new job?

Shari

I think I would prefer that to the incompetent

Personal experience as an employee is that I do look at other job opportunities even when I have a well paying job that I like. I don't think I have changed jobs because of looking when I was content, but I did/do look.

If I had a relatively low paying job, where I didn't like my work, well I've quit a few in my time without a bonus or a better job to go to. Life is too short.

I think the strategy behind the offer may be a bit more than the obvious.

A really unhappy or a non thinking individual might say cool $1000, I can buy a new TV and quit on the spot even if they have been there 23 months..

Someone who looks ahead and not actively unhappy may be induced to stay one month longer because the bonus will be bigger.

The seriously competent intelligent employee is probably not working an entry level job at Amazon and is possibly being actively recruited whether they want to be or not.

I think, although I certainly do not know, that it is a two way weeding out strategy.

I also think it may backfire in that good steady employees in the 3-5 year range who aren't making the big bucks will probably take the bonus even if they are not really unhappy. New baby, mortgage, lots of reasons.

And having been an department head with hiring responsibilities and performance bonuses based on my department, the reliable, competent in their job, don't annoy the customers or other staff, kind of employees, are the most irreplaceable.

Still I understand where you are coming from. Most employers probably see it as disloyalty and even an affront if the employee is thinking even vaguely of leaving even if they would be happy to see them go. In some cases, although I am sure not yours, it is kind of like you can't quit because I have often wanted to fire you but didn't.

I will be interested in seeing how it plays out. Will Amazon let their core staff of support people take the bonus and quit? Will they hire them back after giving them the bonus if they are indeed good employees? They can't very well give them the bonus and let them keep their jobs or everyone would quit.

Helen

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I think I would prefer ambitious, intelligent, competent employees in most instances over those that were merely loyal. Oops maybe I don't agree but I thought I did for a moment

Totally off topic (apologies) but what about intelligent, competent & loyal employees compared to intelligent, competent & ambitious employees? Is ambition always a good thing or lack of ambition always a negative?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

Totally off topic (apologies) but what about intelligent, competent & loyal employees compared to intelligent, competent & ambitious employees? Is ambition always a good thing or lack of ambition always a negative?

Ambition is good when coupled with competence; it usually results in productive employees.

Ambition is bad without competence; it invariably produces politicians and nobody wants politicians in the workplace. Or anywhere else for that matter.