Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Trick question. All corporations are amoral.

Here we go again. Standard Amazon defense: "All corporations are bad so why pick on Amazon?" There are many, many companies (quoted by the lead article in this thread) with far higher employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods than Amazon. By the empirical measures given, Amazon is a worse company to work for.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Certainly nothing that suggests a pervasive attitude.

Comparative employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods certainly do demonstrate a "pervasive attitude." Amazon HR even calls their employment-policy "Purposeful Darwinism." Not pervasive? Yeah, right.

[jgaiser]

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?

Nope. Not in the slightest. Spent too much time in a high pressure industry to be too concerned about those that can't take the pressure and then whine.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Here we go again. Standard Amazon defense: "All corporations are bad so why pick on Amazon?"

Not at all. I consider it an employer defense. I don't care what company the stories might have been written about. I just don't consider comfort, self-esteem, and whatnot to be a corporation's "duty." A job you don't hate is not a right. If all retailers catered to their employees' every touchy-feely need, only employees of retailers would be able to afford the goods they sold.

There are many, many companies (quoted by the lead article in this thread) with far higher employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods than Amazon. By the empirical measures given, Amazon is a worse company to work for.

Maybe. But all are still amoral.

I don't much give a damn about employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods. They're numbers. The companies chasing those numbers get the numbers they want one way or another.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Here we go again. Standard Amazon defense: "All corporations are bad so why pick on Amazon?" There are many, many companies (quoted by the lead article in this thread) with far higher employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods than Amazon. By the empirical measures given, Amazon is a worse company to work for.



Comparative employee-satisfaction ratings and average employment periods certainly do demonstrate a "pervasive attitude." Amazon HR even calls their employment-policy "Purposeful Darwinism." Not pervasive? Yeah, right.

Can you name me 10 major companies with 90% of ALL their employees (now and former) being 100% satisfied with the company? I want evidence of this.

Oh and I still want data on which employees are staying less than a year at Amazon.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

Might not be BS, cycling uses different muscles, if he went in to the job assuming he was fit and in great shape, hard work might have been a surprise to him

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Might not be BS, cycling uses different muscles, if he went in to the job assuming he was fit and in great shape, hard work might have been a surprise to him

He complained about blisters on his feet from so much walking. But blisters aren't caused by too much walking. They're caused by improperly fitting, or inappropriate footwear. I take your point, but his story just doesn't wash. It asks me to believe that all Amazon warehouse employees who don't quit after a day or two with tears in their eyes are in better shape than even a hobby cyclist.

EDIT: and yes, those of you getting ready to scream that we're not talking about warehouse employees here, I know that. But you made it relevant by claiming that the "toxic" work environment at Amazon is pervasive.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It hasn't bitten any of the other companies that have done/do the same exact thing. I am afraid you will be disappointed.

My company has a huge work/life balance initiative, and I very much doubt it is because they care about us. It is because we need to give good customer service, and attrition takes a huge toll. I have worked at my company for 24 years, and I can truly say it would take 2 25 year olds to do my job.

[murg]

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?

Actually, no.

I'm in Australia. So everything I buy from the US is expensive, especially more so if I buy it in Australia.

Compared to Australia wages, very few people in the US pay their low end employees as well.

When I go shopping in the US, I pretty much only go to Amazon. In the first place, their prices are reasonable, if not good.

But the real reason is that the customer service is superb. If you have a problem, any problem, Amazon assumes it was their fault and resolves it. Even if it costs them more. I've had two issues with recent orders: in one, they shipped a missing item with no drama; in the other, they cut loose a stalled shipment (ultimately due to my fault), didn't charge me for the shipping and upgraded it to expedited shipping. I didn't ask for the upgrade, I only enquired why the shipment was stalled.

As to how they treat their employees, when you get down to it, we really don't know how any company treats their employees. In the case of the NYT, experience has taught us that in any reporting on Amazon, the NYT is being a tabloid, in that they will be quite happy to take isolated worst-case cases and propagandise them into the common place.

As to some of the specifics in the story, I've worked places that I'd love to have had the ability to report anonymously on managers without it coming back to haunt me. I've worked in environments such as is described, and they are not necessarily company wide.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

He complained about blisters on his feet from so much walking. But blisters aren't caused by too much walking. They're caused by improperly fitting, or inappropriate footwear. I take your point, but his story just doesn't wash. It asks me to believe that all Amazon warehouse employees who don't quit after a day or two with tears in their eyes are in better shape than even a hobby cyclist.

He could have bought those properly fitting appropriate shoes from Amazon.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by murg

In the case of the NYT, experience has taught us that in any reporting on Amazon, the NYT is being a tabloid, in that they will be quite happy to take isolated worst-case cases and propagandise them into the common place.

In Philadelphia, our Pulitzer-prize winning tabloid Daily News is famed for presenting the public with anecdotal evidence of police corruption.

Good newspapers, tabloid or broadsheet, search out such evidence. They do this in investigating governments, and should, as here, apply the same focus to big business.

Originally Posted by TimW

Since I don't know both sides of a given situation, I decline to accept unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence.

The Times interviewed about a hundred current and former employees, and reported on what they told them. Anecdotal? Sure. Isolated? Doesn't look like it is to me.

They also gave Amazon an opportunity for rebuttal before and after original publication, and wrote about both. Their Public Editor's column partially took Amazon's side. Maybe if you read the Times more, you'll have more of both sides.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In Philadelphia, our Pulitzer-prize winning tabloid Daily News is famed for presenting the public with anecdotal evidence of police corruption.

Anecdotal evidence is what good newspapers, tabloid or broadsheet, focus on. They do this in investigating governments, and should, as here, apply the same focus to big business.

The Times interviewed about a hundred current and former employees, and reported on what they told them. Anecdotal? Sure. Isolated? Doesn't look like it is to me.

How many current and former employees does Amazon have?
1000, 10,000 or more?
At 1000 that hundred would be 10%. At 10,000 that is only 1% of all employees.
So it could be isolated.
Now if it is only 500 employees then it would be 50%. That would be more convincing.

[Angst]

Nick Ciubotariu, a current Amazon employee of 18 months, wrote a rebuttle to the nytimes article. I found this quote buried in the letter:

If Amazon used to be this way (and it most likely was, as you’ll see in the quote below), from my 18 month experience working in two of its biggest product groups, that Amazon no longer exists. Last year, during all-hands, a very high ranking Executive said, verbatim:

Amazon used to burn a lot of people into the ground. This isn’t how we do things anymore, and it isn’t how I run my business. I want this to be a place where people solve problems that cannot be solved, anywhere in the world, but they feel good about working for a great company at the same time. And if you’re burning people into the ground with overwork, you’re not doing it right, and you need to course-correct, or you don’t need to be here.

Both the NYTimes and Nick seem to agree that Amazon has been brutal to it's employees in the past. That the problems no longer exist, in Nick's limited experience in his department, does not mean the problems no longer exist elsewhere in the company.

There is also a current trend, in Amazon and else where, to label criticism from within as disgruntled employees, thereby dismissing the problem without addressing the facts. Information is also dismissed on the grounds it is anecdotal.

While the events may actually be true they are dismissed by invoking the memes associated with the words "disgruntled employee" and "anecdotal."

For example (extreme case hypothesised to make a point):
Say my boss forces me to work two twenty-four hour shifts back to back. If I complain I am labeled as a disgruntled employee giving anecdotal evidence.
This is a standard response used to dismiss my claims without addressing them. It ignores the facts that:
1. I am justified in being pissed off.
2. Even though I don't have hard evidence of the occurance, it still occurred. I can only relate the experience, not prove it.

Just because someone doesn't want the facts to be true, or hasn't personally experienced them, does not mean the facts are false and can be dismissed without due consideration.

It is worth noting that in Jeff Bezos' letter to his employees he evoked the anecdotal meme on more than one occasion.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Angst

While the events may actually be true they are dismissed by invoking the memes associated with the words "disgruntled employee" and "anecdotal."

Is there such a thing as a enthusiastic disgruntled employee ?

Complainers are automatically 'disgruntled'

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Angst

For example (extreme case hypothesised to make a point):
Say my boss forces me to work two twenty-four hour shifts back to back. If I complain I am labeled as a disgruntled employee giving anecdotal evidence.
This is a standard response used to dismiss my claims without addressing them. It ignores the facts that:
1. I am justified in being pissed off.
2. Even though I don't have hard evidence of the occurance, it still occurred. I can only relate the experience, not prove it.

Of course, your extreme case has your employer forcing you to do something illegal (work 24 hour shifts) so your complaint is automatically justified.

If you complain about something that your employer "forces" (such a loaded word---no employer can actually "force" an employee to do anything) you to do that isn't illegal, then your justification for being "pissed off" about it is based on opinion. People can be pissed off about whatever they want to be pissed off about. That doesn't mean you're inherently justified in being pissed off.

It's anecdotal because it can't be verified. That it really, really happened to you is irrelevant to what kind of evidence it is. You're a disgruntled employee because you're a disgruntled employee.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course, your extreme case has your employer forcing you to do something illegal (work 24 hour shifts) so your complaint is automatically justified.

If you complain about something that your employer "forces" (such a loaded word---no employer can actually "force" an employee to do anything) you to do that isn't illegal, then your justification for being "pissed off" about it is based on opinion. People can be pissed off about whatever they want to be pissed off about. That doesn't mean you're inherently justified in being pissed off.

It's anecdotal because it can't be verified. That it really, really happened to you is irrelevant to what kind of evidence it is. You're a disgruntled employee because you're a disgruntled employee.

AFAIK The only jobs that you ARE NOT permitted to be on-(duty) shift is regulated by the DOT. 12 hour shift with 8 hours OFF (sleeping?) is the rules for Truckers . (We see in the papers and TV when some of them cheat on their log)

I have had 28 hour shifts. My wallet got fat, I was just too beat to spend it
You refuse, and there is always someone else willing to work in your place...permanently.