Homelessness shelters will generally be up against some pretty tight constraints. Their service is non-profit, their staffing is either voluntary or tight and t

Homelessness shelters will generally be up against some pretty tight constraints. Their service is non-profit, their staffing is either voluntary or tight and their organization structure will be pushed by fluctuating demand. The constraints on a company participating in a program are quite disproportionate, they're looking to fill a seasonal gap and while looking towards a social problem to fill this gap is honourable (and mutually beneficial), they also need to be aware of the duress that mutually beneficial labour can create. This article only attempts to highlight the constraints. Amazon should have better social policy to be deal with the vulnerabilities of the assets they hire in this situation. I'm sure it's a learning experience for the YWCA, but the onus is still on Amazon to be able to better negotiate stable living conditions for the people it employed through such a program. These are people who have the potential to get out of bad situation but are still vulnerable (financially / socially / mentally), and this vulnerability should be realistically accounted for as the real liability that it is to the company employing. No company needs to embark on such a program, they could fill labour shortages through traditional means, but when they do, it should be with some mutual agreement to work with the organisation and employees to ensure a quality outcome. Anything less is socially negligent. It's heartening that Amazon wanted to participate, but I hope they can take on the criticism and help build a better program.