4 ms·

> But that's the thing - temp labor is, by definition, disposable. You're moving the goalposts. Your initial post, which I was responding to, said that compan

> But that's the thing - temp labor is, by definition, disposable. You're moving the goalposts. Your initial post, which I was responding to, said that companies treating their unskilled workers as disposable "doesn't pass the smell test." Now, when confronted with evidence, you claim that same treatment is "by definition." That's not very consistent. > The links you provided - which read like propaganda, btw So sorry to impinge on your bubble. Too bad I couldn't burst it. > So it appears Amazon does struggle to get good help How did you get there from that quote? That's not the only explanation for wanting employees that haven't been to prison, let alone the most likely one. > and has systems set up that provide structure. Indeed, it's very controlling to the average information worker that comments on Hacker News, but just might work well within the confines of their warehouse. These workers are people, and they should not be treated like unthinking machines.

trentnix 10y ago
1. Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. 2. They read like propaganda because they set up dramatic emotional arguments about people and their families. Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife at 2am because she "can't sleep when he isn't there"? It's manipulation, and consequently your response would lead me to feel quite comfortable that it's not me in the bubble. 3. If the economics of a particular job don't justify a higher wage, then the standards for hiring are lowered. It's not a reach at all to arrive at my conclusion. 4. Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. Again, it's moving the goalposts to say these situations "don't pass the smell test," then turn around to say "but it's OK because they're temps." > Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife Perhaps not, but it's more engaging writing, and there's plenty of factual reporting there as well. > Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately. The thing is, the real situation is usually more complicated and often doesn't offer such easy choices for the actual workers. It's telling that, on the one hand, you excuse these work environments as being fit for non-information-workers, then turn around an expect these workers to have information-worker levels of economic power in job choice. While it can be quite comforting to believe the market will sort this all out, I think that's naive and causes some people to blind themselves to the actual problems out there.

trentnix 10y ago

1. Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. 2. They read like propaganda because they set up dramatic emotional arguments about people and their families. Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife at 2am because she "can't sleep when he isn't there"? It's manipulation, and consequently your response would lead me to feel quite comfortable that it's not me in the bubble. 3. If the economics of a particular job don't justify a higher wage, then the standards for hiring are lowered. It's not a reach at all to arrive at my conclusion. 4. Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. Again, it's moving the goalposts to say these situations "don't pass the smell test," then turn around to say "but it's OK because they're temps." > Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife Perhaps not, but it's more engaging writing, and there's plenty of factual reporting there as well. > Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately. The thing is, the real situation is usually more complicated and often doesn't offer such easy choices for the actual workers. It's telling that, on the one hand, you excuse these work environments as being fit for non-information-workers, then turn around an expect these workers to have information-worker levels of economic power in job choice. While it can be quite comforting to believe the market will sort this all out, I think that's naive and causes some people to blind themselves to the actual problems out there.