6 ms·

Not all employees are treated poorly. Yeah, the stock vest is back loaded, but they typically give cash upfront, which you could just turn around and buy stocks

by gorbot 8y ago

Not all employees are treated poorly. Yeah, the stock vest is back loaded, but they typically give cash upfront, which you could just turn around and buy stocks with..

aylmao 8y ago
> which you could just turn around and buy stocks with. Which just benefits the company even further? Edit: if you downvote please reply. How will I correct my stance if I get no feedback? I'm not sure why I'm getting down voted. Edit: Thanks for the comments. I did assume this meant Amazon stock. Didn't think my comment sounded so combative until I was told.
- timdorr 8y ago
  If you're buying AMZN on the market, that's coming from other investors, not the company itself. It's already sold that stock (the IPO was back in 96) and benefited directly from it at that time.
  - greedo 8y ago
    Well, increased buying of AMZN would drive the price higher, and ostensibly, this percolates up to Amazon and it's employees.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    Not trying to be combative! Just providing a counter argument. Although it doesn't directly and immediately benefit a company, doesn't having lots of buy interest keep the stock price high, which _is_ beneficial for the company in general?
    - timdorr 8y ago
      Yep, you're totally right. I was only distinguishing on direct benefits (cash flow). There are certainly many more indirect benefits to performing well on the stock market.
- schwarzmx 8y ago
  They didn't say to buy Amazon stocks.
- mistersquid 8y ago
  I did not downvote you, but I will speculate that the single question does present as somewhat confrontational and, depending on mood, might have been interpreted as combative. If I understand your meaning and if your post's "confrontational" mood is/was the issue, you might have cast your post declaratively instead of interrogatively. For example, > Using compensation to buy stocks would benefit the company even further even though the company may unfairly exploit its employees. This would run counter to the employee's own interests. Or something along those lines. Recasting questions as statements sometimes reduces the rhetorical signals which can be interpreted confrontation. EDIT: Remove double quotes; add emphasis. Clarify last sentence. Use past perfect in first sentence. Recast second sentence.
kelukelugames 8y ago
That's a poor argument. I've gotten offers from many tech giants. They all included a sign-on cash bonus. Often much bigger than Amazon's. Amazon's total offer was usually about 100k lower. Sometimes more. Amazon SWEs still earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. So being treated poorly and paid less is relative. In Amazon's defense, I have friends who enjoy working there. The MBAs especially love it. Again, it's not like anyone is stuck in some Nike sweatshop from 1974.
- isostatic 8y ago
  White collar jobs are somewhat different than. We have choice, we have power. The best bet for amazon warehouse employees, and delivery drivers, would be to unionise. This would lead to either 1) More investment in robotics, taking away menial jobs 2) Better conditions for shelf-stackers. Both are good -- as a society we should not be making people work when the work could be done by robots.
  - acdha 8y ago
    I disagree only in the assessment that unionization isn’t also good advice for people with desk jobs. The C-level sees us as expensive workers who need to be treated better but still an expense rather than peers.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Roboticization is great for the long-term, Star Trek style economy. It's the Bell Riots and Sanctuary Districts I'm worried about.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Of course... Star Trek's economy didn't run on robots, it ran on magic wish boxes that would defy the laws of physics in the real world. Which is why I suspect when it comes to Star Trek's future, we'll get to the dystopia, but not the utopia.
  - aquadrop 8y ago

by gorbot 8y ago

Not all employees are treated poorly. Yeah, the stock vest is back loaded, but they typically give cash upfront, which you could just turn around and buy stocks with..

aylmao 8y ago

> which you could just turn around and buy stocks with. Which just benefits the company even further? Edit: if you downvote please reply. How will I correct my stance if I get no feedback? I'm not sure why I'm getting down voted. Edit: Thanks for the comments. I did assume this meant Amazon stock. Didn't think my comment sounded so combative until I was told.

timdorr 8y ago
If you're buying AMZN on the market, that's coming from other investors, not the company itself. It's already sold that stock (the IPO was back in 96) and benefited directly from it at that time.
- greedo 8y ago
  Well, increased buying of AMZN would drive the price higher, and ostensibly, this percolates up to Amazon and it's employees.
- aylmao 8y ago
  Not trying to be combative! Just providing a counter argument. Although it doesn't directly and immediately benefit a company, doesn't having lots of buy interest keep the stock price high, which _is_ beneficial for the company in general?
  - timdorr 8y ago
    Yep, you're totally right. I was only distinguishing on direct benefits (cash flow). There are certainly many more indirect benefits to performing well on the stock market.
schwarzmx 8y ago
They didn't say to buy Amazon stocks.
mistersquid 8y ago
I did not downvote you, but I will speculate that the single question does present as somewhat confrontational and, depending on mood, might have been interpreted as combative. If I understand your meaning and if your post's "confrontational" mood is/was the issue, you might have cast your post declaratively instead of interrogatively. For example, > Using compensation to buy stocks would benefit the company even further even though the company may unfairly exploit its employees. This would run counter to the employee's own interests. Or something along those lines. Recasting questions as statements sometimes reduces the rhetorical signals which can be interpreted confrontation. EDIT: Remove double quotes; add emphasis. Clarify last sentence. Use past perfect in first sentence. Recast second sentence.

kelukelugames 8y ago

That's a poor argument. I've gotten offers from many tech giants. They all included a sign-on cash bonus. Often much bigger than Amazon's. Amazon's total offer was usually about 100k lower. Sometimes more. Amazon SWEs still earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. So being treated poorly and paid less is relative. In Amazon's defense, I have friends who enjoy working there. The MBAs especially love it. Again, it's not like anyone is stuck in some Nike sweatshop from 1974.

isostatic 8y ago
White collar jobs are somewhat different than. We have choice, we have power. The best bet for amazon warehouse employees, and delivery drivers, would be to unionise. This would lead to either 1) More investment in robotics, taking away menial jobs 2) Better conditions for shelf-stackers. Both are good -- as a society we should not be making people work when the work could be done by robots.
- acdha 8y ago
  I disagree only in the assessment that unionization isn’t also good advice for people with desk jobs. The C-level sees us as expensive workers who need to be treated better but still an expense rather than peers.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Roboticization is great for the long-term, Star Trek style economy. It's the Bell Riots and Sanctuary Districts I'm worried about.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Of course... Star Trek's economy didn't run on robots, it ran on magic wish boxes that would defy the laws of physics in the real world. Which is why I suspect when it comes to Star Trek's future, we'll get to the dystopia, but not the utopia.
- aquadrop 8y ago