4 ms·

Reminds one of a couple of related posts: > When I worked at Amazon we had to run around the warehouse, bc if our pick rate fell below a certain number we stop

Reminds one of a couple of related posts: > When I worked at Amazon we had to run around the warehouse, bc if our pick rate fell below a certain number we stopped getting paid. There were bottles & bins full of piss at odd points, bc you were penalised for toilet breaks. A co-worker attempted suicide on-site bc of the stress Source: https://twitter.com/OwennnThomas/status/1007957414577090560 https://twitter.com/OwennnThomas/status/1007957414577090560 > Workers at Amazon warehouse in Minnesota say they've suffered exhaustion, dehydration, injuries while working without air conditioning. Source: https://apnews.com/1d62290004b340feac5c359d59b86823 https://apnews.com/1d62290004b340feac5c359d59b86823

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
You'd think with all that cash Bezos could afford to pay his minions a humane rate. But he just doesn't care.
- TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
  $12/hour is inhumane?
  - detaro 8y ago
    If its combined with inhumane conditions as a requirement to stay employed, yes.
    - TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
      So what would you consider a "humane rate" to pay someone to work in inhumane conditions? $20/hr? $100/hr?
      - benologist 8y ago
        Why don't they just pay a humane rate and have humane conditions? Bezos is the only one demanding inhumane conditions and it doesn't have to be that way at all, it's an entirely contrived problem he invented to be a tiny little bit richer.
        krapp 8y ago
        >it's an entirely contrived problem he invented to be a tiny little bit richer. That would be why. Amazon exists to make Jeff Bezos and the shareholders as rich as possible, full stop.
      - grenoire 8y ago
        You simply do not push them into those inhumane conditions in the first place.
      - steveadoo 8y ago
        They could just hire more workers at $12/hr and I don't think there'd be a problem.
      - luddaite 8y ago
        How about we all agree that people shouldn't have to work in inhumane conditions?
    - krapp 8y ago
      Even with better conditions, if the rate of pay isn't enough for an employee to earn a living (food, shelter, amenities) even when employed full time, it's inhumane.
- ralusek 8y ago
  Aren't their margins like, razor-thin? Obviously at Amazon scale, even razor-thin margins mean huge profits, but that doesn't mean that you have any wiggle room within the profit. Imagine you have 100 people working for you, and off of each person, you make 10 cents a day. Now imagine you grow your business and you have 1,000,000 people working for you. At 10 cents per person per day, you're now making $100,000 a DAY! You're rich! If you wanted to give back to your employees, just remember that each one produces 10 cents of profit. If you gave them all 10 cents extra per day, it means nothing to any one of them, but your business now makes $0 profit.
  - calcifer 8y ago
    If your margins are so thin that people are forced to pee in bottles instead of going to the bathroom then your company shouldn't exist.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      Also if you're having employees carried out because they can't keep productivity up during 100F + east coast humidity, your company shouldn't exist. http://techland.time.com/2011/09/21/amazon-employees-carried-out-of-115-degree-warehouse-by-paramedics/ http://techland.time.com/2011/09/21/amazon-employees-carried...
    - ralusek 8y ago
      They're not forced to do anything, including work there.
      - throwawaymaroon 8y ago
        haha look at this fucking loser here.
      - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
        Not directly. But since people like Bezos own most of the productive machinery of the world, people really don’t have a choice except to work for one of the capital owners. In past times, people were free to work the land for themselves, as the land was held in common. Now somebody owns everything, and those of us who want to eat actually have almost “no choice” but to work for someone else.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Amazon has 566,000 employees. We have to guesstimate their hours, but let's say it's about 1500 per year. That's probably really lowballing it, but even there that's 849 million manhours per year. Put another way, a raise of $1 would cost around a billion dollars. Don't forget that employers pay additional taxes and fees that scale against employee compensation meaning they get double tapped when increasing compensation. A one-off $1000 bonus for one year would cost more than half a billion dollars. So exactly how much more do you think they should be paid? This is the thing I think many people miss. Many companies operate on pretty thin margins. And while Amazon is well known for reinvesting their profits right back into the company, that's also the reason that they can afford to hire hundreds of thousands of people and pay them quite well for what is some of the most unskilled labor there is. You're looking at $13/hour for literally moving boxes. Another way of looking at this is that we'd agree that America, as a whole, is quite a rich nation. Yet the surprising thing is that the entire GDP for this nation doesn't actually work out to be all that much. The GDP is of course just the sum value of the market value for all goods and services in this nation. If we completely split all proceeds from the sale of these goods and services up and divided it equally between each person, it'd only be about $60k. So exactly how much would be a fair share for a box mover in your view? Amazon has them hitting just below 50% and again I think it's quite remarkable that that's even possible. And one final point here, keep in mind these values I've been mentioning here are averages. Talking about $15/hour for flipping burgers in [expensive city] is not really meaningful due to what is invariably localized price inflation. Many of Amazon's fulfillment centers are in areas where $13/hour is worth much more than $15/hour is in [expensive city].
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    That's true, but you could distribute stock more uniformly (since that's where most of Bezos's wealth comes from) and then workers would benefit from making Amazon successful. I think a lot of the criticism on HN of capitalism is misguided and fails to account for some of the things you pointed out as well as the enormous rise in living standards over the last 200 years or so, but there does seem to be a tendency for successful people to accumulate far more wealth than they can reasonably spend.
  - wlll 8y ago

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

You'd think with all that cash Bezos could afford to pay his minions a humane rate. But he just doesn't care.

TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
$12/hour is inhumane?
- detaro 8y ago
  If its combined with inhumane conditions as a requirement to stay employed, yes.
  - TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
    So what would you consider a "humane rate" to pay someone to work in inhumane conditions? $20/hr? $100/hr?
    - benologist 8y ago
      Why don't they just pay a humane rate and have humane conditions? Bezos is the only one demanding inhumane conditions and it doesn't have to be that way at all, it's an entirely contrived problem he invented to be a tiny little bit richer.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >it's an entirely contrived problem he invented to be a tiny little bit richer. That would be why. Amazon exists to make Jeff Bezos and the shareholders as rich as possible, full stop.
    - grenoire 8y ago
      You simply do not push them into those inhumane conditions in the first place.
    - steveadoo 8y ago
      They could just hire more workers at $12/hr and I don't think there'd be a problem.
    - luddaite 8y ago
      How about we all agree that people shouldn't have to work in inhumane conditions?
  - krapp 8y ago
    Even with better conditions, if the rate of pay isn't enough for an employee to earn a living (food, shelter, amenities) even when employed full time, it's inhumane.
ralusek 8y ago
Aren't their margins like, razor-thin? Obviously at Amazon scale, even razor-thin margins mean huge profits, but that doesn't mean that you have any wiggle room within the profit. Imagine you have 100 people working for you, and off of each person, you make 10 cents a day. Now imagine you grow your business and you have 1,000,000 people working for you. At 10 cents per person per day, you're now making $100,000 a DAY! You're rich! If you wanted to give back to your employees, just remember that each one produces 10 cents of profit. If you gave them all 10 cents extra per day, it means nothing to any one of them, but your business now makes $0 profit.
- calcifer 8y ago
  If your margins are so thin that people are forced to pee in bottles instead of going to the bathroom then your company shouldn't exist.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    Also if you're having employees carried out because they can't keep productivity up during 100F + east coast humidity, your company shouldn't exist. http://techland.time.com/2011/09/21/amazon-employees-carried-out-of-115-degree-warehouse-by-paramedics/ http://techland.time.com/2011/09/21/amazon-employees-carried...
  - ralusek 8y ago
    They're not forced to do anything, including work there.
    - throwawaymaroon 8y ago
      haha look at this fucking loser here.
    - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
      Not directly. But since people like Bezos own most of the productive machinery of the world, people really don’t have a choice except to work for one of the capital owners. In past times, people were free to work the land for themselves, as the land was held in common. Now somebody owns everything, and those of us who want to eat actually have almost “no choice” but to work for someone else.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Amazon has 566,000 employees. We have to guesstimate their hours, but let's say it's about 1500 per year. That's probably really lowballing it, but even there that's 849 million manhours per year. Put another way, a raise of $1 would cost around a billion dollars. Don't forget that employers pay additional taxes and fees that scale against employee compensation meaning they get double tapped when increasing compensation. A one-off $1000 bonus for one year would cost more than half a billion dollars. So exactly how much more do you think they should be paid? This is the thing I think many people miss. Many companies operate on pretty thin margins. And while Amazon is well known for reinvesting their profits right back into the company, that's also the reason that they can afford to hire hundreds of thousands of people and pay them quite well for what is some of the most unskilled labor there is. You're looking at $13/hour for literally moving boxes. Another way of looking at this is that we'd agree that America, as a whole, is quite a rich nation. Yet the surprising thing is that the entire GDP for this nation doesn't actually work out to be all that much. The GDP is of course just the sum value of the market value for all goods and services in this nation. If we completely split all proceeds from the sale of these goods and services up and divided it equally between each person, it'd only be about $60k. So exactly how much would be a fair share for a box mover in your view? Amazon has them hitting just below 50% and again I think it's quite remarkable that that's even possible. And one final point here, keep in mind these values I've been mentioning here are averages. Talking about $15/hour for flipping burgers in [expensive city] is not really meaningful due to what is invariably localized price inflation. Many of Amazon's fulfillment centers are in areas where $13/hour is worth much more than $15/hour is in [expensive city].
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  That's true, but you could distribute stock more uniformly (since that's where most of Bezos's wealth comes from) and then workers would benefit from making Amazon successful. I think a lot of the criticism on HN of capitalism is misguided and fails to account for some of the things you pointed out as well as the enormous rise in living standards over the last 200 years or so, but there does seem to be a tendency for successful people to accumulate far more wealth than they can reasonably spend.
- wlll 8y ago