5 ms·

... FFS -- it was shaming of amazon's pay rate for their employees that caused the change in behavior in the first place. I think it is rational to look at wh

... FFS -- it was shaming of amazon's pay rate for their employees that caused the change in behavior in the first place. I think it is rational to look at what and why actions were taken. Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Was it a decision to mitigate brand perception costs against labor costs after a bunch of national stories reported that they were paying so little in markets that their workers were forced to also take government subsidies while they have had their most profitable quarters ever? As far as the push to get the minimum wage raised -- is it not a reasonable view that it is in amazons best interest to further reduce the reoccurring labor costs effectively by ensuring their competitors are also forced to match their labor cost? The bottom line is if Amazon (or any company for that matter) wants to treat their employees better than the minimum wage -- they were and still are able to do so. Amazon happened to be in a state where because of the publicity pressure (showing their full time employees unable to live on their wage) it was more cost effective to make a change than not.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Its also the fact that having tax payers subsidise your work force out side of the Cinderella professions (nurse doctor etc) doesn't go down well with tax payers. Which is why a tory chancellor wanted a higher minimum wage - to cut the social security bill
irrational 8y ago
>Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Does it matter what the rationale was? I know if I was an Amazon minimum wage employee I could care less what the rationale was. I'd just be thrilled to be getting a pay raise. Where I live the minimum wage is only $11.25/hour. Getting a bump to $15 will be a big deal for those people.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >Does it matter what the rationale was? If you're Amazon, yes, it matters a ridiculous amount. The last thing you'll want is for people to realize that the union drives actually worked. That would mean more union drives and more pay rises on the horizon. Can't have that! Count the number of mentions of the reason for their decision in their press releases: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-raises-minimum-wage-15-all-us-employees-including-full https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
  - tomnipotent 8y ago
    So did it matter what Ford's motivation was when he introduced the 40 hour work week? He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart.
    - chc 8y ago
      I don't think you can necessarily say that. He did have a business justification for the decisions, but he also expressed humanitarian reasons, such as the idea that leisure time should not be a privilege afforded only to the upper class. It turned out to work out well for his company, but would the business case have been strong enough to make him take the risk if he hadn't also thought the social consequences were good? Quite possibly not.
      - tomnipotent 8y ago
        In a 1926 interview to a magazine, World's Work, Ford said: "Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because working people need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles." He wanted people to have free time so they could appreciate the stuff they buy. Capitalism at its finest.
        chc 8y ago
        Yes, he said that. He also said that leisure time shouldn't be a class privilege. He said both of those things. That was the entire point of my comment — he had a business justification, but he also expressed socially minded reasons for wanting to make the change. I see no reason why you'd only pay attention to the business reason. It was similar with other decisions he made that benefited employees — for example, he paid significantly above-market rates across the board because he wanted his workers to be happy, and he justified this in the business by saying that he believed these happy workers would be more productive and would hopefully want to buy the same cars they were making.
- lyonssp 8y ago
  I think what you're saying is ... people like to have more money?
diggerNick6771 8y ago
Your comment has added absolutely nothing to the conversation. You're blaming them for paying low. Blaming them for paying high. Blaming them for an initiative that could put more dollars in the pockets of some of the poorest people in the nation. Then you posit a false pretense that they were ever supposed to act in "good nature".

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Its also the fact that having tax payers subsidise your work force out side of the Cinderella professions (nurse doctor etc) doesn't go down well with tax payers. Which is why a tory chancellor wanted a higher minimum wage - to cut the social security bill

irrational 8y ago

>Do you believe that the raise of the minimum wage at Amazon was out of good nature? Does it matter what the rationale was? I know if I was an Amazon minimum wage employee I could care less what the rationale was. I'd just be thrilled to be getting a pay raise. Where I live the minimum wage is only $11.25/hour. Getting a bump to $15 will be a big deal for those people.

crdoconnor 8y ago
>Does it matter what the rationale was? If you're Amazon, yes, it matters a ridiculous amount. The last thing you'll want is for people to realize that the union drives actually worked. That would mean more union drives and more pay rises on the horizon. Can't have that! Count the number of mentions of the reason for their decision in their press releases: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-raises-minimum-wage-15-all-us-employees-including-full https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
- tomnipotent 8y ago
  So did it matter what Ford's motivation was when he introduced the 40 hour work week? He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart.
  - chc 8y ago
    I don't think you can necessarily say that. He did have a business justification for the decisions, but he also expressed humanitarian reasons, such as the idea that leisure time should not be a privilege afforded only to the upper class. It turned out to work out well for his company, but would the business case have been strong enough to make him take the risk if he hadn't also thought the social consequences were good? Quite possibly not.
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      In a 1926 interview to a magazine, World's Work, Ford said: "Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because working people need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles." He wanted people to have free time so they could appreciate the stuff they buy. Capitalism at its finest.
      - chc 8y ago
        Yes, he said that. He also said that leisure time shouldn't be a class privilege. He said both of those things. That was the entire point of my comment — he had a business justification, but he also expressed socially minded reasons for wanting to make the change. I see no reason why you'd only pay attention to the business reason. It was similar with other decisions he made that benefited employees — for example, he paid significantly above-market rates across the board because he wanted his workers to be happy, and he justified this in the business by saying that he believed these happy workers would be more productive and would hopefully want to buy the same cars they were making.
lyonssp 8y ago
I think what you're saying is ... people like to have more money?

diggerNick6771 8y ago

Your comment has added absolutely nothing to the conversation. You're blaming them for paying low. Blaming them for paying high. Blaming them for an initiative that could put more dollars in the pockets of some of the poorest people in the nation. Then you posit a false pretense that they were ever supposed to act in "good nature".