7 ms·

Why Some Amazon Workers Aren’t Happy About Their Raise

39 points by extraterra 8y ago

zacharytelschow 8y ago
No such thing as a free lunch. Shocker. Why not push for $25/hour and watch Amazon drop health insurance?
- coldtea 8y ago
  >No such thing as a free lunch. Shocker No, but there's such a thing as making trillions of the backs of hard working peasants. No shocker either.
  - mactrey 8y ago
    If a $15/hr wage is apparently a pay decrease for these "peasants" then they were previously making a very livable wage. So what exactly is Amazon doing that every local cafe or retail store isn't?
    - downrightmike 8y ago
      It was livable because they'd get 2 shares of amazon stock, worth about a 10% boost to their earnings per year and in non holiday seasons, they could make an additional 8% on performance, with that doubling in the holiday seasons. So instead of making an additional 18% to 26%, the bump to long term workers is as stated in the article from $14 to $15, where the previous performance program in the off season was $1.28, before the extra 10% from the stock grant. So amazon just saved ~20% on this holiday's logistics costs.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        If you give performance bonuses and people work too hard to meet them people complain about work conditions, and if you just pay everyone more instead, people complain that you took away the performance bonuses.
        coldtea 8y ago
        And they are right in both cases. How about having regular wages for regular work AND performance bonuses to reward great performance (what they're meant to be)? As opposed to low wages for regular work, thus making performance "bonuses" a necessity (and thus using them to force people to overworking) OR having regular wages and not compensating those working more. If I pay you $8/hour, and have "performance bonus" of $16 for those who work their asses off, people will be forced to work 2-3 hours more per day to get those just to get by. If I then start paying you $10/hour and drop the bonuses, those working regular hours would be ok, but others who are still made to work overtime would still like to be compensated extra for what they do. They might still make the same as before, but now their colleagues who go off a 8 hours or have lower performance get the same too. So what's to compensate for their extra effort? That's what performance bonuses are about, to compensate for extra effort.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Nothing, ain't life grande? They got from barely "livable" after working to the bone (and not being able to take bathroom breaks) to almost "livable" with caveats elsewhere. The magnanimity of Amazon (and the local cafe -- who at least allows tips and is less mind numbing) is truly great. Besides they could always just starve so this is clearly better.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    Who are these extremely productive peasants and where do they live? We could use some at our company.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I would love for a company to offer pay in lieu of subsidized health insurance if it was a dollar for dollar match. If you’re married and both jobs offer partially subsidized insurance that would be a win.
  - calbear81 8y ago
    If I remember correctly, they used to offer this at Microsoft. You could waive the benefits you didn't need and get some pay back.
- jeieo3949 8y ago
  The only reason the US doesn’t have universal healthcare is that folks wouldn’t need to work in an Amazon warehouse then. The history of the country is built on kowtowing to the rich. This forum could stand to read a bit more of the political chicanery that developed here and less of the economic theory
Bucephalus355 8y ago
Oh come on this looks like it was written by corporate shareholder activists from the mid-1990s. When did the New York Times become so conservative?
- refurb 8y ago
  Care to share a quote from the article that backs up your claim of a conservative bias? It's seems pretty factual to me.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Writing a completely factual story that might appeal to a conservative mindset is not the same as a conservative bias. Now, putting aside your emotion for a moment, which part of the story did you feel was reported in a lopsided manner?
ruler88 8y ago
I have no doubt that a certain portion of workers benefitted from the new policy while some portion of workers did not. It is too early for anyone to judge the policy without the numbers being published from Amazon. My issue with the article is that it presents a single story of a person who was hurt by the policy and extrapolate that to be the overall tone at Amazon. This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics. ...just like every single campaign for minimum wage.
  - lozenge 8y ago
    Campaigns use what's effective, that doesn't mean you can't find facts and statistics if you actually go looking.
- johnklos 8y ago
  How about instead of "without the numbers being published from Amazon", we have "without the numbers being published"?
- krapp 8y ago
  Obviously, Amazon made this decision as a business and not a charity, so it stands to reason that this benefits the business more than employees. However... as a full time employee who has his two shares of AMZN, I honestly would rather have had the extra income over the last two years. Maybe I could have put a significant dent into my student loans, or could have actually afforded my own place. As it was, too much of the extra "income" provided by benefits required gambles that low income people really should be required to depend on to make ends meet. Productivity bonuses aren't guaranteed, overtime isn't guaranteed, remaining employed for two years isn't guaranteed. I see it as the ceiling having come down a bit, but the floor also having come up. And let's be honest... the second it becomes feasible to fully automate picking, stowing and counting, those employees are getting fired on the spot. There is no long term career prospect for the vast majority of Amazon warehouse workers, and they should consider the value of stability of income in the face of an uncertain future.
Brockenstein 8y ago
I really thought this was going to be a case of someone who spent years getting raises up to $15 an hour was having a fit because now everyone makes as much. OK, so the complaint is a little more legitimate than that. But whenever you overhaul a system, some people gain, some people lose. Could amazon afford to raise wages and keep legacy programs around? Probably. Do they have to? No. And if Amazon is crippled by an exodus of workers then we'll learn something. And the way I hear it, unemployment is really low, seems like a workers job market to me.
- zeroname 8y ago
  If it's a worker's market then minimum wage is both pointless and meaningless to begin with. The people who pulled this PR stunt off probably are laughing at the fact that they get to pander to liberals whining about minimum wage while cutting overall labor costs at the same time.

39 points by extraterra 8y ago

zacharytelschow 8y ago

No such thing as a free lunch. Shocker. Why not push for $25/hour and watch Amazon drop health insurance?

coldtea 8y ago
>No such thing as a free lunch. Shocker No, but there's such a thing as making trillions of the backs of hard working peasants. No shocker either.
- mactrey 8y ago
  If a $15/hr wage is apparently a pay decrease for these "peasants" then they were previously making a very livable wage. So what exactly is Amazon doing that every local cafe or retail store isn't?
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    It was livable because they'd get 2 shares of amazon stock, worth about a 10% boost to their earnings per year and in non holiday seasons, they could make an additional 8% on performance, with that doubling in the holiday seasons. So instead of making an additional 18% to 26%, the bump to long term workers is as stated in the article from $14 to $15, where the previous performance program in the off season was $1.28, before the extra 10% from the stock grant. So amazon just saved ~20% on this holiday's logistics costs.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      If you give performance bonuses and people work too hard to meet them people complain about work conditions, and if you just pay everyone more instead, people complain that you took away the performance bonuses.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        And they are right in both cases. How about having regular wages for regular work AND performance bonuses to reward great performance (what they're meant to be)? As opposed to low wages for regular work, thus making performance "bonuses" a necessity (and thus using them to force people to overworking) OR having regular wages and not compensating those working more. If I pay you $8/hour, and have "performance bonus" of $16 for those who work their asses off, people will be forced to work 2-3 hours more per day to get those just to get by. If I then start paying you $10/hour and drop the bonuses, those working regular hours would be ok, but others who are still made to work overtime would still like to be compensated extra for what they do. They might still make the same as before, but now their colleagues who go off a 8 hours or have lower performance get the same too. So what's to compensate for their extra effort? That's what performance bonuses are about, to compensate for extra effort.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Nothing, ain't life grande? They got from barely "livable" after working to the bone (and not being able to take bathroom breaks) to almost "livable" with caveats elsewhere. The magnanimity of Amazon (and the local cafe -- who at least allows tips and is less mind numbing) is truly great. Besides they could always just starve so this is clearly better.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Who are these extremely productive peasants and where do they live? We could use some at our company.
scarface74 8y ago
I would love for a company to offer pay in lieu of subsidized health insurance if it was a dollar for dollar match. If you’re married and both jobs offer partially subsidized insurance that would be a win.
- calbear81 8y ago
  If I remember correctly, they used to offer this at Microsoft. You could waive the benefits you didn't need and get some pay back.
jeieo3949 8y ago
The only reason the US doesn’t have universal healthcare is that folks wouldn’t need to work in an Amazon warehouse then. The history of the country is built on kowtowing to the rich. This forum could stand to read a bit more of the political chicanery that developed here and less of the economic theory

Bucephalus355 8y ago

Oh come on this looks like it was written by corporate shareholder activists from the mid-1990s. When did the New York Times become so conservative?

refurb 8y ago
Care to share a quote from the article that backs up your claim of a conservative bias? It's seems pretty factual to me.
mikestew 8y ago
Writing a completely factual story that might appeal to a conservative mindset is not the same as a conservative bias. Now, putting aside your emotion for a moment, which part of the story did you feel was reported in a lopsided manner?

ruler88 8y ago

I have no doubt that a certain portion of workers benefitted from the new policy while some portion of workers did not. It is too early for anyone to judge the policy without the numbers being published from Amazon. My issue with the article is that it presents a single story of a person who was hurt by the policy and extrapolate that to be the overall tone at Amazon. This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics.

zeroname 8y ago
> This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics. ...just like every single campaign for minimum wage.
- lozenge 8y ago
  Campaigns use what's effective, that doesn't mean you can't find facts and statistics if you actually go looking.
johnklos 8y ago
How about instead of "without the numbers being published from Amazon", we have "without the numbers being published"?
krapp 8y ago
Obviously, Amazon made this decision as a business and not a charity, so it stands to reason that this benefits the business more than employees. However... as a full time employee who has his two shares of AMZN, I honestly would rather have had the extra income over the last two years. Maybe I could have put a significant dent into my student loans, or could have actually afforded my own place. As it was, too much of the extra "income" provided by benefits required gambles that low income people really should be required to depend on to make ends meet. Productivity bonuses aren't guaranteed, overtime isn't guaranteed, remaining employed for two years isn't guaranteed. I see it as the ceiling having come down a bit, but the floor also having come up. And let's be honest... the second it becomes feasible to fully automate picking, stowing and counting, those employees are getting fired on the spot. There is no long term career prospect for the vast majority of Amazon warehouse workers, and they should consider the value of stability of income in the face of an uncertain future.

Brockenstein 8y ago

I really thought this was going to be a case of someone who spent years getting raises up to $15 an hour was having a fit because now everyone makes as much. OK, so the complaint is a little more legitimate than that. But whenever you overhaul a system, some people gain, some people lose. Could amazon afford to raise wages and keep legacy programs around? Probably. Do they have to? No. And if Amazon is crippled by an exodus of workers then we'll learn something. And the way I hear it, unemployment is really low, seems like a workers job market to me.

zeroname 8y ago
If it's a worker's market then minimum wage is both pointless and meaningless to begin with. The people who pulled this PR stunt off probably are laughing at the fact that they get to pander to liberals whining about minimum wage while cutting overall labor costs at the same time.