4 ms·

Article is ruined by sensationalism, but I’d expect no less from the NY Post. It is a shame because I am sure there are real issues with Amazon warehouses, but

by rpiguy 7y ago

Article is ruined by sensationalism, but I’d expect no less from the NY Post. It is a shame because I am sure there are real issues with Amazon warehouses, but choosing an employee who took a job they are not physically capable of doing and then focusing on her really detracts from the story. Complaining about the cult-like “great place to work” brainwashing? Welcome to all of corporate America...

supercanuck 7y ago
The point of the article seems to be to warn people that they are not physically capable of doing these things and to explain the human toll of a job like this. Why so sensitive to Amazon?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  Because people work day and day out shitty doing shitty manual labour without people even noticing them. Having worked there fur very long the whole article is just big whining, for some reason Amazon warehouses is a popular subject.
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    And those people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity too.
    - MiguelFCA 7y ago
      We do get treated with dignity and respect. In my FC I have never felt like i wasnt. I have great relationships with all my associates. I feel like some many news articles go for negative attention and Amazon is an easy target for people to report on and get lots of attention.
- jax2_BrianD 7y ago
  The article only told a side of the story that makes Amazon look like a bad place because one person didnt like working in a warehouse. The irony is that while I honor her perspective and hold some relation to her experience, I cant help but feel she lost out by quitting so soon. It took a few months for me to fully adjust to working here. It had been awhile since I had a job working on my feet, but I never felt like the actual labor was hard; just more like repetitious and not much of a challenge. In a months time you will be trained well enough to keep pace and avoid any write up. Then you can transfer roles if need by or work your way to some type of advancement. Thats what I did, I found a role that fit me, but my regular role is tough for some, but mostly by preference.
badrabbit 7y ago
She was an EMT, I doubt she lacked the physical acumen. I've done jobs like this, they are hard but not physically, you have pallt jacks, tools,etc... To do the really hard stuff (bots in this case). So, what I really don't get is their breaks policy. Why not have more break areas? Why not let people take a lot of breaks, so long as their performance metric is on point? As far as the corporate koolaid, all of corporate america isn't like that. You certainly won't hear managers bad mouthing the company but a lot of good environments, they don't repeat propaganda like phrases again and again. Even if they all mean the same thing they say it in their own way. Like for example they'd talk about their experience and what they have seen first hand that corroborates the corporate message to workers. And in some places, dissent (non-toxic but productive) is encouraged so workers feel like their voice matters. At the end of the day happy workers have best ROI. You can acheive good ROI regardless but there will be long term costs.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Why not have more break areas? Break areas don't generate revenue. FCs are designed around efficient product flow first, people second. If employees have to waste fifteen minutes of a half hour break walking to and from the break room as a result, then they can just walk faster. But not run, that's a safety hazard. >Why not let people take a lot of breaks, so long as their performance metric is on point? Actually... they did just roll out a program that lets people take a minute break every 45 minutes or so, without it affecting their metrics. So that's something.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    > Break areas don't generate revenue. FCs are designed around efficient product flow first, people second Neither do toilets. You literally set a side a small room with table, chairs and Microwave. There is a lot of things that don't generate revenue but you do them anyways to prevent revenue and reputation loss. Like security guards,cameras,parking lots,etc... These things support the people and process that generate revenue. If walking to a breakroom is 2 minutes (4 total) the employee has 26 extra minutes now, they can slack off or get back to work faster and be more productive and less tired and frustrated (less mistakes). Either way that's 26min work isn't being done so there is no loss in revenue. And yeah, kudos to them if that's true. It's easy to pick on Amazon but your run of the mill warehouse job is always worse and pays half as much
klyrs 7y ago
> choosing an employee who took a job they are not physically capable of doing and then focusing on her really detracts from the story. Only, she's middle aged and has a life history of hard work. She comments about this being young people's work (taking a weird swerve to diss menudo; my least favorite detail in the article) -- but the awful truth is that young folk who take jobs like this suffer that wear and tear later in life. > Complaining about the cult-like “great place to work” brainwashing? Welcome to all of corporate America... There's variation in this -- some employers focus on making their workplace a positive experience; others require their managers to proclaim that it's a positive experience during onboarding. The latter is common to cults and bad jobs. But more importantly: even if something is common, that doesn't make it good. It just means that the problem is harder to tackle.
- Jax2_Hannah 7y ago
  Very good point here. I started at age 26, which by her standards is too old for this job, and no one could tell the difference between my age and a 20 year old. >some employers focus on making their workplace a positive experience; others require their managers to proclaim that it's a positive experience during onboarding I've never heard any of my managers say this is a great place to work. Some might be enthusiastic, and others might do things for us, like start a potluck every month. Overall, I'd say my managers all did well when I worked under them.

by rpiguy 7y ago

supercanuck 7y ago

The point of the article seems to be to warn people that they are not physically capable of doing these things and to explain the human toll of a job like this. Why so sensitive to Amazon?

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
Because people work day and day out shitty doing shitty manual labour without people even noticing them. Having worked there fur very long the whole article is just big whining, for some reason Amazon warehouses is a popular subject.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  And those people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity too.
  - MiguelFCA 7y ago
    We do get treated with dignity and respect. In my FC I have never felt like i wasnt. I have great relationships with all my associates. I feel like some many news articles go for negative attention and Amazon is an easy target for people to report on and get lots of attention.
jax2_BrianD 7y ago
The article only told a side of the story that makes Amazon look like a bad place because one person didnt like working in a warehouse. The irony is that while I honor her perspective and hold some relation to her experience, I cant help but feel she lost out by quitting so soon. It took a few months for me to fully adjust to working here. It had been awhile since I had a job working on my feet, but I never felt like the actual labor was hard; just more like repetitious and not much of a challenge. In a months time you will be trained well enough to keep pace and avoid any write up. Then you can transfer roles if need by or work your way to some type of advancement. Thats what I did, I found a role that fit me, but my regular role is tough for some, but mostly by preference.

badrabbit 7y ago

She was an EMT, I doubt she lacked the physical acumen. I've done jobs like this, they are hard but not physically, you have pallt jacks, tools,etc... To do the really hard stuff (bots in this case). So, what I really don't get is their breaks policy. Why not have more break areas? Why not let people take a lot of breaks, so long as their performance metric is on point? As far as the corporate koolaid, all of corporate america isn't like that. You certainly won't hear managers bad mouthing the company but a lot of good environments, they don't repeat propaganda like phrases again and again. Even if they all mean the same thing they say it in their own way. Like for example they'd talk about their experience and what they have seen first hand that corroborates the corporate message to workers. And in some places, dissent (non-toxic but productive) is encouraged so workers feel like their voice matters. At the end of the day happy workers have best ROI. You can acheive good ROI regardless but there will be long term costs.

krapp 7y ago
>Why not have more break areas? Break areas don't generate revenue. FCs are designed around efficient product flow first, people second. If employees have to waste fifteen minutes of a half hour break walking to and from the break room as a result, then they can just walk faster. But not run, that's a safety hazard. >Why not let people take a lot of breaks, so long as their performance metric is on point? Actually... they did just roll out a program that lets people take a minute break every 45 minutes or so, without it affecting their metrics. So that's something.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  > Break areas don't generate revenue. FCs are designed around efficient product flow first, people second Neither do toilets. You literally set a side a small room with table, chairs and Microwave. There is a lot of things that don't generate revenue but you do them anyways to prevent revenue and reputation loss. Like security guards,cameras,parking lots,etc... These things support the people and process that generate revenue. If walking to a breakroom is 2 minutes (4 total) the employee has 26 extra minutes now, they can slack off or get back to work faster and be more productive and less tired and frustrated (less mistakes). Either way that's 26min work isn't being done so there is no loss in revenue. And yeah, kudos to them if that's true. It's easy to pick on Amazon but your run of the mill warehouse job is always worse and pays half as much

klyrs 7y ago

> choosing an employee who took a job they are not physically capable of doing and then focusing on her really detracts from the story. Only, she's middle aged and has a life history of hard work. She comments about this being young people's work (taking a weird swerve to diss menudo; my least favorite detail in the article) -- but the awful truth is that young folk who take jobs like this suffer that wear and tear later in life. > Complaining about the cult-like “great place to work” brainwashing? Welcome to all of corporate America... There's variation in this -- some employers focus on making their workplace a positive experience; others require their managers to proclaim that it's a positive experience during onboarding. The latter is common to cults and bad jobs. But more importantly: even if something is common, that doesn't make it good. It just means that the problem is harder to tackle.

Jax2_Hannah 7y ago
Very good point here. I started at age 26, which by her standards is too old for this job, and no one could tell the difference between my age and a 20 year old. >some employers focus on making their workplace a positive experience; others require their managers to proclaim that it's a positive experience during onboarding I've never heard any of my managers say this is a great place to work. Some might be enthusiastic, and others might do things for us, like start a potluck every month. Overall, I'd say my managers all did well when I worked under them.