5 ms·
Sometimes I wonder if we will ever reach the point at which the people that Amazon would never employ combined with the people who would never agree to be emplo
by OrangeMango 6y ago
Sometimes I wonder if we will ever reach the point at which the people that Amazon would never employ combined with the people who would never agree to be employed by Amazon leaves them with fewer people than they need.
- chipperyman573 6y agoHunger makes people do a lot of things they don't want to
- john-radio 6y agoThey don't want that to happen, of course, which means that their business objectives for our economy are very different than a working person's.
- paxys 6y agoAmazon makes the front page because of a variety of reasons, but there are thousands of large employers that are worse in every way. We have a loooong way to go before Amazon's policies are an actual disqualifier for people who work these jobs. Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance. Many large chains still won't employ you based on your sexual orientation. So many small and large employers steal wages, deny benefits, pay under the table and more. All of that and unemployment is hitting record numbers right now.
- ummonk 6y ago> Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance. Out of curiosity what is wrong with this? It seems akin to e.g. my employer providing Deloitte tax consultation as a benefit.
- bashinator 6y agoDoes your employer provide Deloitte tax consultation because otherwise your wage is insufficient to pay for basic food and housing?
- kube-system 6y agoDo any companies set wages based on a benchmark of purchasing power? I don't know about you, but I've never been asked about my family size or my housing situation when I've applied for a job. It's the legislature's responsibility to set reasonable wage standards. A hiring manager's job is to simply fill a job position.
- Pfhreak 6y agoAh the old 'Not my problem' argument. A couple issues with this -- companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it. And why is it not the hiring manager's job to ensure the welfare of their workers? What makes that axiomatic to you? That seems like a social construct that we've (maybe) generally settled on, but nothing says that's necessarily the way it has to be.
- kube-system 6y agoThe nature of relationship between a business and an employee is such that it is not reasonable to expect that a business would even have the information necessary to take on that responsibility. Furthermore, many of those information gaps are intentional, to prevent discrimination. If you were interviewing me, how would you determine my appropriate wage?
- Pfhreak 6y agoYou don't need demographic information to take care of your workers. Everyone needs health care -- cover it. Even if not everyone needs parental leave -- cover it. Vacation policies and sick time -- cover them. Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept. Limit the wages of your company's highest paid workers relative to your lowest paid workers.
- 6y ago
- salawat 6y agoThe problem is that while you can make the argument that they are doing their employees a 'service'; anyone who has paid attention to how businesses run understands they wouldn't have even bothered doing this if it weren't being used as a means to get a leg up on the competition. I.e, they are relying on government benefits intended to be a safety net to pay their employees for them instead of actually paying competitively in wages and benefits. It's scummy, but makes the balance sheets look great.
- ummonk 6y agoYes, every employer provides their employees perks as a means to get a leg up on the competition. That's precisely one of the main point of perks (the other point being to remove sources of stress from employees' lives so they are more productive). I don't see what's scummy about this.
- kelnos 6y agoThe scummy part is that they're effectively subsidizing their payroll with taxpayer money, and they are doing this very intentionally and know exactly what they're doing.
- michaelt 6y agoImagine my business is feeding wood into chipping machines, and I train every employee in how to apply a tourniquet if they chop their own hand off. For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual, but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that! On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to improve safety.
- ummonk 6y agoPresumably, prospective Walmart employees are well aware that they aren't well off people, and that getting public assistance would be of substantial benefit to them. I don't think they'd find it an issue in the same way that they would for example an employer where a bunch of people lose their hands in accidents.
- wdb 6y agoI think a employer should just pay fair wage and not suggest the employee to ask for benefits from the government to have enough income to cover bills.
- triceratops 6y agoTaxpayers are effectively subsidizing Walmart's employee costs. As a taxpayer, I'm not very happy about that.
- kelnos 6y agoThey do it as a direct response to the fact that they know they don't pay their workers a living wage. I suppose it's nice of them to help their workers get access to public benefits, but in general they're just a terrible societal citizen for not paying their workers enough to live off of.
- kube-system 6y ago> people who would never agree to be employed by Amazon The number of people who would never work for Amazon out of principle is extremely small. The vast majority people choose jobs rationally based on the pros and cons of their work options. Amazon will be able to hire people as long as they have the cash to entice workers.
- battery_cowboy 6y agoThe people who would not work for Amazon are rational, too, they just have different values than you do. I'm one of those people, and I'm not some raving lunatic.
- kube-system 6y agoI said they are choosing rationally based on their options, not that they themselves (or anyone else) are or are not rational people.
- paxys 6y agoChoosing not to work at Amazon because of whatever reason (moral or otherwise) can also be considered a rational choice.
- kube-system 6y agoChoosing to not work now at Amazon based on a current weighing of pros and cons, moral or otherwise, is a rational choice. Choosing to never work at Amazon is not based on reason, but prejudgment. One cannot rationalize the unknown. This is what my original statement was in reply to.
- battery_cowboy 6y agoSorry, I'm a bit quick on the gun here because HN readers tend to be really 'libertarian' and don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to drop their ethical standard to work for a lot of money.