4 ms·

Clickbaity title (and worse than the article headline). Amazon is not cutting pay. It is removing the hazard pay, which was extra on top of the normal wages.

d3nj4l 6y ago
Given the current scenario, isn't all pay hazard pay? Edit: And it's mentioned in the article as well: > The token comes as Amazon announced it would be cutting the $2 per hour wage hike it brought in for staff in mid-March as hazard pay for coming in during the pandemic. The "Hazard Pay" was a pay rise for coming in during the pandemic, which as far as I can see hasn't ended yet. Cutting hazard pay right now, in real terms, is cutting pay.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > isn't all pay hazard pay? Not really. Not all jobs are risky. I fail to see how being in a well ventilated warehouse is risky. It's not like they're interacting with customers.
  - panarky 6y ago
    > I fail to see how being in a well ventilated warehouse is risky Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't happening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/amazon-warehouse-workers-coronavirus-positive/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/amazon-...
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Literally nothing in that article supports your argument. 2 million people have tested positive - most of them probably did not contract it at work.
      - d3nj4l 6y ago
        Did you even read the article? > In the past few days, workers tested positive for covid-19 at Amazon warehouses and shipping facilities across the country. > workers complain Amazon hasn’t provided them with enough information about the spread of virus in their facilities > [a worker] only found out there was an infected co-worker after confronting a human resources staffer in the break room > Some workers complained that Amazon pushes them to meet the per-hour rate at which it wants orders fulfilled, a practice that they worry discourages safe sanitary practices such as washing hands after a cough or sneeze. Others have complained about “stand-up” meetings, where workers stand shoulder-to-shoulder at the start of each shift. All of these support the notion that working in a warehouse is risky during the pandemic. In any case, how does the proportion of people who contracted the coronavirus at work to total number of positive cases so far have to do with anything? If your hypothesis is true (and you've given no evidence for that), it could very likely be because of the lockdowns we've had so far, which have prevented people from going to work in situations where they could've gotten it. Regardless, the proportion has nothing to do with how risky working in a warehouse is in the first place!
        koheripbal 6y ago
        Again, none of these sentences indicate that anyone was infected at work - nor that it's any more dangerous than literally everyone else's work place.
  - d3nj4l 6y ago
    Regardless of what you think about what working in a warehouse entails, the article itself states that the hazard pay was instituted for the warehouse workers for coming in during the pandemic. There is no way you can cut that pay while the stated reason for that hazard pay is still extant, and claim that it is not a pay cut in real terms.
    - dajohnson89 6y ago
      This isn't about whether the hazard pay cut was justified. IMHO it wasn't justified. The problem is that someone who didnt know hazard pay was in place could see the headline and infer that a reduction in pay from the normal rate happened. You could say that's unscrupulous on the reader's part, but it's equally unscrupulous of the publication to use a potentially misleading title.

d3nj4l 6y ago

Given the current scenario, isn't all pay hazard pay? Edit: And it's mentioned in the article as well: > The token comes as Amazon announced it would be cutting the $2 per hour wage hike it brought in for staff in mid-March as hazard pay for coming in during the pandemic. The "Hazard Pay" was a pay rise for coming in during the pandemic, which as far as I can see hasn't ended yet. Cutting hazard pay right now, in real terms, is cutting pay.

koheripbal 6y ago
> isn't all pay hazard pay? Not really. Not all jobs are risky. I fail to see how being in a well ventilated warehouse is risky. It's not like they're interacting with customers.
- panarky 6y ago
  > I fail to see how being in a well ventilated warehouse is risky Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't happening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/amazon-warehouse-workers-coronavirus-positive/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/amazon-...
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Literally nothing in that article supports your argument. 2 million people have tested positive - most of them probably did not contract it at work.
    - d3nj4l 6y ago
      Did you even read the article? > In the past few days, workers tested positive for covid-19 at Amazon warehouses and shipping facilities across the country. > workers complain Amazon hasn’t provided them with enough information about the spread of virus in their facilities > [a worker] only found out there was an infected co-worker after confronting a human resources staffer in the break room > Some workers complained that Amazon pushes them to meet the per-hour rate at which it wants orders fulfilled, a practice that they worry discourages safe sanitary practices such as washing hands after a cough or sneeze. Others have complained about “stand-up” meetings, where workers stand shoulder-to-shoulder at the start of each shift. All of these support the notion that working in a warehouse is risky during the pandemic. In any case, how does the proportion of people who contracted the coronavirus at work to total number of positive cases so far have to do with anything? If your hypothesis is true (and you've given no evidence for that), it could very likely be because of the lockdowns we've had so far, which have prevented people from going to work in situations where they could've gotten it. Regardless, the proportion has nothing to do with how risky working in a warehouse is in the first place!
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        Again, none of these sentences indicate that anyone was infected at work - nor that it's any more dangerous than literally everyone else's work place.
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  Regardless of what you think about what working in a warehouse entails, the article itself states that the hazard pay was instituted for the warehouse workers for coming in during the pandemic. There is no way you can cut that pay while the stated reason for that hazard pay is still extant, and claim that it is not a pay cut in real terms.
  - dajohnson89 6y ago
    This isn't about whether the hazard pay cut was justified. IMHO it wasn't justified. The problem is that someone who didnt know hazard pay was in place could see the headline and infer that a reduction in pay from the normal rate happened. You could say that's unscrupulous on the reader's part, but it's equally unscrupulous of the publication to use a potentially misleading title.