3 ms·

> Inc. just published a bunch of BS, which would have taken no more than a quick call to a hiring manager to validate or invalidate. Why would any HM even spea

> Inc. just published a bunch of BS, which would have taken no more than a quick call to a hiring manager to validate or invalidate. Why would any HM even speak to them? > The fact that they didn't even try is telling. How do you even know that? > There's a conspiracy happening at a scale of a few hundred thousand people This sounds like a gross overestimate. This is not an organized conspiracy. Individual HM would come to the same conclusion, which is it is to their own benefit to act perversely when it comes to hiring/firing. This isn't even restricted to Amazon. Time and time again, at companies with poorly thought out policies, managers end up doing really shitty things in order to meet goals. > who all do highly immoral things but nobody is telling on each other. And because it's not an organized conspiracy, how would they tell on each other. It's not like they're gonna go around tell each other that they're doing corrupt things. And even if they were, that usually ends up creating a code of omerta. You see it all the time in organizations where they do terrible things. These places end up creating a us vs them mentality. Police is one example. Another example is how China runs things. They spread out the bad actions across everyone, making everyone complicit. This makes people less likely to rat each other out because now they're the ones doing it and internally, people justify their own decisions. > The BR has no incentive to partake in the conspiracy, because their track record will show a high attrition rate which is against their goals, but they still decide to violate their specific job directives. This is the only thing I agree with. It is unlikely that a BR would collude. They have no reason to.

aerosmile 5y ago
> This is the only thing I agree with. It is unlikely that a BR would collude. They have no reason to. Which is the fundamental argument here. All this talk about how bad orgs behave this or that way is not relevant considering that they were exceptionally thoughtful about how to separate the hiring decisioning from firing decisioning. I think we can all agree that Amazon does a lot of shitty things, but the concept of introducing a BR deserves praise.
- thereare5lights 5y ago
  > Which is the fundamental argument here Collusion between BRs and HMs is not the fundamental argument here. That was just speculation by someone else trying to poke holes in the argument that HMs do not hire just to fire. The fundamental argument is that the policies lead to perverse actions by HMs. > All this talk about how bad orgs behave this or that way is not relevant considering that they were exceptionally thoughtful about how to separate the hiring decisioning from firing decisioning. As has been discussed in many other comments, the separation of concerns here does not prevent the perverse action of hiring more people with simply so that HMs have more options of who to fire.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    We're splitting hairs. I agree with what you're saying, and I think you agree with what I am saying. We're just focusing on a different argument. One thing we completely agree on is this statement: > so that HMs have more options of who to fire Totally true, I don't deny that. But that's not the same as hire to fire, in the context of how it's commonly understood and criticized: that the person that was hired will also be the same person who is going to get fired. My point is that while it's unfortunate that someone will get fired, it's not necessarily the same person who was last hired.
    - thereare5lights 5y ago
      Right. People are not using the phrase "hire to fire" uniformly. One way to interpret that is that you are literally hiring someone just to fire them. Another way, the way I and some others are using it, is that they're hiring people *so that* they *have* people to fire. As in, they're not necessarily firing the people they hire, but that they need to hire so that they have options when they need to fire. I don't think the latter is any better than the former because they're still going about hiring with the explicit intention of firing people. Maybe it's not the hire specifically, but when they have that intention, it still creates the same kind of toxic environment.

aerosmile 5y ago

> This is the only thing I agree with. It is unlikely that a BR would collude. They have no reason to. Which is the fundamental argument here. All this talk about how bad orgs behave this or that way is not relevant considering that they were exceptionally thoughtful about how to separate the hiring decisioning from firing decisioning. I think we can all agree that Amazon does a lot of shitty things, but the concept of introducing a BR deserves praise.

thereare5lights 5y ago
> Which is the fundamental argument here Collusion between BRs and HMs is not the fundamental argument here. That was just speculation by someone else trying to poke holes in the argument that HMs do not hire just to fire. The fundamental argument is that the policies lead to perverse actions by HMs. > All this talk about how bad orgs behave this or that way is not relevant considering that they were exceptionally thoughtful about how to separate the hiring decisioning from firing decisioning. As has been discussed in many other comments, the separation of concerns here does not prevent the perverse action of hiring more people with simply so that HMs have more options of who to fire.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  We're splitting hairs. I agree with what you're saying, and I think you agree with what I am saying. We're just focusing on a different argument. One thing we completely agree on is this statement: > so that HMs have more options of who to fire Totally true, I don't deny that. But that's not the same as hire to fire, in the context of how it's commonly understood and criticized: that the person that was hired will also be the same person who is going to get fired. My point is that while it's unfortunate that someone will get fired, it's not necessarily the same person who was last hired.
  - thereare5lights 5y ago
    Right. People are not using the phrase "hire to fire" uniformly. One way to interpret that is that you are literally hiring someone just to fire them. Another way, the way I and some others are using it, is that they're hiring people *so that* they *have* people to fire. As in, they're not necessarily firing the people they hire, but that they need to hire so that they have options when they need to fire. I don't think the latter is any better than the former because they're still going about hiring with the explicit intention of firing people. Maybe it's not the hire specifically, but when they have that intention, it still creates the same kind of toxic environment.