4 ms·

This comes as no surprise. I mean, this is the same company who thinks adding little booths into their warehouses to try and improve mental health will benefit

This comes as no surprise. I mean, this is the same company who thinks adding little booths into their warehouses to try and improve mental health will benefit these overworked employees. They look like those suicide booths in Futurama. Is it too much to ask for them not to treat their employees like slaves? Is it too much to ask for an eight hour work day? Actual bathroom breaks (I read their forklift drivers pee in bottles because they aren’t allowed to take appropriate bathroom breaks). All while paying them what they’re actually worth, given the work they’re doing and the level of stress Amazon puts them under?

falcor84 5y ago
I'm not disputing any of your other points, but what does "paying them what they’re actually worth" mean? Is there some objectively fair remuneration calculation that others are using and I wasn't aware of?
- Google234 5y ago
  Fair worth is probably less since robots can do much of the eorl.
- croon 5y ago
  1) I'm assuming GP missed a negation, "not", before that. 2) Obviously if you can find workers for your compensation level that's some market definition of worth. But I would also argue that ones society is broken if there are people who stay at a job where they have to resort to peeing in bottles because (ostensibly) they don't feel that taking 3 minutes to go to the bathroom is possible.
- faceplanted 5y ago
  There's no objectively "fair" number, but there are far better approximations. No-one really cares if it's perfectly equitable between every employee, but they _can_ see obvious inequities harming people's lives.
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  > Is there some objectively fair remuneration calculation [...]? Lopsided power arrangements will always be grossly unfair to one side and generous the other. In this case it's Amazon vs the Precariat. Moreover, the two sides (and everyone else) will always have a very different idea about what is fair. The best way to address this without directly getting into the vast grey-area of "what is fair" is to limit the political power of corporations and then address labor laws and union formation. The sad thing is we've been through this before. There's a reason labor unions came into being. Do we really have to wait until labor conditions for workers become the 21st century equivalent of Industrial Age steel mills run by robber-barrons? Can't we learn from history?
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    totally OT but Are you ready to use that name ?
    - crispyambulance 5y ago
      That's a scary question! The way things are going I expect the social safety net to be cut out from under me by the time I hit retirement.
      - wiz21c 5y ago
        Hmmm.. Dunno if you caught it but Crispy Ambulance was a band (I liked a lot) in the eighties. One of their most famous tune is "are you ready" :-)
        crispyambulance 5y ago
        Ha! yes, I am aware of Crispy Ambulance, the band (good memories of the 80's). But I missed your reference!
  - falcor84 5y ago
    Thanks for introducing me to the term Precariat. It was quite interesting to read the Wikipedia article[0] about it now and attach a name to the phenomenon. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat > In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which means existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >I'm not disputing any of your other points, but what does "paying them what they’re actually worth" mean? It absolutely means nothing because there is a queue of people that are desperate to accept any job. If you decide to ask for a higher salary then someone more desperate than you will take the job.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Objective is overrated. There's a clear tendency towards evil when you try too hard driving bonuses and promotions on objective performance metrics. The ruthless deathmarchers will always outperform their more benign peers in locally measurable metrics. The paperclip maximiser algorithm doesn't actually require a computer, it could run just fine on a group of humans implemented as their set of intraorganizational rules.
  - falcor84 5y ago
    It's not quite clear to me how this relates to my question. If not 'objective', is there a fair 'subjective' way to decide on remuneration?
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  There is an objectively fair remuneration calculation, but others aren't using it, except possibly in worker-owned cooperatives. That is, to pay workers the total value added by their labor. This article at la Wik can tell you more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
  - falcor84 5y ago
    But, if I understand correctly, by definition an employer would have no expected direct benefit from hiring at this salary. Are there any for-profit employers who use such a calculation in-practice coupled with some fixed multiplier (or multiplier range) for all their roles?
LatteLazy 5y ago
Doesn't amazon already pay way more than anyone else? 15usd an hour, more in most places, healthcare and a bunch of other benfits compared to minimum wage and nothing else at most alternatives...
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  Yeah, it’s the most generous job of last resort available in most of the country
- opencl 5y ago
  Other warehouses don't pay minimum wage. Target's starting pay is $4 higher than Amazon in my area. Home Depot is like $1 lower than Amazon. It is true that they have a pretty decent healthcare package as far as warehouse work goes.
Aeolun 5y ago
I agree with your other points, but: > little booths into their warehouses to try and improve mental health If these are anything like toilets, they’d do wonders for my mental health. Of course it would be more helpful if they actually were toilets (re: bathroom breaks)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

falcor84 5y ago

I'm not disputing any of your other points, but what does "paying them what they’re actually worth" mean? Is there some objectively fair remuneration calculation that others are using and I wasn't aware of?

Google234 5y ago
Fair worth is probably less since robots can do much of the eorl.
croon 5y ago
1) I'm assuming GP missed a negation, "not", before that. 2) Obviously if you can find workers for your compensation level that's some market definition of worth. But I would also argue that ones society is broken if there are people who stay at a job where they have to resort to peeing in bottles because (ostensibly) they don't feel that taking 3 minutes to go to the bathroom is possible.
faceplanted 5y ago
There's no objectively "fair" number, but there are far better approximations. No-one really cares if it's perfectly equitable between every employee, but they _can_ see obvious inequities harming people's lives.
crispyambulance 5y ago
> Is there some objectively fair remuneration calculation [...]? Lopsided power arrangements will always be grossly unfair to one side and generous the other. In this case it's Amazon vs the Precariat. Moreover, the two sides (and everyone else) will always have a very different idea about what is fair. The best way to address this without directly getting into the vast grey-area of "what is fair" is to limit the political power of corporations and then address labor laws and union formation. The sad thing is we've been through this before. There's a reason labor unions came into being. Do we really have to wait until labor conditions for workers become the 21st century equivalent of Industrial Age steel mills run by robber-barrons? Can't we learn from history?
- wiz21c 5y ago
  totally OT but Are you ready to use that name ?
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    That's a scary question! The way things are going I expect the social safety net to be cut out from under me by the time I hit retirement.
    - wiz21c 5y ago
      Hmmm.. Dunno if you caught it but Crispy Ambulance was a band (I liked a lot) in the eighties. One of their most famous tune is "are you ready" :-)
      - crispyambulance 5y ago
        Ha! yes, I am aware of Crispy Ambulance, the band (good memories of the 80's). But I missed your reference!
- falcor84 5y ago
  Thanks for introducing me to the term Precariat. It was quite interesting to read the Wikipedia article[0] about it now and attach a name to the phenomenon. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat > In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which means existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare.
imtringued 5y ago
>I'm not disputing any of your other points, but what does "paying them what they’re actually worth" mean? It absolutely means nothing because there is a queue of people that are desperate to accept any job. If you decide to ask for a higher salary then someone more desperate than you will take the job.
usrusr 5y ago
Objective is overrated. There's a clear tendency towards evil when you try too hard driving bonuses and promotions on objective performance metrics. The ruthless deathmarchers will always outperform their more benign peers in locally measurable metrics. The paperclip maximiser algorithm doesn't actually require a computer, it could run just fine on a group of humans implemented as their set of intraorganizational rules.
- falcor84 5y ago
  It's not quite clear to me how this relates to my question. If not 'objective', is there a fair 'subjective' way to decide on remuneration?
NoGravitas 5y ago
There is an objectively fair remuneration calculation, but others aren't using it, except possibly in worker-owned cooperatives. That is, to pay workers the total value added by their labor. This article at la Wik can tell you more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
- falcor84 5y ago
  But, if I understand correctly, by definition an employer would have no expected direct benefit from hiring at this salary. Are there any for-profit employers who use such a calculation in-practice coupled with some fixed multiplier (or multiplier range) for all their roles?

LatteLazy 5y ago

Doesn't amazon already pay way more than anyone else? 15usd an hour, more in most places, healthcare and a bunch of other benfits compared to minimum wage and nothing else at most alternatives...

rejectedandsad 5y ago
Yeah, it’s the most generous job of last resort available in most of the country
opencl 5y ago
Other warehouses don't pay minimum wage. Target's starting pay is $4 higher than Amazon in my area. Home Depot is like $1 lower than Amazon. It is true that they have a pretty decent healthcare package as far as warehouse work goes.

Aeolun 5y ago

I agree with your other points, but: > little booths into their warehouses to try and improve mental health If these are anything like toilets, they’d do wonders for my mental health. Of course it would be more helpful if they actually were toilets (re: bathroom breaks)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]