8 ms·

If I'm paying a person $200-$300K to build a house and his wife gets cancer; it doesn't entitle him to keep my money. He gives it back because he didn't do his

If I'm paying a person $200-$300K to build a house and his wife gets cancer; it doesn't entitle him to keep my money. He gives it back because he didn't do his job. Same principle.

starbugs 5y ago
This is actually not about money. It's about a human life.
- geodel 5y ago
  So why didn't this person simply leave Amazon's shitty job and give some dignity to human life.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    Because at the end of the day it is about money.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ivraatiems 5y ago
It's not about "your rights", it's about "what's right". Sure, you're within your rights. But when you're a trillion-dollar-market-cap company, you can eat $300k for a year and let the employee get through his grief and come back to you. Also, you edited your comment in a way that was deceptive, and didn't say the reason for the edit -- but your comparison is still flawed. $300k to you is pennies to Amazon.
- asjldkfin 5y ago
  It's not like Jeff Bezos personally fired him. His direct manager is not working with a trillion dollar market cap.
  - ivraatiems 5y ago
    That's another dodge. His direct manager is acting on behalf of the company, and in the interest of the company. The company should have behaved better. His direct manager also isn't paying the writer's salary out of a personal bank account. The point is that companies ought to treat their employees with empathy even when it costs them. There are reasonable limits to that, yes, but $300k for Amazon is well within that bounds in my view.
    - asjldkfin 5y ago
      No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit. Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day. Don't take this the wrong way, but I assume you're probably early enough in your career you never had to manage people. But when you eventually do, try to separate idealism from reality.
      - starbugs 5y ago
        Sorry, I am old and have more than 10 years of management experience. You can try to formalize human life with your rules for the next 100k years and it will still not work. There are things that are beyond words and beyond your and my ability to "define". I am afraid a lot of us have lost any of their inherent common sense, because there was no policy for it. This is not idealism. This is someone dying. And you are talking about policies. Come on!
      - dlp211 5y ago
        Which company imploded because of empathy?
      - ivraatiems 5y ago
        > No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit. These are not mutually exclusive things, much of the time, but sometimes exceptions have to be made. > Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day. This is a reasonable point, but it, again, does not address my fundamental point: Amazon as a company should have more ethical and empathetic policies. Amazon as a company should instruct managers to help their employees and be willing to back that help up with financial assistance. Whether it's Jeff Bezos or this person's manager, you seem to want to keep this at an individual level of decision-making, but that's not the change I want to make. As for myself, I'm not a manager because I don't want to be, and having to enforce policies I don't agree with is one of the reasons for that.
oceanplexian 5y ago
This is the right answer. Your safety net is your responsibility, not your company’s or the government’s (like it or not, this is the reality we live in today, in the USA). Making the high income that he does, it should have been trivial to save a few years worth of emergency fund for exactly this situation. If he had made different choices he would be able to take a year off and properly take care of his family, not blame Amazon for his life choices.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  It shouldn't be the reality in a society with the amount of wealth ours has.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    If you make mid six-figures and can’t put together an emergency fund that is on you. He could have made different life choices and spent time with his wife in her last moments rather than slaving away at work.
    - ivraatiems 5y ago
      I agree absolutely on the importance of an emergency fund from a tactical, this is how society is perspective. But I don't think it should be necessary and I don't concede that that's the right way for things to work.
    - s5300 5y ago
      Cancer treatment often goes up over a million, sometimes into millions Perhaps you're unaware of that, but do you still expect somebody making six figures to be able to have that emergency fund just sitting around?
- starbugs 5y ago
  Do you really think that this is about the money? This man is losing his wife, he cannot think clearly, because he loses the person he loves and has children with. He may suffer from severe depression. I'd bet my right leg that if he didn't need to, he would not think about money for a minute. It also doesn't matter whether he should have built up an emergency fund that can cover cancer treatment expenses. He clearly has different problems than that right now. I can't comprehend how you can even talk about money until you have helped that guy with all you have. Clearly, Amazon is well enough equipped to first provide support, then ask questions once a situation like that has been resolved. The way this is being handled is just wrong. You wouldn't treat any of your friends or family members like that, so why do it to your employee?
adt2bt 5y ago
The analogy of a house is entirely incorrect - a house is a one time transaction. Giving an employee space and support during this time likely leads to loyalty and better production in the long run. It also prevents articles like this, which is probably worth the $300k, as even ONE talented engineer turned off from joining Amazon due to this article will cost them that much and more.

If I'm paying a person $200-$300K to build a house and his wife gets cancer; it doesn't entitle him to keep my money. He gives it back because he didn't do his job. Same principle.

starbugs 5y ago

This is actually not about money. It's about a human life.

geodel 5y ago
So why didn't this person simply leave Amazon's shitty job and give some dignity to human life.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Because at the end of the day it is about money.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ivraatiems 5y ago

It's not about "your rights", it's about "what's right". Sure, you're within your rights. But when you're a trillion-dollar-market-cap company, you can eat $300k for a year and let the employee get through his grief and come back to you. Also, you edited your comment in a way that was deceptive, and didn't say the reason for the edit -- but your comparison is still flawed. $300k to you is pennies to Amazon.

asjldkfin 5y ago
It's not like Jeff Bezos personally fired him. His direct manager is not working with a trillion dollar market cap.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  That's another dodge. His direct manager is acting on behalf of the company, and in the interest of the company. The company should have behaved better. His direct manager also isn't paying the writer's salary out of a personal bank account. The point is that companies ought to treat their employees with empathy even when it costs them. There are reasonable limits to that, yes, but $300k for Amazon is well within that bounds in my view.
  - asjldkfin 5y ago
    No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit. Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day. Don't take this the wrong way, but I assume you're probably early enough in your career you never had to manage people. But when you eventually do, try to separate idealism from reality.
    - starbugs 5y ago
      Sorry, I am old and have more than 10 years of management experience. You can try to formalize human life with your rules for the next 100k years and it will still not work. There are things that are beyond words and beyond your and my ability to "define". I am afraid a lot of us have lost any of their inherent common sense, because there was no policy for it. This is not idealism. This is someone dying. And you are talking about policies. Come on!
    - dlp211 5y ago
      Which company imploded because of empathy?
    - ivraatiems 5y ago
      > No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit. These are not mutually exclusive things, much of the time, but sometimes exceptions have to be made. > Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day. This is a reasonable point, but it, again, does not address my fundamental point: Amazon as a company should have more ethical and empathetic policies. Amazon as a company should instruct managers to help their employees and be willing to back that help up with financial assistance. Whether it's Jeff Bezos or this person's manager, you seem to want to keep this at an individual level of decision-making, but that's not the change I want to make. As for myself, I'm not a manager because I don't want to be, and having to enforce policies I don't agree with is one of the reasons for that.

oceanplexian 5y ago

This is the right answer. Your safety net is your responsibility, not your company’s or the government’s (like it or not, this is the reality we live in today, in the USA). Making the high income that he does, it should have been trivial to save a few years worth of emergency fund for exactly this situation. If he had made different choices he would be able to take a year off and properly take care of his family, not blame Amazon for his life choices.

ivraatiems 5y ago
It shouldn't be the reality in a society with the amount of wealth ours has.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  If you make mid six-figures and can’t put together an emergency fund that is on you. He could have made different life choices and spent time with his wife in her last moments rather than slaving away at work.
  - ivraatiems 5y ago
    I agree absolutely on the importance of an emergency fund from a tactical, this is how society is perspective. But I don't think it should be necessary and I don't concede that that's the right way for things to work.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Cancer treatment often goes up over a million, sometimes into millions Perhaps you're unaware of that, but do you still expect somebody making six figures to be able to have that emergency fund just sitting around?
starbugs 5y ago
Do you really think that this is about the money? This man is losing his wife, he cannot think clearly, because he loses the person he loves and has children with. He may suffer from severe depression. I'd bet my right leg that if he didn't need to, he would not think about money for a minute. It also doesn't matter whether he should have built up an emergency fund that can cover cancer treatment expenses. He clearly has different problems than that right now. I can't comprehend how you can even talk about money until you have helped that guy with all you have. Clearly, Amazon is well enough equipped to first provide support, then ask questions once a situation like that has been resolved. The way this is being handled is just wrong. You wouldn't treat any of your friends or family members like that, so why do it to your employee?

adt2bt 5y ago

The analogy of a house is entirely incorrect - a house is a one time transaction. Giving an employee space and support during this time likely leads to loyalty and better production in the long run. It also prevents articles like this, which is probably worth the $300k, as even ONE talented engineer turned off from joining Amazon due to this article will cost them that much and more.