8 ms·

I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't? I thought the auth

I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't? I thought the author was incredibly fair/objective, and at least the way I read it, it wasn't so much that he had such a miserable experience or could only stomach 10 months of pain/abuse (in fact if you actually read to the end, he praises his manager, his teammates, etc.), and more so that it only took him 10 months to realize that the company culture and way-of-working was not aligned with his personal preferences. He does have legitimate complaints about parts of his experience, and makes some keen observations about the consequences and tradeoffs of Amazon choosing to adopt the culture that it does (though I also think he's wrong about a few things too), but overall it's less of a "Amazon == bad" piece and more of a "this is why it wasn't to my taste" reflection. Frankly, I would congratulate the author, and think of this as a success-story. Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome (minus the annoyance of another round of job hunting, but hey in this market, another job hop is probably just an opportunity to level up comp, rather than an existential threat that you might be unemployed and starve)? Obviously the team/org he was in is suffering major attribution problems, and that's obviously a bad thing, but that's not his problem either. Note: in case it wasn't clear, I do work within Amazon, but these opinions are my own, not representing my employer, blah blah

benadam11 5y ago
Really glad it came across that way (that was definitely my intent).
tucaz 5y ago
People on this forum are usually too good to find problems within. With folks here, usually the other party is always at fault.
- draw_down 5y ago
- Ostrogodsky 5y ago
  The irony-meter just exploded
- analognoise 5y ago
  The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed, has people pissing in bottles to meet insane work quotas, stack ranks employees, flys drones over delivery trucks to surveil drivers to ensure efficiency, repeatedly busts union efforts, might run through literally every available American because the churn at it's distribution centers is so high, uses its platform data to compete with it's suppliers, and whose founder Bezos is one of the richest men to ever live who built himself a literal space craft while income inequality is higher than during the French Revolution? Are you absolutely sure that there are no legitimate problems with Amazon, or that maybe we're a little itchy with Amazon for a reason?
  - testudovictoria 5y ago
    > The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.
    - FridgeSeal 5y ago
      That’s an exceedingly charitable stance to take, because the actual proper thing to do would have been to send people home before the storm hit, and possibly give them the option of sheltering in the warehouse if they needed to (assuming it was actually reinforced).
      - testudovictoria 5y ago
        I can see why you'd say that. It's not charitable thinking. I'm thinking it's part of a standard inclement weather plan. Everyone works as usual. If there's a tornado watch, employees don't come in to keep them from being caught in a tornado. Hold employees in approved safety area under a tornado warning (e.g. reinforced building, not open warehouse), because sending them home is a clear danger.
- tech_tuna 5y ago
masterof0 5y ago
I feel the same way. But this "bashing" is good, maybe they(Amazon) see it everywhere and make them change for the better(at least a tiny bit).
haswell 5y ago
I appreciate your comment and the nuance it brings to the conversation, but I also wonder if some of this is a distinction without a difference. Isn't the only difference between the Amazon-bashing and OP's take just a matter of delivery, tact and perspective? I personally prefer a communication style that doesn't involve bashing, and I would probably choose to write a post much like the OP, but I think it's also very charitable to Amazon, almost to a fault. For example, section 3: "Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)" resonates with me deeply, because many of the issues described are similar to the issues I face at a different platform company. These issues weren't always present (I've been here long enough to see the growing pains evolve), and my conclusion isn't "this just isn't the right place for me", but rather "the company is trying to continue operating in a manner that only works in small orgs, and must make deep fundamental changes going forward". Now, to be fair, if that change doesn't happen, then it does become a place that "isn't for me". But "This isn't for me" implies it's a matter of personal preference, and perfectly fine for some folks, but some of these issues are deep, fundamental problems that must be solved and likely require changes in the org or every person who takes that role going forward will reach the same conclusion (or someone who's too desperate to care will just deal with it). That doesn't make the underlying problem go away. Realizing that a place isn't for you and thinking about it that way is arguably healthier than getting angry about it and staying in that environment. But the reason that place isn't for you might still stem from organizational issues that make Amazon (or any company with similar problems) arguably "not the right place" for just about anyone.
- strgcmc 5y ago
  Well, it's definitely a distinction with a difference for the OP. If I were a hiring manager and came across his resume and the name rang a bell, and I dug up this blog post, I would have no qualms about re-hiring him at Amazon despite the short tenure (assuming I could earn the author's trust that my hypothetical new team isn't as chaotic/on-fire as what he experienced before). His ability to communicate with tact and perspective, speaks to his strong judgement and professionalism, and makes me more personally inclined to hire/re-hire him in the future (of course, he gets to decide if he's ever willing to take the plunge again). As for whether this indicates deep flaws that it might not be the right place for just about anyone... well I think there is the existence proof that Amazon employs 10k's/100k's of people, and while it may have higher attrition than peers (does it? I don't actually know, but I'm willing to take that on faith), still at least a sizeable majority is relatively satisfied with their careers here (based on internal tech survey results). So, "not right for anyone" is definitely an over-exaggeration. Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.
sbierwagen 5y ago
>I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't? Nobody is dumb enough to write a blog post trashing Amazon under their own name. He wants to be able to get another job.
vanusa 5y ago
Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome? I agree that it definitely doesn't read like a straight tale of horror and abuse. But I don't see how can you sum it up it by saying "he found some good practices" when he takes care to point out, for example: Everything is Urgent (but takes forever) Sounds like a grind, day-in, day-out, with lots of made up stress. Unfortunately, the majority of my time is spent doing “program” style work which leaves about 10% of my time for technical work. Ultimately this is not what I want to be doing with my career. So the work sucked basically. And definitely wasn't what he was expecting. One of the projects I was assigned to had an engineer who had never done web development (didn’t know HTTP, HTML, CSS or Javascript) was tasked with doing the front end system design for a React application (and the API that would power the UI). Standard sweatshop practices, sounds like. Oh and did we mention on-call? About which he says: To be blunt: it sucks. Which (among other reasons) is why he quit after 10 months. Which is definitely not a step to be taken lightly, because (aside from losing on the compensation) it basically amounts to a resume stain. Now of course he said positive things as well, and it wasn't a simple condemnation of Amazon, by any stretch. But still -- it strikes me as rather strange that you are somehow able sum it up as "he had good things happen to him there" and it was a "succesful outcome". To my ears, his experience there read like a very mixed bag. My paraphrase of his report would be: "You learn a lot there, but it's a grind that will suck you dry before you know it."
- strgcmc 5y ago
  The good practices I was referring to, were things like: his praise of the documentation culture, the obsession with data security (which I read as a good thing, on behalf of customers). Of course you are right that it was definitely a mixed bag. Your paraphrase isn't wrong either, but I would suggest a modification to it: "it will suck you dry, if either (1) you don't fit in with the company culture, or (2) you are placed in a bad situation on a team with poor leadership and high attrition". Perhaps shockingly, not every team at Amazon is constantly quitting (e.g. my direct team in the last two years has had 1 person voluntarily leave for a better opportunity - and we wished them well, and 0 attrition otherwise), and also some people actually appreciate and gravitate towards some things like, what the author calls "team are fragile" culture (because it is in fact a kind of durability/resiliency that there is less reliance on special rockstars, irreplaceable dependencies, and that teams can be fluid but the product mostly works/lives-on).

benadam11 5y ago

Really glad it came across that way (that was definitely my intent).

tucaz 5y ago

People on this forum are usually too good to find problems within. With folks here, usually the other party is always at fault.

draw_down 5y ago
Ostrogodsky 5y ago
The irony-meter just exploded
analognoise 5y ago
The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed, has people pissing in bottles to meet insane work quotas, stack ranks employees, flys drones over delivery trucks to surveil drivers to ensure efficiency, repeatedly busts union efforts, might run through literally every available American because the churn at it's distribution centers is so high, uses its platform data to compete with it's suppliers, and whose founder Bezos is one of the richest men to ever live who built himself a literal space craft while income inequality is higher than during the French Revolution? Are you absolutely sure that there are no legitimate problems with Amazon, or that maybe we're a little itchy with Amazon for a reason?
- testudovictoria 5y ago
  > The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.
  - FridgeSeal 5y ago
    That’s an exceedingly charitable stance to take, because the actual proper thing to do would have been to send people home before the storm hit, and possibly give them the option of sheltering in the warehouse if they needed to (assuming it was actually reinforced).
    - testudovictoria 5y ago
      I can see why you'd say that. It's not charitable thinking. I'm thinking it's part of a standard inclement weather plan. Everyone works as usual. If there's a tornado watch, employees don't come in to keep them from being caught in a tornado. Hold employees in approved safety area under a tornado warning (e.g. reinforced building, not open warehouse), because sending them home is a clear danger.
tech_tuna 5y ago

masterof0 5y ago

I feel the same way. But this "bashing" is good, maybe they(Amazon) see it everywhere and make them change for the better(at least a tiny bit).

haswell 5y ago

I appreciate your comment and the nuance it brings to the conversation, but I also wonder if some of this is a distinction without a difference. Isn't the only difference between the Amazon-bashing and OP's take just a matter of delivery, tact and perspective? I personally prefer a communication style that doesn't involve bashing, and I would probably choose to write a post much like the OP, but I think it's also very charitable to Amazon, almost to a fault. For example, section 3: "Everything is Urgent (but takes forever)" resonates with me deeply, because many of the issues described are similar to the issues I face at a different platform company. These issues weren't always present (I've been here long enough to see the growing pains evolve), and my conclusion isn't "this just isn't the right place for me", but rather "the company is trying to continue operating in a manner that only works in small orgs, and must make deep fundamental changes going forward". Now, to be fair, if that change doesn't happen, then it does become a place that "isn't for me". But "This isn't for me" implies it's a matter of personal preference, and perfectly fine for some folks, but some of these issues are deep, fundamental problems that must be solved and likely require changes in the org or every person who takes that role going forward will reach the same conclusion (or someone who's too desperate to care will just deal with it). That doesn't make the underlying problem go away. Realizing that a place isn't for you and thinking about it that way is arguably healthier than getting angry about it and staying in that environment. But the reason that place isn't for you might still stem from organizational issues that make Amazon (or any company with similar problems) arguably "not the right place" for just about anyone.

strgcmc 5y ago
Well, it's definitely a distinction with a difference for the OP. If I were a hiring manager and came across his resume and the name rang a bell, and I dug up this blog post, I would have no qualms about re-hiring him at Amazon despite the short tenure (assuming I could earn the author's trust that my hypothetical new team isn't as chaotic/on-fire as what he experienced before). His ability to communicate with tact and perspective, speaks to his strong judgement and professionalism, and makes me more personally inclined to hire/re-hire him in the future (of course, he gets to decide if he's ever willing to take the plunge again). As for whether this indicates deep flaws that it might not be the right place for just about anyone... well I think there is the existence proof that Amazon employs 10k's/100k's of people, and while it may have higher attrition than peers (does it? I don't actually know, but I'm willing to take that on faith), still at least a sizeable majority is relatively satisfied with their careers here (based on internal tech survey results). So, "not right for anyone" is definitely an over-exaggeration. Not right for you, if you are the type of person who shares personality traits and career goals/preferences as the author? Sure, quite possibly.

sbierwagen 5y ago

>I see a lot of these comments have taken to a kind of Amazon-bashing and venting their own experiences, where the author actually... didn't? Nobody is dumb enough to write a blog post trashing Amazon under their own name. He wants to be able to get another job.

vanusa 5y ago

Paraphrasing his own words, he learned a lot, met some good people, found some good practices that he's going to carry forward with him... isn't that a successful outcome? I agree that it definitely doesn't read like a straight tale of horror and abuse. But I don't see how can you sum it up it by saying "he found some good practices" when he takes care to point out, for example: Everything is Urgent (but takes forever) Sounds like a grind, day-in, day-out, with lots of made up stress. Unfortunately, the majority of my time is spent doing “program” style work which leaves about 10% of my time for technical work. Ultimately this is not what I want to be doing with my career. So the work sucked basically. And definitely wasn't what he was expecting. One of the projects I was assigned to had an engineer who had never done web development (didn’t know HTTP, HTML, CSS or Javascript) was tasked with doing the front end system design for a React application (and the API that would power the UI). Standard sweatshop practices, sounds like. Oh and did we mention on-call? About which he says: To be blunt: it sucks. Which (among other reasons) is why he quit after 10 months. Which is definitely not a step to be taken lightly, because (aside from losing on the compensation) it basically amounts to a resume stain. Now of course he said positive things as well, and it wasn't a simple condemnation of Amazon, by any stretch. But still -- it strikes me as rather strange that you are somehow able sum it up as "he had good things happen to him there" and it was a "succesful outcome". To my ears, his experience there read like a very mixed bag. My paraphrase of his report would be: "You learn a lot there, but it's a grind that will suck you dry before you know it."

strgcmc 5y ago
The good practices I was referring to, were things like: his praise of the documentation culture, the obsession with data security (which I read as a good thing, on behalf of customers). Of course you are right that it was definitely a mixed bag. Your paraphrase isn't wrong either, but I would suggest a modification to it: "it will suck you dry, if either (1) you don't fit in with the company culture, or (2) you are placed in a bad situation on a team with poor leadership and high attrition". Perhaps shockingly, not every team at Amazon is constantly quitting (e.g. my direct team in the last two years has had 1 person voluntarily leave for a better opportunity - and we wished them well, and 0 attrition otherwise), and also some people actually appreciate and gravitate towards some things like, what the author calls "team are fragile" culture (because it is in fact a kind of durability/resiliency that there is less reliance on special rockstars, irreplaceable dependencies, and that teams can be fluid but the product mostly works/lives-on).