3 ms·

I'm surprised at the amount of negativity here. It's work. As demonstrated in the article some of these people were surely just subsisting on unemployment pri

I'm surprised at the amount of negativity here. It's work. As demonstrated in the article some of these people were surely just subsisting on unemployment prior. My first job wasn't near-minimum wage, it was the absolute minimum. I didn't have work-issued safety boots to complain about, I had to buy my own. I didn't walk around a clean warehouse, I walked around outside cleaning up after every kind of urban nastiness you can imagine regardless of the weather. I wouldn't have even considered missing work in the first week for anything that didn't have me fearing for my life, let alone blisters. There was effectively no chance of being made permanent. I was happy as hell to have that job. It changed my life and I used the small comfort it provided to study up and find my way into better things. I'd have been overjoyed to do the kind of work described in this article. There are certainly a lot of idealistic ways these jobs "should" be, but in reality I think the idea of treating this work as anything but a temporary (for the workers and in general in light of automation) stepping stone is fantasy.

elteto 13y ago
Just because you had less than standard working conditions on your first job doesn't mean that others have to go through the same. I am glad it worked out for you in the end but the fact remains that your first employer was not the best one. I think the negativity doesn't arise from the nature of the work, if I am told that the position requires heavy lifting and walking 15 miles a day then maybe I should consider whether that is something I can do. My negative reaction comes from the shady employment techniques that they seem to be using, such as using the promise of full time employment as a 'dangling carrot', as the article puts it. For a positive reference point, you could research about Costco employees (I can't seem to find the source now), who perform a very similar job (if not more demanding, since there are customers involved) and yet have very high workplace satisfaction rates.
- incision 13y ago
  >"Just because you had less than standard working conditions on your first job doesn't mean that others have to go through the same. I am glad it worked out for you in the end but the fact remains that your first employer was not the best one." I knew I'd get this comment the moment I wrote that. You've completely missed the point to construe it that way. >"My negative reaction comes from the shady employment techniques that they seem to be using, such as using the promise of full time employment as a 'dangling carrot', as the article puts it." That's an analogy from a former employee. There's nothing to suggest anything was actually promised. I'm familiar with what Costco is doing and think it's great, but they're obviously quite a bit different from the model of Amazon with big, membership drive B&M stores. There's surely something to be learned from how they've succeeded, but to assume it can be applied universally is naive.

elteto 13y ago

Just because you had less than standard working conditions on your first job doesn't mean that others have to go through the same. I am glad it worked out for you in the end but the fact remains that your first employer was not the best one. I think the negativity doesn't arise from the nature of the work, if I am told that the position requires heavy lifting and walking 15 miles a day then maybe I should consider whether that is something I can do. My negative reaction comes from the shady employment techniques that they seem to be using, such as using the promise of full time employment as a 'dangling carrot', as the article puts it. For a positive reference point, you could research about Costco employees (I can't seem to find the source now), who perform a very similar job (if not more demanding, since there are customers involved) and yet have very high workplace satisfaction rates.

incision 13y ago
>"Just because you had less than standard working conditions on your first job doesn't mean that others have to go through the same. I am glad it worked out for you in the end but the fact remains that your first employer was not the best one." I knew I'd get this comment the moment I wrote that. You've completely missed the point to construe it that way. >"My negative reaction comes from the shady employment techniques that they seem to be using, such as using the promise of full time employment as a 'dangling carrot', as the article puts it." That's an analogy from a former employee. There's nothing to suggest anything was actually promised. I'm familiar with what Costco is doing and think it's great, but they're obviously quite a bit different from the model of Amazon with big, membership drive B&M stores. There's surely something to be learned from how they've succeeded, but to assume it can be applied universally is naive.