14 ms·

Ama-Mart Wal-zon Take your pick. I don't care whether you are "online" or off. Treat your workers like shit -- yes, your workers, you wankers; I don't care

Ama-Mart Wal-zon Take your pick. I don't care whether you are "online" or off. Treat your workers like shit -- yes, your workers, you wankers; I don't care what shell employment manoeuvring you use -- and run a business model that takes advantage of, if it's not outright predicated upon, the public dole, and I will be disinclined to send my business your way. Other readers here: If you don't like it, vote with your dollars (or whatever currency). It's the only way, in today's world. And name them for what they are. They hate the bad publicity. HN relevance: Being a "tech" company does not absolve you of being a good citizen. Some "tech" advocates are sounding far too much like Wall Street bankers, these days. ---- P.S. Good grief -- a bit of upvote. Karma negating though it may prove to be (feh), I'll add that while authoring my original comment I was thinking more of the now much reported warehouse staffing situation than of the OP's situation. ALTHOUGH... I, too, have experienced the "blessed" "management" employee phenomenon -- more than once, when I stop to think about it. Once even personally, where a VP's... "pet" was moved into a role that I was in line for. They received some months of half-day or more one-on-one training from a senior supervisor. They never really got the hand of the role, especially the technical details; nonetheless, it was enough of a resume builder for them to shortly thereupon move on to "bigger and better" "management" things. Whereupon, they belatedly put me into the role. Which I then did from day one, with effectively zero additional training. Oh, and while holding down my old job -- and at times, repeatedly, also portions of the job I'd left before that, which they continued to underhire for and so continued to fail to fill successfully. "Management". The best management I've seen worked up to the role. "Formal" credentials are to me not outright anathema, but definitely a caution.

bmelton 13y ago
The worker was grateful for the opportunity, and enjoyed his time at Amazon, though he felt unmotivated toward the end. He was paid fairly, and presumably commensurately to either his skills, experience, or what he was willing to accept. He entered into the contract freely, was not abused by the employer in any way, and knew full well going in that his employment term would be most likely limited to 12 months. Yet still, he would like to return to Amazon for gainful employment. How exactly was anyone taken advantage of?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  'Freedom' becomes a slippery concept when you're dealing with contracts of adhesion, though. Non-executive workers have little or no negotiating power over their terms of employment, and the greater the asymmetry the less of a free economic choice it is. Obviously he's not that happy about it or he wouldn't have written this screed.
  - jkonowitch 13y ago
    Is there research to back this up? Ie is it really the case that 'non-executive' workers have no negotiating power? Is this true in all sectors or only some? Anecdotally I've seen instances where non-execs successfully negotiated a salary increase, etc.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Not that I'm going to dig out right now. I mentioned 'terms' because I wanted to address things like the contract period and so on, rather than just pay.
    - hobs 13y ago
      Check middle class salary increase the last 30 years.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Well, I don't know necessarily that he was unhappy with it, though clearly he thought it was stupid of them to do as it bore on product quality and all that. Regardless of whether or not he liked it, I'm wondering why the OP can call it "taking advantage of". I just don't see that here, and thought maybe I was missing something, versus my bar just being set at a different height.
- Jormundir 13y ago
  You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? These days any given new graduate who didn't attend an ivy league is in a situation where it is extremely difficult to get a job. The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. This is the situation these contractors are in. When the alternative is being in extreme debt / homeless, a choice cannot be made freely. This is the situation that Amazon and Walmart are taking advantage of, employee these people as hourly, no benefits contractors. Obviously there's the argument that Amazon and Walmart are being 'good' providing them with hourly pay when they would otherwise be paid nothing. This, however, doesn't mean they're not taking advantage of the people they hire as contractors. I would also not argue, but hold as a belief that it is extremely immoral to not pay the people who are struggling to help the company succeed, in order to pay people who are already wealthy more. Before you explode with economic principles of how they are being paid what they're worth due to the harsh job market conditions, save your breath, I already know. The thinking is right from a market philosophy perspective, but these principles also weaken the company, and I would say are actually wrong from a perspective of building and growing a successful business.
Kapura 13y ago
hey, uh, did you read the article? The guy seemed to not be complaining so much about how him and the other staffers were being treated and more concerned with the fact that his team had really quick turn around and the people who he felt were the most qualified for the work were not being given the positions they deserved. I replied further down the page, but there are a lot of employees who amazon treats pretty well. They are just much, much closer to the tech core of the business. Engineers especially get a pretty good deal; a friend of mine went out of undergrad to work at amazon for a six-figure starting salary plus additional dosh for moving expenses. I hate to break it to you, but Amazon is a really, really fucking huge enormous gigantic company. And maybe you should talk to people who work there rather than just judging the company based on a few negative internet articles.
- Jormundir 13y ago
  They're not judging the company on a few internet articles, they're judging the company on the immoral hiring practices they use. Even if it's not for the entirety of the company, it is still significant. Obviously they pay tech workers well, they have to in order to get them to work there. They would have a very difficult time contracting tech employees, because there are so many alternative places to work. A perfect contrast of how they're taking advantage of those they can take advantage of.
  - Kapura 13y ago
    So you're saying that this company, which is playing by the rules (in that they aren't breaking any laws with their hiring practices), ought to make a move away from the practices that made them a hundred-billion dollar company because you feel that it's immoral. Do you see how that might look somewhat idealistic and, dare I say, foolish? I never supported the 'Occupy' protests mainly because you can't influence a corporation by yelling at it. Sitting in front of those banks in NYC or wherever didn't actually change shit. You know why? Because businesses are not in the business of making people happy. Shocking, but true. Businesses are in the business of business, which is to say they make money. Some day I'll write down something that I hope will illustrate in simple terms how huge corporations operate, but today is not that day. My point is that successful corporations, a group to which Amazon.com obviously belongs, are motivated first, foremost, and entirely by the almighty dollar. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that should be the case, but you are an idiot if you don't believe that that is the case. So if you want to alter the way that big corporations work, you need to either change the rules to make it more profitable to support what you feel are moral hiring practices, or you make it actually profitable to retain these sorts of temporary workers for the long term. But shakin' your fists ain't gonna work.
subsystem 13y ago
I sometimes think that tech is worse than banking. Banking is about being "in the club", but if you ask them behind closed doors they know what they're doing. While in tech people seem to actually believe they are righteous. Looking at organizational structures law firms, somewhat paradoxical, seems much better than both tech and banking.
- davorak 13y ago
  > I sometimes think that tech is worse than banking. Banking is about being "in the club", but if you ask them behind closed doors they know what they're doing. While in tech people seem to actually believe they are righteous. My initial impression of this description is that it should easier to correct bad behavior in the tech world. For two reasons. If the tech leader becomes convinced they are doing the wrong thing they will want to change to doing the right thing. Also since they are being transparent it is easier for the public to know and understand their policies and apply pressure if they are disliked. On the other hand it seems like it would be very hard to change bad behavior in the banking world from your description since they are already convinced their actions are non-optimal for society, it is difficult to apply social pressure since they are not transparent and are incentivized to be deceptive or lie.
nhangen 13y ago
I downvoted you because your comment doesn't recognize the context of the article. It's not about being treated poorly, but making stupid decisions that lead to poor product.
rogerbinns 13y ago
If you believe the workers are taken advantage of, could be managed in a different way that increases productivity, or providing far more value than they are paid, then you have an opportunity to start a business and profit handsomely at the expense of those "wankers". For some reason all the people making those observations never seem to start those businesses to show the "bad" guys up.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Econ 101 is simple and all, but in the real world the barriers to entry are more complex. I can see I now: "Hey Mr. VC, do I got a pitch for you! We're going to compete directly with Amazon, but pay our people more! Are you in?"
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    More accurately the pitch would be that existing methods of management and pay levels are resulting in a certain level of productivity, and that different methods and increased pay results in a disproportionately higher level of productivity. If spending $1/hr more per employee gives more than $1/hr in productivity increases then it is a no brainer to do. I've yet to see a hypothesis of why all these companies are sitting there, can't see this, and to spite themselves decide to behave like "wankers" and somehow decide not to get richer! In the real world things are complex. With higher value products there is definitely a benefit in management and pay increases, because your customers expect that. For example Costco does it. The value of shipping at Amazon is $0 because that is what lots of people pay. I wouldn't be surprised if the people packing Prime orders are paid more because those are more valuable customers.
kalleboo 13y ago
> Other readers here: If you don't like it, vote with your dollars (or whatever currency). It's the only way, in today's world. If you see shitty management as abuse, I hope you're ready to boycott 90% of everything else in addition to the 90% of manufactured goods you must already be boycotting.

bmelton 13y ago

The worker was grateful for the opportunity, and enjoyed his time at Amazon, though he felt unmotivated toward the end. He was paid fairly, and presumably commensurately to either his skills, experience, or what he was willing to accept. He entered into the contract freely, was not abused by the employer in any way, and knew full well going in that his employment term would be most likely limited to 12 months. Yet still, he would like to return to Amazon for gainful employment. How exactly was anyone taken advantage of?

anigbrowl 13y ago
'Freedom' becomes a slippery concept when you're dealing with contracts of adhesion, though. Non-executive workers have little or no negotiating power over their terms of employment, and the greater the asymmetry the less of a free economic choice it is. Obviously he's not that happy about it or he wouldn't have written this screed.
- jkonowitch 13y ago
  Is there research to back this up? Ie is it really the case that 'non-executive' workers have no negotiating power? Is this true in all sectors or only some? Anecdotally I've seen instances where non-execs successfully negotiated a salary increase, etc.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Not that I'm going to dig out right now. I mentioned 'terms' because I wanted to address things like the contract period and so on, rather than just pay.
  - hobs 13y ago
    Check middle class salary increase the last 30 years.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Well, I don't know necessarily that he was unhappy with it, though clearly he thought it was stupid of them to do as it bore on product quality and all that. Regardless of whether or not he liked it, I'm wondering why the OP can call it "taking advantage of". I just don't see that here, and thought maybe I was missing something, versus my bar just being set at a different height.
Jormundir 13y ago
You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? These days any given new graduate who didn't attend an ivy league is in a situation where it is extremely difficult to get a job. The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. This is the situation these contractors are in. When the alternative is being in extreme debt / homeless, a choice cannot be made freely. This is the situation that Amazon and Walmart are taking advantage of, employee these people as hourly, no benefits contractors. Obviously there's the argument that Amazon and Walmart are being 'good' providing them with hourly pay when they would otherwise be paid nothing. This, however, doesn't mean they're not taking advantage of the people they hire as contractors. I would also not argue, but hold as a belief that it is extremely immoral to not pay the people who are struggling to help the company succeed, in order to pay people who are already wealthy more. Before you explode with economic principles of how they are being paid what they're worth due to the harsh job market conditions, save your breath, I already know. The thinking is right from a market philosophy perspective, but these principles also weaken the company, and I would say are actually wrong from a perspective of building and growing a successful business.

Kapura 13y ago

hey, uh, did you read the article? The guy seemed to not be complaining so much about how him and the other staffers were being treated and more concerned with the fact that his team had really quick turn around and the people who he felt were the most qualified for the work were not being given the positions they deserved. I replied further down the page, but there are a lot of employees who amazon treats pretty well. They are just much, much closer to the tech core of the business. Engineers especially get a pretty good deal; a friend of mine went out of undergrad to work at amazon for a six-figure starting salary plus additional dosh for moving expenses. I hate to break it to you, but Amazon is a really, really fucking huge enormous gigantic company. And maybe you should talk to people who work there rather than just judging the company based on a few negative internet articles.

Jormundir 13y ago
They're not judging the company on a few internet articles, they're judging the company on the immoral hiring practices they use. Even if it's not for the entirety of the company, it is still significant. Obviously they pay tech workers well, they have to in order to get them to work there. They would have a very difficult time contracting tech employees, because there are so many alternative places to work. A perfect contrast of how they're taking advantage of those they can take advantage of.
- Kapura 13y ago
  So you're saying that this company, which is playing by the rules (in that they aren't breaking any laws with their hiring practices), ought to make a move away from the practices that made them a hundred-billion dollar company because you feel that it's immoral. Do you see how that might look somewhat idealistic and, dare I say, foolish? I never supported the 'Occupy' protests mainly because you can't influence a corporation by yelling at it. Sitting in front of those banks in NYC or wherever didn't actually change shit. You know why? Because businesses are not in the business of making people happy. Shocking, but true. Businesses are in the business of business, which is to say they make money. Some day I'll write down something that I hope will illustrate in simple terms how huge corporations operate, but today is not that day. My point is that successful corporations, a group to which Amazon.com obviously belongs, are motivated first, foremost, and entirely by the almighty dollar. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that should be the case, but you are an idiot if you don't believe that that is the case. So if you want to alter the way that big corporations work, you need to either change the rules to make it more profitable to support what you feel are moral hiring practices, or you make it actually profitable to retain these sorts of temporary workers for the long term. But shakin' your fists ain't gonna work.

subsystem 13y ago

I sometimes think that tech is worse than banking. Banking is about being "in the club", but if you ask them behind closed doors they know what they're doing. While in tech people seem to actually believe they are righteous. Looking at organizational structures law firms, somewhat paradoxical, seems much better than both tech and banking.

davorak 13y ago
> I sometimes think that tech is worse than banking. Banking is about being "in the club", but if you ask them behind closed doors they know what they're doing. While in tech people seem to actually believe they are righteous. My initial impression of this description is that it should easier to correct bad behavior in the tech world. For two reasons. If the tech leader becomes convinced they are doing the wrong thing they will want to change to doing the right thing. Also since they are being transparent it is easier for the public to know and understand their policies and apply pressure if they are disliked. On the other hand it seems like it would be very hard to change bad behavior in the banking world from your description since they are already convinced their actions are non-optimal for society, it is difficult to apply social pressure since they are not transparent and are incentivized to be deceptive or lie.

nhangen 13y ago

I downvoted you because your comment doesn't recognize the context of the article. It's not about being treated poorly, but making stupid decisions that lead to poor product.

rogerbinns 13y ago

If you believe the workers are taken advantage of, could be managed in a different way that increases productivity, or providing far more value than they are paid, then you have an opportunity to start a business and profit handsomely at the expense of those "wankers". For some reason all the people making those observations never seem to start those businesses to show the "bad" guys up.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Econ 101 is simple and all, but in the real world the barriers to entry are more complex. I can see I now: "Hey Mr. VC, do I got a pitch for you! We're going to compete directly with Amazon, but pay our people more! Are you in?"
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  More accurately the pitch would be that existing methods of management and pay levels are resulting in a certain level of productivity, and that different methods and increased pay results in a disproportionately higher level of productivity. If spending $1/hr more per employee gives more than $1/hr in productivity increases then it is a no brainer to do. I've yet to see a hypothesis of why all these companies are sitting there, can't see this, and to spite themselves decide to behave like "wankers" and somehow decide not to get richer! In the real world things are complex. With higher value products there is definitely a benefit in management and pay increases, because your customers expect that. For example Costco does it. The value of shipping at Amazon is $0 because that is what lots of people pay. I wouldn't be surprised if the people packing Prime orders are paid more because those are more valuable customers.

kalleboo 13y ago

> Other readers here: If you don't like it, vote with your dollars (or whatever currency). It's the only way, in today's world. If you see shitty management as abuse, I hope you're ready to boycott 90% of everything else in addition to the 90% of manufactured goods you must already be boycotting.