5 ms·

Why Amazon is paying workers up to $5k to quit

24 points by sharkweek 13y ago

cheeze 13y ago
Makes sense to me. Could even potentially save money in the long run, since employees would be leaving at an anticipated time, instead of a random 2 weeks notice.
- cheriot 13y ago
  I think you're right that the timing will be important. For example, by providing employees an incentive to stay through the holiday season and leave before the seasonal lows that follow it.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    Over time it should get rid of those that value money more than the specific job; that should avoid mass actions that would force the company to increase wages. The people who remain are those who're (or who've learnt to be) content with what they got.
ktsmith 13y ago
Zappos has been doing this forever and is now owned by Amazon: http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/05/why-zappos-pays-new-employees/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/05/why-zappos-pays-new-employees/
- moonka 13y ago
  Looks like they've added a twist by doing it yearly with increasing offers each year. Pretty interesting idea.
  - ktsmith 13y ago
    Yup, it's a bit of a different model and for different reasons but very similar concept.
secfirstmd 13y ago
Contrasts with this image of Amazon workers BBC News: "Amazon workers face increased risk of mental illness" http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598
- danbruc 13y ago
  Exactly my first thought. Here in Germany Amazon gets negative press for their employment conditions, too. How does that fit together? Differences between countries? Just biased press?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This would obviate amazon of paying unemployment & health insurance. So, at one level its a dollars and cents decision. So, if you have x% voluntary turnover and it cuts in half the number of people that they need to "let go" involuntarily, the ROI on the strategy is likely breakeven. And it would seem that from a morale perspective, everyone is better off. The managers can probably still goove good word about the employees etc because the conflict is probably easied and both sides save face.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pskittle 13y ago
happy employees --->more productive employees---> happy customers---->$$$

24 points by sharkweek 13y ago

Makes sense to me. Could even potentially save money in the long run, since employees would be leaving at an anticipated time, instead of a random 2 weeks notice.

cheriot 13y ago
I think you're right that the timing will be important. For example, by providing employees an incentive to stay through the holiday season and leave before the seasonal lows that follow it.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  Over time it should get rid of those that value money more than the specific job; that should avoid mass actions that would force the company to increase wages. The people who remain are those who're (or who've learnt to be) content with what they got.

ktsmith 13y ago

Zappos has been doing this forever and is now owned by Amazon: http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/05/why-zappos-pays-new-employees/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/05/why-zappos-pays-new-employees/

moonka 13y ago
Looks like they've added a twist by doing it yearly with increasing offers each year. Pretty interesting idea.
- ktsmith 13y ago
  Yup, it's a bit of a different model and for different reasons but very similar concept.

secfirstmd 13y ago

Contrasts with this image of Amazon workers BBC News: "Amazon workers face increased risk of mental illness" http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598

danbruc 13y ago
Exactly my first thought. Here in Germany Amazon gets negative press for their employment conditions, too. How does that fit together? Differences between countries? Just biased press?
- 001sky 13y ago
  This would obviate amazon of paying unemployment & health insurance. So, at one level its a dollars and cents decision. So, if you have x% voluntary turnover and it cuts in half the number of people that they need to "let go" involuntarily, the ROI on the strategy is likely breakeven. And it would seem that from a morale perspective, everyone is better off. The managers can probably still goove good word about the employees etc because the conflict is probably easied and both sides save face.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pskittle 13y ago

happy employees --->more productive employees---> happy customers---->$$$