Slashdot Mirror


The Challenge of Working At Amazon

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times has a lengthy exposé on the working conditions within Jeff Bezos's Amazon. "Even as the company tests delivery by drone and ways to restock toilet paper at the push of a bathroom button, it is conducting a little-known experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers, redrawing the boundaries of what is acceptable." Over 100 current and former employees were interviewed for the article, and they painted a picture of a demanding and punishing workplace that people tolerate in exchange for the ability to create. "In contrast to companies where declarations about their philosophy amount to vague platitudes, Amazon has rules that are part of its daily language and rituals, used in hiring, cited at meetings and quoted in food-truck lines at lunchtime. Some Amazonians say they teach them to their children." Of course, this attitude causes problems for people whose lives don't allow them extreme levels of effort: "The mother of the stillborn child soon left Amazon. 'I had just experienced the most devastating event in my life,' the woman recalled via email, only to be told her performance would be monitored 'to make sure my focus stayed on my job.'"

396 comments

  1. Off the list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Multiple times a year I get hit up by recruiters for Amazon. After reading this I'm not going to even entertain the thought of working there.

  2. Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by zenlessyank · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who needs drones and robots when you can control the humans to do your bidding.

    1. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who needs drones and robots when you can control the humans to do your bidding.

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

    2. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't work there dumbass.

    3. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't mistake the legality of quitting with the ability to quit: Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck. Work them hard enough, make sure they can't take time off to interview for a new job, dismantle the social safety net, and you have wage slavery.

    4. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who needs drones and robots when you can control the humans to do your bidding.

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      Ahhh yes. The simpleton Libertarian view. What happens when almost every workplace is like this? circa late 1800's to early 1900's. Then you have no where to go. Laughing out loud hard at your simplistic view of the world. In addition, your head must be shaped like a phallus.

    5. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when mythical "condition that will never happen I made up to try to illustrate my worldview"? I dunno, I guess the same thing that happens when we invent the steam engine again. I guess I'll just have to troll /. like you.

    6. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The social safety net is an issue the government needs to deal with. Some sort of very basic income of like $500/adult would be nice.

    7. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by savuporo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck."

      Families working at Amazon cant miss a single paycheck ? Then they are living beyond their means and have no clue about basics of fiscal responsibility.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    8. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      What happens when almost every workplace is like this? circa late 1800's to early 1900's. Then you have no where to go.

      That would be an excellent point if this was 1910 and we were talking about coal mining or meat packing. But it isn't and we aren't.

      The software company I work for is great. It's filled with people who quit other companies because their working conditions sucked. Wages aren't top-tier but I gladly trade compensation for a genuinely pleasant work environment.

      My brother in law went to work for Amazon, lured by a large paycheck. He immediately hated the culture and quit after a week. He happily works for Starbucks now.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    9. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't mistake the legality of quitting with the ability to quit

      The unemployment rate in Seattle is about 3%. Anyone who wants to work elsewhere can do so. Many people enjoy working in a challenging environment and are happy to be well compensated for that. The real "slavery" is people like you trying to impose your values on everyone else. Not everyone wants to be lazy and poorly paid.

    10. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Archtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      Hmmmm. Even if the pay and conditions elsewhere are not better than where you are?

      Technically, you are not a slave unless you are legally someone else's property. But owning human property in the form of slaves has a downside. They represent a big investment, so you need to keep them healthy. That means reasonable shelter, board and lodging, clothes, some form of medical help when needed... it all adds up.

      Today the wealthy have discovered that it pays much better to leave the "slaves" free. That way shelter, board, lodging, clothing, and medical care are their problem, not yours.

      Exactly as modern imperialists have discovered that it's a mug's game to invade countries and take them over. Then, as Colin Powell memorably noted, you own them - and you're responsible for governing them. It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives. Followed by their children and their grandchildren.

      Isn't finance wonderful?

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    11. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass. Can't vs won't is the literal difference between the two terms.

    12. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unemployment rate in Seattle is about 3%. Anyone who wants to work elsewhere can do so.

      Apparently, at least 3% cannot.

    13. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck.

      That's a problem of money management, not lousy employers. America might not have the best social net, but if a family has no income, they can get welfare long enough to find another job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, this happened before. They called it Enron, and exactly the same corporate attitude about 'culling everybody all the time' to force all the workers to work like rabid weasels was in place. There was even a movie about it which is quite good. "Enron- The Smartest Guys In The Room"

      Youtube appears to be trying to sell it outright, so no link, but I'm sure you can find it (I actually own it on DVD, that's how good it was)

      I could give you an Amazon link? ;) http://www.amazon.com/Enron-Th... $8.14 for the DVD.

      This is sort of what you get with Googles and Amazons and such barging around. I can instantly give you that video for $8.14, but everybody now has to play by their rules to keep up. You can't do another 'marketplace' or 'internet' that's nicer to work at, the crazy people will just eat you for lunch, so it's increasingly impossible to work at all unless you want to work in this kind of way.

      Anyway, Enron existed and was just like that and held all California for ransom because they could, it was an arbitrage opportunity. Once arbitrage opportunities come up for Amazon, they'll not only seize them but seize them harder and faster than anybody else because that's the culture. Look at the recent big Amazon Prime Day. That's what you get but only after they kill everything else that can do what they do.

    15. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Who needs drones and robots when you can control the humans to do your bidding.

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      It's the "go to work elsewhere" part that can often be the sticking point. Especially if your definition of "elsewhere" doesn't include raising a family as a McDonald's burger flipper.

    16. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who truly has no fuckin clue what it's like for those at the bottom, I mean they should have just reduced their contributions to their 401k...right?

    17. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Apparently, at least 3% cannot.

      You can't look at the 3% number and say that. You also have to look at how long they've been unemployed. Plenty of people quit their job, take a vacation, then start looking for another one. Sometimes people just enjoy their unemployment checks for a while after getting laid off. Some people are literally crazy. Other times, people get fired and need to look for a job. It would be weird, and probably unhealthy, if the unemployment rate were zero.

      You have to look at the unemployment rate, and also the length of time people remain unemployed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hi, Bill O'Reilly.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ktandaeo · · Score: 1

      Yes. They should stop feeding their kids, and stop paying that pesky power bill. Then they can save appropriately and not live check to check.

    20. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just eat your children? Reduce the long term expenses and save of the grocery bill temporarily? Don't have hangouts about silly morality and ethics. You want to succeed in the new global corporate environment or not?

    21. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? Most people simply can't walk away from a job at the drop of a hat you fucking aspie dunce.

    22. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      Slashdot's usual senile, alcoholic, neoliberal cretin has made his usual delirious statement. Fine, the world was really waiting for that, now do the world a favor and jump off the window.

    23. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Apparently, at least 3% cannot.

      No. About 5% is considered "full employment" because it is normal for about 1 out of 20 people to be between jobs. If the unemployment rate goes below ~5%, it means that employers are struggling to fill positions, and may need to raise pay to attract more people into the workforce.

    24. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      Slashdot's usual senile, alcoholic, neoliberal cretin has made his usual delirious statement. Fine, the world was really waiting for that, now do the world a favor and jump off the window.

      Look, I hate the comment as much you but asking the poster to "jump off the window" won't do anybody a bit of good (I have it from good sources he lives on the ground floor). Wait until Monday when he goes to work and is on his company's 20th floor to tell him to jump.

      Duh.

    25. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TIL that once something has happened before, it can't ever happen again! What a relief that is, knowing that the terrible employment conditions of the 1800s and 1900s can't ever be repeated, because reasons.

    26. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > No, this happened before.

      No, it did not. You are holding up Enron and comparing it to a slavery relationship (which is the nature of this part of the thread). How the fuck did this get upvoted? Oh, it's just anti-corporate and that's enough? Sigh.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    27. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it normal for 1 in 20 people to be looking for a job and unable to find one?

    28. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck."

      Families working at Amazon cant miss a single paycheck ? Then they are living beyond their means and have no clue about basics of fiscal responsibility.

      Hey asshole,

      Some of us have medical bills, student loans, etc which prevent us from stockpiling large quantities of savings. We're not all "fiscally irresponsible", some of us have had to deal with more hardships in life than people who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths.

    29. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of a single country (no, not even the most socialist in Europe) in which the social safety net will help you if you quit .

      Invariably, the rules for getting unemployment benefits are "you get this if and only if you are made redundant" (not, as opposed to quitting or being fired for misconduct).

    30. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you are wrong.

      speaking as someone who is out of work, savings near 0 (been out a long time) and there is essentially no social support. I can't meet my expenses on unemployment, not even close. and when unemployed, you cannot find a new place to live; they all insist you are currently employed! catch 22.

      I know what I'm talking about. I'm in that role. you are simply ASSUMING and you are, quite frankly, wrong and talking out of your ass.

      america will crush you and you can't expect the US to support its people when they are down and out. why the fuck do you think there ARE homeless people!!! dammit.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    31. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazon appears to pay white collar workers (the subject of this article) fairly well. If you cannot afford to keep a family of 4 on $9,000 per month, then you're doing it wrong. Yes, Seattle housing has gotten more expensive - but you can still find hundreds of houses for sale that would have 3+ bedrooms (so little Johnny and little Mary can have their own rooms), 2+ bathrooms, and are standalone homes - and are available for under $500,000 (meaning about a $2,000/month mortgage - should be simple for a monthly income of $9,000).

      If the typical white collar Amazon worker cannot afford to feed their kids and pay a mortgage AND put away 10% of their income every month - then they really need some basic budgeting skills and self-control.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    32. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate irony here is you providing a for-profit amazon link for free.

    33. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're not a family. You thus do not relate to the GP in any way.

      Also, if you get yourself to project 90, they'll help you with the weed addiction. Get you back on your feet.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you're funny. do you have a schedule for your stand-up appearances?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    35. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know, man. But I do know you can find a job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by eparmann · · Score: 2

      In Norway you go 8 weeks without support if you quit yourself (or get fired for some reason you were fault at yourself), but then you start getting help (as long as you are actively seeking a new job). But in addition to this everyone can apply for basic support to help you sheltered and out of starvation. The latter you only get if you actually need it, so if you have e.g a house, car or similar they might make you sell that first. This basic support is extremely low, enough to keep you alive, but if you can work you will prefer to work. My impression is that it is the same in other Scandinavian countries as well.

    37. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      jobs switching every 3 years, and spending 2 months on interviews/looking itself ( so you dont have to accept low offer) is 5% unemployment

    38. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 500k house is going to set you back a bit more than 2000/mo. I'd bet on a bit over 3k, depending on taxes.

    39. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basic conservative American "I've got mine" reasoning. This country is saddled with far too many who think like that. It's been holding back progress for generations, particularly since Reaganomics took hold.

      Total inability to put yourself in another's shoes, the notion that what's important to them should be all that's important to anyone, an utter lack of appreciation of how much worker productivity gets siphoned off for the wealthy, and of course a visceral hatred for the idea that anybody should be able to get any benefits when something bad happens to them.

      Your company got bought out and they're closing your division? Maybe you should have seen that coming years ago when you took that job. Get sick? Must be because you didn't work on being healthy. Have a kid with a birth defect? Maybe you should have had yourself and your spouse genetically tested before you had kids. Or maybe you should, you know, never have sex ever unless you have six figures saved up. I could go on, but the general sociopathic attitude of these people is rather disgusting.

      The rest of the industrialized world solved this in a variety of ways and they persist in saying that no social programs (especially medicine or just medical payments) could ever possibly work anywhere despite the evidence that they work fine when not sabotaged by right wing cranks. The cognitive dissonance between what they say and demonstrable reality should make their brains explode but they traded brains in on selfishness ages ago.

    40. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the report is transitory and just asks if you're employed or not and if you are looking for work. So at a given moment even in the best economy 3% or so of people are looking and about 5% nationwide.

      It's not the same 5% every time they do the report.

    41. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      ...and if elsewhere treats their employees so similarly to be a distinction without a difference? Your argument doesn't get to exploit those types of loopholes - you're not rich enough.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    42. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by alcmena · · Score: 1

      If you're going to rant, you should at least rant with realistic numbers. A $500k house at 4.5% (which is still historically crazy low) interest is $2.5k / month. That's before the "TI" part of "PITI" which would probably add another $500 or so a month. So... about $3k.

      Let's assume another $1k / month for 2 cars, gas, and insurance. Now we're at $4k. (PS: if you want to assume they don't have cars and can use public transportation, then the house costs will likely offset the car savings).

      Let's hopefully believe they are putting some money away in a 401K. Another $1k / month, so now we're up to $5k.

      About $2k are lost to taxes & health insurance. We've just hit $7k.

      That leaves behind $2k / month in spending money. The chances of putting another $900 away every month seems unlikely, regardless of "basic budgeting skills and self control".

      The good news is that they actually have that $2k per month in spending money... Most families can't pretend to have even that much.

      Could they get a cheaper house and save $1k off of their housing costs to put away? Well, if you use $300k rather than $500k then the same search you used to justify slamming this hypothetical family now returns exactly 30 results for a 3 bedroom house, as opposed to "hundreds".

    43. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by preaction · · Score: 2

      That's a modest proposal

    44. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a trees guy, not a forest guy.
      You should work on that.

    45. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by preaction · · Score: 1

      Try to take time off to look for a new job, or even, as the article mentions, because you're actually sick, and you get fired for cause. No unemployment while you try to find a new job. Tell someone you're looking for a new job? Have a stupid potential employer phone your current boss about your resume/interview? They'll find a cause to fire you and you're out. No unemployment.

      Hanging on to the bottom rung makes you keenly aware of all the ways that you can possibly be fucked.

    46. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can miss a new iphone release, can't they lol...

    47. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      $1000 for two cars, gas and insurance? Right there is a major problem. Seattle is NOT that big of a city (I lived there for the first 35 years of my life). If you're spending more than $200 a month of gas, and more than $150 a month on insurance you're doing it wrong. And if you're carrying $650+ of car loans, you're doing it wrong as well.

      10 year ARM mortgage rates are around 3.1%, not 4.5% - so that changes the payments quite a bit. With taxes, a $400K mortgage on a $500K home (you do a 20% down payment, right?) you'll be around $2000 a month total.

      With a family of 4, a mortgage, and $1000/month into a 401K like you stated, inocome taxes will be a LOT less than what you quote - probably closer to $450/month, not $2000 a month.

      Get the transportation budget down to $500 a month (which is still very high), get a current mortgage rate, and do real taxes, and your $2000/month for everything else is closer to $5000 a month. Which should be plenty for a family of 4 AND allow for a $1000/month savings.

      Or you can get those new cars every few years, accept a high mortgage rate, and don't take all the deductions you're allowed and then complain about not making enough.

      It can be done, I did it, I do it, and so do hundreds of thousands of responsible adults who life comfortable lives. Sure, I don't have a new BMW or Mercedes every few years, but I also have built up a savings account over the last decade that gives me a year buffer with ZERO change to my spending habits - 18 months if I pull back a bit.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    48. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So - $9000/month is NOT enough to raise a family of 4 and still put a little aside each month? Oh, and I "got mine" by saving a little every month (I shoot for 8-10% of gross) and over the course of a few decades was able to pay off a house - and have a sizeable savings account as well. Whether I was making $3000/month of $15,000/month - I did the same. And I didn't bump up my expenses until I was damn sure my increased income was stable...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    49. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by alcmena · · Score: 2

      Many folks prefer to avoid ARMs, given that those are the types of loans that blew up the economy. $450 / month wouldn't even cover your FICA taxes in a month on a 100k salary, let alone the actual income ones.

    50. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to say you absolutely do not know what you are talking about. You can easily find a house share without a work requirement, and if you are out of work for a prolonged period of time, it is preposterous for you not to have take on 2-3 low wage part-time jobs, which would put you in a position to sign on to any number of lease agreements.

    51. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

      My wife here in Japan quit her job. They provided benefit payments and paid for her to attend an office skills course. They even paid her commuting fees to attend the course.

    52. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand

    53. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The (False) assumption here is that the socially aware companies cannot compete. Flat out wrong. The Germans kick our butts with their legendary levels of productivity WITHOUT being assholes to work for.

    54. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      ARMs blew up the economy? Rates changed less than 1% from 2005 to the peak since then - and that's for 1 year ARMs (10 year ARMs have been much more stable).

      If you had an ARM before the crash in 2008 and you were able to pay your mortgage before - you could continue to pay your mortgage afterwards. What blew up the CDS market was NINJA loans and 100%+ loan-to-value mortgages and 2nd and 3rd mortgages at 125% to 150% LTV rates - not ARMs.

      As far as FICA, you don't pay it on $100K; you pay it on your adjusted mortgage. Assuming $100,000 annually, a mortgage interest amount of $1200 per month, a $1000 a monthly 401K deposit, and four exemptions, your AGI would be around $45,000 - meaning you'll pay an average of $280 per month for SS and FICA (7.62% of your AGI).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    55. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or they have had a significant financial setback beyond their control that they are trying to dig their way out of.

    56. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by savuporo · · Score: 1

      spoken like someone who has no clue what the 'bottom' means. you live in US of A and have a job at Amazon, and that's bottom? get a grip

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    57. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe they shouldn't have had children. Fuck them, and fuck you. Darwin will take their starving children to heaven so they stop polluting the gene pool.

    58. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Earth, fuckwad. Shit happens and we all got problems. We're not here to save you.. Save yourself or die, cunt.

    59. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should probably be aware of things like "teaser rate" and "margin" with respect to ARMs before you so blithely dismiss the parent post. Or are you arguing that because the "average" rate on the particular type of loan appearing in your linked chart seems not that different from prevailing fixed rates, that there was absolutely nobody that had a problematic ARM?

      Strange then that this academic paper would specifically call out subprime and Alt-A ARMs:
      http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/clr/pdfs/maman_mort_practics.pdf

    60. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you would find more work if you learned how to write complete sentences.

    61. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Where in the US do you live that you wouldn't qualify for unemployment benefits for being fired with cause? That sounds like a place to avoid like the plague.

    62. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Is every Amazon employee making $9000/month? I seriously doubt that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    63. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Archtech · · Score: 2

      "It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives".

      See, for example, Joseph Stiglitz' explanation here:

      http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    64. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most grownups understand there are some issues individuals can't handle by themselves and that aren't their fault.

      So go catch the next flight to Mogadishu if you want to live in your libertarian utopia, cunt.

    65. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to double-check your numbers.

      Unless you've managed to save up a significant down payment (> 20% of the base price), a mortgage for a $490,000 home (current median home price for 3 bed/2 bath) is closer to $3k/month due to mandatory insurance for FHA based loans ($2.5k base at 4.14% APR, the current area average).

      I'm not sure where you got "hundreds" from; I see little more than 100 listings for the area with the filtering set you've provided.

    66. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When not sabotaged by reality. I think that's what you were trying to say. Because honestly, that's what happens. You can rage at some imaginary powerful political foe for every failing, or you can recognize that that by doing so you give them power over you. People haven't really changed. Read ancient texts and you'll find the same forces in play 4 thousand years ago.

      You like to feel good about yourself because of your beliefs, but do you REALLY put your money where your mouth is? So much easier to gin up your hatred for the other than it is to look in the mirror and answer the question "what did I DO to make a difference today?" because the real answer to that question is most likely not one damn thing.

      Now, let the real hate fest start!

    67. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.

      You can go to another plantation, yes. Tell them all to go screw themselves and see how it'll go for you.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck.

      That's a problem of money management, not lousy employers.

      It's neither. In an efficient market profits tend towards zero. That's terrific if you're doing the buying but terrible if you're selling, for example your labour. If you have any money left over after paying the production costs, in this case your upkeep, someone else can undercut you by settling for less, and after that for a less expensive (lower quality) lifestyle. Nor can an employer afford to pay their employees more than they have to, since then their competitors can undercut them. The end result is a workforce just barely getting by, followed by an economic collapse since destitute people can't generate the demand required to keep economy going.

      In short, markets can't distinguish between human beings and lumps of coal, thus can't treat them differently, and have enough true believers to sabotage any attempt to rectify the situation until it gets bad enough to trigger outright revolutions, like after WWI. Blaming systemic problems on individual actors, be they humans, organizations or even nations, is simply one of the defence mechanisms built into the ideological structure of most systems (metasystem?).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    69. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      About 5% is considered "full employment" because it is normal for about 1 out of 20 people to be between jobs.

      "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

      I'm sure some economist is already busy coming up with justifications for simply defining "normal" unemployment as the running average of the past year or so, thus solving unemployment once and for all.

      If the unemployment rate goes below ~5%, it means that employers are struggling to fill positions, and may need to raise pay to attract more people into the workforce.

      And that's terrible.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    70. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slander. I have never worked for a company that is as you describe.

    71. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA! Let them eat cake!

    72. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That's just the new "normal" starting about 2008. No one would have claimed 5% unemployment was full employment even 10 years ago. That would have been crazy talk!

    73. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think it's more a consequence of economics.

      Employees work in a very competitive market, if you want the job you need to offer either a slightly better worker or a slightly cheaper salary, you don't get any of the surplus profit in the system because you someone else will be willing to do the same job without it.

      But companies, particularly the big tech ones, are in a very winner-take-all marketplace. If you're the second best programmer at a company you'll make a little bit less than the best programmer since you can deliver almost the same product. But if you're the second best Amazon or Google you're only making a fraction of the winner because you can't deliver anything like what they can.

      This means worker salaries are basically set by the industry as a whole while successful companies and their owners have almost unlimited capital.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    74. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basic liberal "consequences don't matter" reasoning.

      Like it or not, success depends on taking responsibility for your weaknesses, and in being clever or educated enough to make better long-term decisions than those around you.

      If you're especially fortunate, your (or your family's) long-term preparations will coincide with a lucky break, and you can be on top of the heap. If not though, basic long-term thinking skills will tend to keep you in the top 50% of earners at least. It's not exactly rocket science.

      Demonizing long-term thinking and refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions? That's what puts you in line for the handouts (and control) of others who think ahead.

    75. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an insane amount of money to pay someone. Americans are rich fucking bastards. I want the same amount of money for my work.

    76. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nor can an employer afford to pay their employees more than they have to, since then their competitors can undercut them. The end result is a workforce just barely getting by, followed by an economic collapse since destitute people can't generate the demand required to keep economy going.

      You are failing to see that there is a supply/demand curve for workers, too. When there are not enough workers willing to work for $8.00 an hour, wages will rise to $9.00 an hour, or whatever the market will bear, until it finds an equilibrium.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    77. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by preaction · · Score: 1

      Literally everywhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "If a worker quits or is fired they are not eligible for UI benefits."

      Though perhaps California has marginally saner restrictions.

    78. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you think you can get a $500K Mortgage for $2000/mo. I have a VA Loan for $260K and my payment is $1700/mo.

    79. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by tigersha · · Score: 1

      In Germany you have a 3 month block on unemployment benefits if you quit.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    80. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many families do not have the savings to miss a single paycheck.

      That's a problem of money management, not lousy employers. America might not have the best social net, but if a family has no income, they can get welfare long enough to find another job.

      Such an asinine post that fails to deliver even a modicum of real analysis. You are what the kids call a "douchebag". After we're done using you, we'll discard you.

    81. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't 'know' anything you feckless individual.

    82. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You are failing to see that there is a supply/demand curve for workers, too. When there are not enough workers willing to work for $8.00 an hour, wages will rise to $9.00 an hour, or whatever the market will bear, until it finds an equilibrium.

      And you're forgetting that the demand for workers isn't static. It goes up and down in response to the demand for products - goods and services - those workers produce. And that, in turn, depends on how much disposable cash people have. After all, you can't spend money you don't have. Thus, every time someone gets laid off or a paycut the total demand for products goes down, which causes less demand for workers, which causes less money paid in total wages, which causes less demand, and so on.

      Cheap credit kept the economy afloat for a few decades by subsidizing consumers, but that only works as long as creditors don't expect to be actually repaid; as soon as they do, the situation turns from a gradual downward spiral into a tailspin. Which is happening now.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    83. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well that's good, you're thinking a little more deeply than you were before, so keep it up. Just don't forget that there's a supply/demand curve for workers (and for nearly everything else, like currency).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    84. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      After taxes and other deductions, your $9k / month will look a lot morel like $5500. Still a good chunk of change. Now let's imagine you have student loans, your wife has student loans. You have some other debt or you need to finance some vehicles.
      Now let's imagine you don't make over $100k, since the median income for Seattle is more like $52k.

    85. Re: Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Is that you Donald?

    86. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not a family. You thus do not relate to the GP in any way.

      Also, if you get yourself to project 90, they'll help you with the weed addiction. Get you back on your feet.

      Ad hominem's are fun.

      You're a fucking cunt... see? fun. cunt.

    87. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not aware of a single country (no, not even the most socialist in Europe) in which the social safety net will help you if you quit .

      I think in Sweden you can get out something from your unemployment insurance (mandatory) even if you quit. You have to wait a few months after quitting before that though.

    88. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      The advanced nations sometimes require a moderate waiting period if you have quit your job voluntarily and especially if you've then moved to a high unemployment area.

      Not sure about the USA (as it doesn't fit the notion of advanced) nor the UK (as it's a mendicant state full of austerity refugees these days).

      Hope that cleared things up for you.

    89. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as a slave you cannot fire me. Slaves have to be sold!

    90. Re:Slavery 2.0 Rocks!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense in context. You might want to work on making yourself intelligible.

  3. lots of lower paying jobs available by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    i make less than what i could have made if i had chosen to be a workaholic and never see my kids. there is a price for every lifestyle you choose

    1. Re: lots of lower paying jobs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that it is an all or nothing workplace now.

      You are either passionate about your work and work 60+ hours and be available 24/7 or it is unemployment.

      Leave after 8 hours? Well, you get a does not meet expectations on your next review.

      Tech sucks.

    2. Re:lots of lower paying jobs available by sphealey · · Score: 2

      = = = there is a price for every lifestyle you choose = = =

      Until the economy is restructured such that you have no ability to chose not to participate. Which seems to be the goal of the very comfortable private-jet 0.2%

      sPh

    3. Re:lots of lower paying jobs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i make less than what i could have made if i had chosen to be a workaholic and never see my kids. there is a price for every lifestyle you choose

      Oh so you are "not a team player" or some other bullshit term they'll use to describe the desire to actually have a life. Reminds me of the boss where I used to work. I'm surprised the guy doesn't sleep there. He works something like 60-80 hours a week (salaried, varies). He has been divorced, twice. His latest ex-wife considered taking him back and changed her mind after about a week. Turns out, when you're in a committed relationship with a woman, she wants you to spend time with her. He has two daughters he never sees and they probably hate him for it. They're grown now and he probably missed out on their childhood. He would hassle underlings about using legitimate vacation time because he can't comprehend the concept of work-life balance. Best of all, his own bosses higher up don't appreciate this and don't give a shit about him.

      But hey, he sure is dedicated!

    4. Re:lots of lower paying jobs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have worked for Apple.

    5. Re: lots of lower paying jobs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you get a clear definition of the expectations for your work and ask for adequate compensation for the work you're expected to put in. Additionally, be clear about what you're willing to work for the pay your willing to accept. Make sure to get anything questionable in writing, make sure your work can be reasonably done within the hours you've agreed to work, and SPEAK THE FUCK UP if it can't be.

      Doing this has ensured my reviews are always achieves/exceeds expectations. My boss knows when I have free time, I'll help my coworkers get their work done and any issues resolved... My coworkers know they can come to me with questions or problems, and I'll help them with it the first time I have a few minutes free.

      Basically, it's about being able to do your job, setting appropriate expectations, and meeting those expectations. If you can't do that, you deserve "does not meet expectations"

    6. Re: lots of lower paying jobs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I mention that I do not like to work more than 40 hours a week, I am dismissed and never hear anything again.

      What I am saying is that your advice is worthless.

    7. Re: lots of lower paying jobs available by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I've worked in tech for about 15 years. I'm not sure I've ever worked more than 50 hours/wk for more than two weeks in a row.

  4. Sounds like I wouldn't last two weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    emails arrive past midnight, followed by text messages asking why they were not answered

    Followed by an email from me telling that person it's because I was too busy fucking his mother.

    1. Re:Sounds like I wouldn't last two weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Which brings me to my favourite fat joke.

      "Why are you so fat?"

      "Because your wife bakes me a cake every time I've finished fucking her."

      Have you considered losing weight? Really, you'll feel so much better. Been there, done that.

      The biggest obstacle to losing weight: accepting responsibility for it. Once you do that, you start taking pragmatic steps to change it.

    2. Re:Sounds like I wouldn't last two weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, 5'10" and 10 st. 12 lb. here, my weight is fine. I just enjoy it when someone gives a sharp retort, whatever their state of health/mind. Over-eating is often comfort eating, so a person is less likely to lose weight if they feel awful every time their chubbiness is pointed out. A "no u lol" attitude isn't sufficient for weight loss, but it's more healthy than cowering - nobody's ever shamed into feeling better about themselves.

      Yes, taking responsibility is the first step in all cases, but there is a hell of a variety in natural metabolism and strength of will, moreso for people who are taking certain medications (esp. for mental illness).

  5. White collar workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soulskill, why do you accept such submissions? Are you still breathing gas fumes like you did when you were ten?
     
    White collar workers? You consider AMAZON laborers white collar workers?

    1. Re:White collar workers? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      if you finished reading the post (let alone the article), you would see that the article is about the corporate offices, not the warehouses.

    2. Re:White collar workers? by rbrander · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? It's very specifically about the desk jobs, not the warehouses.

    3. Re:White collar workers? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they aren't talking about the people working in the warehouses. That's a large group of people that do work in offices and would qualify as white collar workers to anyone that gave it a moment's thought.

  6. some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, we joke about it, but there are a few there who truly are devoid of empathy, far beyond being mere assholes.

    I was contracting on a poorly-managed death-march project, where my job was basically to work night and day to make up for the product manager's lack of planning. (I willing accepted this, because I needed money, and they were desperate, and we came to terms that I was willing to accept: $$$ cha-ching.)

    Then 1 day I had a really off day and got very little done. I got reamed for it the next day, dude was literally screaming at me that "that was no excuse" that I "needed to focus and not make excuses" and so on. Well, I'm sorry, but I tried, I really did. But man, all day I just couldn't seem to get work done no matter how hard I tried. I still remember the date, too: 9/11/2001.

    Motherfucker.

    1. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a really shitty joke but I'll end a hint of truth to it.

      Back on 9/11 I was still in school while working part time at the mall. It was one of those elite ones owned by Forbes that come with glass elevators with big name retail like Cartier, Tiffany, etc. I remember the mall opened at 10am and by 10:30 everyone was glued to any television they could find. By 11am mall security passed around a flyer from the director instructing all stores to remain open for business and one by one they started closing in defiance until by noon another flyer was passed around saying the mall would finally close down by 1pm and we could go home.

      If it's not a matter of national security (and sometimes even when it is) that's still their dime you're wasting.

    2. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I got reamed for it the next day, dude was literally screaming at me that "that was no excuse" that I "needed to focus and not make excuses" and so on

      When people yell at you, don't accept it. Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this." That will make him really mad, but eventually he'll calm down.

      At that point, be sure to listen to his concerns, and promise to work hard, or whatever. Then of course, work hard, but don't let people act like screaming toddlers around you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by retchdog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. I remember you well, and we live daily with the shame you brought our organization. You were given one minor task, and could not redeem even that. Though it was a day of infamy, it could have been 1000 times greater and more harrowing to America if you had only followed the example of great martyrs Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (peace be upon them!).

      That you blame the warrior-poet Osama Bin Laden's "lack of planning" for your own incompetence is great heresy! We had doubts about recruiting a Lebanese, softened by Germany, but none of us could even have imagined such an off day as to be subdued by American civilians and lose one of our great weapons, the United Airlines Flight 93. Fortunately, the day was carried by your betters who are now in Paradise.

      There will be no honor for the now-anonymous coward Ziad Jarrah, nor for his traitorous Jew-loving cousin Ali! May Allah curse your family for generations.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    4. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      That will make him really mad, but eventually he'll calm down.

      Spoken like someone who has never spoken to an entitled asshole all his life.

      People like that have staff whose sole job is to ruin the lives of those who "talk back" to the spoiled. I know this personally - I was blacklisted from my industry for five years when I calmly suggested that a particular course of action was bad. I learned the hard way while eating out of garbage cans never to do that again.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    5. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who has never spoken to an entitled asshole all his life.

      Actually, you sound like an entitled asshole. Sorry.

      I was blacklisted from my industry for five years

      That doesn't sound realistic at all.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people yell at you, don't accept it. Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this." That will make him really mad, but eventually he'll calm down.

      You are absolutely right that I handled it wrong. I know that now. I should have enforced boundaries on that asshole long before I did.

    7. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Cool, sounds like you're a much better person now. Nice.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we joke about it, but there are a few there who truly are devoid of empathy, far beyond being mere assholes.

      I was contracting on a poorly-managed death-march project, where my job was basically to work night and day to make up for the product manager's lack of planning. (I willing accepted this, because I needed money, and they were desperate, and we came to terms that I was willing to accept: $$$ cha-ching.)

      Contractors are required by the Department Of Labor to be treated as less than employees, to avoid the Department Of Labor declaring that they are in fact employees. So they are effectively required to dehumanize you. You can go to work some place else (or even there) as a regular wage-slave, which means less "cha-ching", or you can eat they way they differentiate you from regular employees, and just shut up and take it for the "cha-ching". Pick your poison.

    9. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you sound like an entitled asshole. Sorry.

      You're a jerkoff. I'd break your fucking body if you spoke to me like that in person.

    10. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'd break your fucking body if you spoke to me like that in person.

      If you tried, I think we'd have a great time together in person.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or you can eat they way they differentiate you from regular employees...

      Well, as I eventually figured out, he treated his regular employees every bit as badly :-(

    12. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a boss with a temper like that, I got tired of it so I gave a one month notice that I was leaving. With one week to go and lots of advanced training that I needed to do for people that I had already taught the basics to he decided that he wanted me to teach a brand new guy from the ground up. This was an impossible task so I opted to do the advanced training anyway since the worst he can do is make me leave.

      When he found out about this he came screaming at me, I promptly laughed in his face and calmly asked him if he wanted me to leave. He stormed off and complained to the CEO who called me into his office to make sure I wasn't leaving. It was one of the best moments of my career.

      I agree with you 100%. Yelling is never acceptable in the workplace, it is counterproductive to the extreme and should never be tolerated. Some people need to get mad every now and again and they need to learn to let it out on an actual punching bag instead of trying to use people that way.

    13. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I got reamed for it the next day, dude was literally screaming at me that "that was no excuse" that I "needed to focus and not make excuses" and so on

      When people yell at you, don't accept it. Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this." That will make him really mad, and then he'll fire you on the spot.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    14. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people yell at you, don't accept it. Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this." That will make him really mad, but eventually he'll calm down.

      At that point, be sure to listen to his concerns, and promise to work hard, or whatever. Then of course, work hard, but don't let people act like screaming toddlers around you.

      While it is perfectly reasonable in many cases to refuse being yelled at (even when being in error or one of the causes of an incident), some people use a total rejection posture when they are clearly very wrong, have already been told so calmly, have zero intention of changing anything, and may even be provoking you ostensibly, including to verbal, or even physical violence.

      It is manipulative. It may not always be conscious (it is an attempt at self-protection), but it is very real, and can be most frustrating, when you are personally suffering and being negated in your frustration by these people.

      For sure, yelling probably won't 'solve' anything at all anyway (and of course, physical violence even less), and probably will make it worse, but it is normal to be angry, and it is normal and good to externalize it (in a relatively controlled manner of course, and if applicable, against the situation, not the people). And most of these people won't miss a chance themselves to be angry (in their case, generally by becoming passive-aggressive, or even underhanded and perverse) when they are affected by something personally.

      The real solution is for these people to start therapy, and learn to deal with their own problems, instead of continuing to cause issues, and negate their effects on others in their face. They are sick, and need help. In many cases, they are precisely asking for help, or at least attention, by continuing to cause these issues.

      In some cases, they are even precisely seeking this violent reaction as a 'fix' (in some cases because of abusive parents/brothers/sisters or associated figures). These are extremes, of course, but this general behaviour is not uncommon.

    15. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking to your boss like he's 3 years old...I wonder how quickly most people would end up with a pink slip doing that.

    16. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contractors are required by the Department Of Labor to be treated as less than employees, to avoid the Department Of Labor declaring that they are in fact employees.

      balderdash - the DOL doesn't "REQUIRE" them to be treated as lesser than, it "ALLOWS" organizations to treat them as lesser than employees. And the DOL is trying to change that. Businesses take advantage of insufficiently stringent regulations.

    17. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If that happens, you are lucky, but it never happens.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up cockroach

    19. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Contractors are required by the Department Of Labor to be treated as less than employees, to avoid the Department Of Labor declaring that they are in fact employees.

      balderdash - the DOL doesn't "REQUIRE" them to be treated as lesser than, it "ALLOWS" organizations to treat them as lesser than employees. And the DOL is trying to change that. Businesses take advantage of insufficiently stringent regulations.

      They *REQURE* that they do that in order to not be screwed over by the DOL converting those contractors to employees when they are in fact contractors, and there is in fact a contractual relationship, and both parties have consented to the fact that the relationship is company/contractor rather than employer/employee.

      Because you can shove unfunded mandates onto employers for having employees, but you can't shove them onto a company for having a contractor. Like health insurance, and workman's comp (which states borrow from as if they are the federal government borrowing from the social security fund: no intention of ever paying it back) income tax collection and social security tax collection. With a contractor, the state and the fed have to go afer each contractor individually: *OF COURSE* they prefer that the regulatory and enforcement burden be offloaded to employers, instead of having to pay for them themselves!

      So let's change the wording from "REQUIRES" to "will take any opportunity to fuck them up the ass by converting the contractor's designation to employee at any opportunity"?

    20. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's exactly what would happen.

    21. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sociopaths do indeed walk amoungst us. Many joke about it, but once you encounter one in person - you realize the true evil does exist in the world.

      There's not much you can do about it, short of moving to a new job.

      Symptoms I've seen that may indicate a sociopath (impulsive) /psychopath (strategic sociopath) :
      -No family photos at all
      -No personal life at all
      -Bragging over working +80 hour days, with expectations that everyone else do the same.
      -Never says anything positive - unless it's about someone or something failing
      -When he discovers something wrong, holds that information until it's useful to control or diminish someone
      -Very bad at communication. Inconsistent, terse, and belittling.
      -Assumes the worst about everyone and everything

    22. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by tigersha · · Score: 1

      My now-boss sent me a mail on the day my daughter was born. She was born at 4 in the morning. I sent a mail to colleagues and friend at about 6, she answered at about 10 with "Congratulations, please finish this work for me today". Same story every day after for a week.

      Two weeks later I was reamed out for taking 2 days off because I had to register the little girl at the local government (she was born in a neighboring country, and I had to pick up her birth certificate).

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    23. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by antdude · · Score: 1

      "Get back to work!" --my previous co(worker/lleague)s in public. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    24. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, if the manager screams at you and then fires you, then I would be grateful that I wouldn't have to bother quitting. I might be able to even sue the company for compensation. I would rather work at a low paid labour intensive job than deal with that much stress and ear drum damage.

    25. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ?..the ninth of November ?

      relevance ?

    26. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by AtariEric · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound realistic at all.

      That's why they got away with it.

      --
      Don't trust any concentration of power.
    27. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What industry are you in?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      >> Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this."

      Wrong. That's insulting the client, which is unprofessional. As a contractor a better approach is to sit calmly and listen, take notes, ask clarifying questions, then make sure you bill for the "meeting" time. If you are looking to piss the guy off, look happy or even smile while he's yelling - works much more effectively and you don't have to resort to insults. But, if you want to continue getting paid, I'd suggest not pissing off the client. I've experienced it on one contract a while back and must say, the yelling quickly subsided after the first couple of billing cycles (I always itemized hours worked).

    29. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      No, I'm right. (To clarify, as soon as you think of inter-human interactions in terms of "right" or "wrong," you're already thinking in a way that is very shallow. There's more than one way to skin a cat).

      That's insulting the client,

      Describing their current state is not insulting them. The goal here is to move the relationship to a place where you can communicate effectively.

      If you are looking to piss the guy off

      He's already pissed off, why exactly do you think he's yelling? You're not picking up on the subtleties of the situation.

      I've experienced it on one contract a while back and must say, the yelling quickly subsided after the first couple of billing cycles

      That's great, I'm glad you found a method that worked.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      >> Describing their current state is not insulting them.
      Yes it is, if you use inflammatory language like "As soon as you are ready to [...] act like an adult" - you are effectively calling their behavior childish. Even if absolutely true, it is not likely to make the angry person get less angry.

      >> He's already pissed off, why exactly do you think he's yelling?
      There are different levels of pissed off. He may be pissed off because his expectations were not met, or maybe even because he got exactly what he asked for but realized that is not what he wanted, or maybe because of some completely unrelated personal issue. On the other than if he feels disrespected or personally attacked, pissed off can escalate from yelling, to firing you on the spot, or even to physical violence. If you're going to intentionally piss people off, you need to be prepared for anything.

    31. Re:some bosses are sociopaths by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, if you use inflammatory language like "As soon as you are ready to [...] act like an adult" - you are effectively calling their behavior childish.

      If you start yelling at me, I'll probably say it to you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The warehouse work is like slavery, just short of a whip - except they now use virtual whips to get their slaves straightened out.

    Sure, there's a little perk called a slaves wage, after-all, they need them to be fed in order to do the miles of walking per day.

    1. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The warehouse work is like slavery, just short of a whip - except they now use virtual whips to get their slaves straightened out.

      Sure, there's a little perk called a slaves wage, after-all, they need them to be fed in order to do the miles of walking per day.

      A written expose here.

      It seems the highly 'exceptional' people in Jeff Bezos' circle have re-invented Taylorism, which is an abiding disregard for the well-being of workers. This indifference and disregard is called "scientific". Efficiency is something to be squeezed out of people second by second, the long-term effects be damned.

    2. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Having worked in a factory, shovelling oily hunks of metal from one bin to another, I laugh whenever anyone claims Amazon's warehouse work is 'slavery'. I'd have jumped at a job like that, if I'd had the option at the time.

      The people who think it's awful have clearly never done a real, hard, manual job in their lives.

    3. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since science is devoid of any real values, it's pretty accurate. It reflects what it reflects, devoid of an meaningful values.

    4. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "On June 2, a warehouse employee contacted OSHA to report the heat index hit 102 degrees in the warehouse and 15 workers collapsed."

      How shitty does a warehouse job have to be before you approve of people complaining about its shittiness?

    5. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by RackinFrackin · · Score: 1

      It seems the highly 'exceptional' people in Jeff Bezos' circle have re-invented Taylorism, which is an abiding disregard for the well-being of workers. This indifference and disregard is called "scientific". Efficiency is something to be squeezed out of people second by second, the long-term effects be damned.

      I came in here to mention Taylorism, but you beat me to it. There's a great episode of The Secret Life of Machines about the evolution of the modern office, and it goes into some depth about Taylor and the problems with scientific management.

      YouTube video of that episode.

    6. Re:BBC Panorama filmed the slave conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was someone constantly monitoring your performance and requiring you to shovel oily hunks of metal at a rate that you could barely maintain for the entire shift? Was it so common that people collapsed doing your job that an ambulance was stationed at where you worked to take them to the hospital?

  8. How it's supposed to work... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    This is how the labour market is supposed to work.

    I would never work for Amazon - I accept lower pay in exchange for work/life balance. But for those people for whom money is more important, Amazon provides them with that opportunity. To each their own.

    ...and to those who didn't know what they were getting into when they started working at Amazon, that's their own fault. Amazon's working conditions are pretty well-known.

    1. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is whether society is supposed to set things up so only these guys win everything.

      That's what rules are for. Since the days of soot-covered London it's always been like this. Hell is what you make it and society is always drawn in the colors of the biggest hell it can get away with, and always will be.

    2. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      This is how the labour market is supposed to work.

      I would never work for Amazon - I accept lower pay in exchange for work/life balance. But for those people for whom money is more important, Amazon provides them with that opportunity. To each their own. ...and to those who didn't know what they were getting into when they started working at Amazon, that's their own fault. Amazon's working conditions are pretty well-known.

      This is all well and good, but the executives at places like Amazon have the ear of government policymakers. Sure, it's not slavery if you can quit...but it is when everywhere else can act the exact same way.

    3. Re:How it's supposed to work... by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's not slavery if you can quit...but it is when everywhere else can act the exact same way.

      That argument doesn't work in civilized world, as creating the 'everywhere else' places to work is anyones freedom.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    4. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Archtech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This is how the labour market is supposed to work".

      Unfortunately, that is literally true. Read those original 18th-century and 19th-century economists like Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. They had it all worked out that wages - the price of labour - would be forced down to the minimum that would support life (plus a little extra to let the next generation of workers be born and brought up). Any attempt to pay more would inevitably makes matters still worse.

      In the 20th century it looked, for a while, as if things would turn out differently. But maybe not.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    5. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government may not make creating a competitor to Amazon illegal, in that sense you have the formal freedom to do so.
      In fact this option simply does not exist. A company as large as Amazon defines its own market, creates strong barriers to entry, and its labor policies become the standard for retail. The reach of Amazon extends not just to its employees but also to its suppliers.
      If your small company wants to treat women who have lost their newborn with dignity, you will find the "free market" is shutting you down very quickly.

    6. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Adam Smith thought that workers should be paid more, and he was very concerned about the unfair advantages that employers had in wage negotiations.

    7. Re:How it's supposed to work... by scamper_22 · · Score: 2

      Well one of the big issues is that we currently get the worst of all worlds. Sometimes the 'middle road' is not the best way.

      Whatever your political views, each side does offer a 'good life' in its vision.

      The left/progressive way is rather standard and easy to see as good based on the way most of us live and been educated. Stable lifetime employment and a good safety net with rules to ensure improving standards. Again, that's the theory :)

      In the case of the 'free market', the idea is that you'd give your all, work for a few years and then move on to something else with a big pile of cash.
      Assuming a stable currency, that money can last you a long time.

      Heck, I work at a bank which gets lots of foreign labor and this is the mindset of these people. It's not just Indians and Asians. For some reason, we attract a lot of French people (From France). They have the same mindset. Come to America/Canada after university, work, make a boat load of cash, return to France and do something relaxing.

      The idea is that you work hard enough so you don't have to keep working. The US is really a good example of seeing the difference.

      You can for example live a very low cost of living in the American South. If you want, you can work your ass off and live in a mansion, or just work a basic job and have a home, car...

      Today, we don't live in any kind of a free-market, yet some companies still operate like that, but the benefits for those workers to work really hard for a few years and retire are decreasing. Currency questions are all over the place. I'm not saying inflation is crazy, but let's not pretend, anyone has any idea how their money is going to last 50 years. Higher taxes take away the pay for this hard work in a short period of time. Low interest rates are making housing going up, which increases your future costs...

      But the powers that be don't mind. They get the benefits of the free market in Amazon and other firms, while they get to control society and have higher taxes in progressiveness. Luckily, they have a lot of foreign labor that can endure it and does benefit (at least for now).

    8. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, AZ does operate at a much higher cost than it would seem on the white-collar side. You have basically an army of algorithmist crammers, with their sole focus on one-upping each other with a particular tech stack. This creates a mono-culture that stifles innovation. They will lose eventually because of it, and they are doing everything they can to hold on to their existing store-front. I on-site interviewed with them last summer summer (2014) and could only get 7/8 questions right. This wasn't good enough. Also, I'm not even sure if they hire Americans anymore. All of the interviewers were Indian graduate students, and I was consistently getting rejected by companies that staffed mostly those, or alternatively, Chinese graduate students, so it wasn't that surprising. They are on perilous grounds with that kind of ethnocentrism as it is.

    9. Re:How it's supposed to work... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Are they the only ones that win? Do they win everything?

      My neighbor across the street has a house about the same size as mine. He buys a new BMW or Mercedes every year; I get 3-4 years out of my Ford. He has a top-of-the-line MotoGuzzi - I ride a mid-line Honda. He and his family vacation in Barbados - I make due with Cabo San Lucas and Hawaii. He's at work right now (and nearly every Saturday, and many Sundays), and I'm at home, relaxing with some music, the cats, and Slashdot.

      Did he win everything? I dunno - but I do know that in an hour or so I'll go play a little basketball with his kids...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: How it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The labor market is also supposed to work such that if you have jobs that are hard to fill, pay and benefits go up. What actually happens is employers lobby for more foreign workers to artificially drive wages down and the government (YOUR government) often complies.

      So screw them. Employers deserve no loyalty, and they deserve whatever else they get along the way too. In the past, real Americans knew how to deal with predatory employers. Time to learn again.

    11. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Very true. But, as you admit, he acknowledged that the unfair advantage existed. He also said that businessmen could increase their profits by offshoring manufacture, but gave his opinion that they shouldn't because that was unpatriotic.

      Nobody pays any attention to what Adam Smith really said these days. They just talk about the "invisible hand", which he was actually concerned to debunk.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    12. Re:How it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, of course, raising a couple hundred million in capital to create a corporation with a better work/life balance is something anyone can do.

  9. The Challenge of Working At Amazon by Rei · · Score: 1, Funny
    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  10. The future of work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unless something changes, this is the future of work in general. Front-facing productivity gains not backed by innovation, but backed by people working hellish hours as they compete with other people elsewhere working hellish hours. The line between work life and home life has been vaporized. Expecting responses to emails after midnight is sad. Paying for your own cell phone and travel expenses to deal with those hours is wrong and not a productivity gain at all.

    "Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk." Amazon is not going to war, they're doing business. It's not life and death, it's a store that sells books, dildos and almond meal. If you're working at Amazon and sacrificing seeing friends and family, crying at your desk at 11 p.m., is it worth doing so for a store that sells books, dildos and almond meal?

    There are people out there that genuinely enjoy that level of work and that lifestyle, but for every one who does, I'd argue that there are twenty who do not. People willing to work those hours should be running their own business. At least you have the potential to be rewarded properly for your sacrifice.

    The picture from the sign at the picnic saying "HAVE FUN!" is hilarious. Feels more like a reminder than anything.

    1. Re:The future of work by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The future of work is automation doing everything humans aren't required for. Amazon is one of the last great industrial-era corporations, and will die when local manufacturing makes the whole concept of a middleman between manufacturers and users obsolete.

  11. Explain. by taxman_10m · · Score: 0

    Why is Amazon Prime Video so incredibly bad? Searching is awful. The watch list is awful and unorganized. Is no one speaking up at meetings?

    1. Re:Explain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the people who wrote it were able to sabotage the people that have opposing opinions. Freedom from politics my ass.

      "The internal phone directory instructs colleagues on how to send secret feedback to one another’s bosses. Employees say it is frequently used to sabotage others."

    2. Re:Explain. by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      They cry at their desks because it's their job not to be amazing, but to drain the most money as possible out of society across the largest possible market (not on any one transaction but making it up on volume) while delivering as little as possible in return.

      These guys are not Google or Apple, who are largely convinced they're messiahs bringing the best things to the world in their respective ways. These are the ones who need to design a new box that slices up worker hands while costing 0.02% less in materials and surviving delivery 0.007% better than the previous design, and if you can do that by GOD that will be the box to use! And they don't care how many white collar guys they go through doing it. In fact they'll fire all the white collar guys who didn't do something like that last month.

      They don't care about your video. You must want something that's not as important as, say, lining up more shows for this video service or coming up with a better way to get people to buy it.

      Somebody would have to make an argument that customers need to spend less time searching or less time going over the watch list. Maybe your time as a customer is better spent looking at newer things you could buy from them, so the watch list is supposed to be not appealing to fool with. Is buying new stuff more streamlined? Then it's working as designed.

    3. Re:Explain. by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      That makes sense. I do spend more time searching.

    4. Re:Explain. by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      Prime Music is even worse. I added a song to my library. It says it is there, but it isn't. And I can't remove it and add it again because while I can pull up a track through searching and see that it is in my library, I can only remove it from my library from within my library. But it isn't there, so I can't remove it. Can't play it, can't remove it, can't re-add it. This has happened multiple times.

      I'd been trying it out as a possible replacement for other streaming services mainly because I already pay for Prime so why not use it, but the quality just isn't there at this point.

  12. Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The mother of the stillborn child soon left Amazon. 'I had just experienced the most devastating event in my life,' the woman recalled via email, only to be told her performance would be monitored 'to make sure my focus stayed on my job.'"

    casual insensitivity
    dispensing platitudes and employee manual cruft
    probably young
    probably not deliberately malicious
    merely lacking empathy
    merely immature and clueless
    reminds me of the ant-foreman in Antz
    who said
    'BE' THE BALL

    1. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at a company who I told a number of times that I had a health problem I was working to get diagnosed. My manager said "uh-huh" and then proceeded to tell me I wasn't performing up to expectations. I left soon after, feeling like my own health issues were being disregarded. Finally got a diagnosis and it turns out I had an extreme case of sleep apnea. So no shit I wasn't performing up to expectations.

    2. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at a company who I told a number of times that I had a health problem I was working to get diagnosed. My manager said "uh-huh" and then proceeded to tell me I wasn't performing up to expectations. I left soon after, feeling like my own health issues were being disregarded. Finally got a diagnosis and it turns out I had an extreme case of sleep apnea. So no shit I wasn't performing up to expectations.

      Why shouldn't your health issues be disregarded? Why should that company, or any company, give one toot about your health issues? They're businesses. Your family, friends, doctors, and fellow entitled twits are the ones who might care about the issues affecting the special snowflake that is you.

      But not the company. We're all glad you're gone, by the way.

    3. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you take your head out of your ass and read up on labor law after wiping the shit from your eyes. And by the way, I'm glad I'm gone, too. Later!

    4. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally consider it bad form to wish pancreatic cancer on somebody, but I'll make an exception here.

  13. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist!

  14. Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When you treat people like robots, the general level of need to keep over-indoctrinating on "company policy" becomes even larger as the word gets out and you primarily get 2nd rate people filling the shoes of those who left.

    Eventually you get a dumbed down workforce, because the truly creative types can find a more enjoyable creative experience in companies that value their skilled people.

    1. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not necessarily. The trouble with this situation is a bit like Uber: it preys upon people who've lost all perspective.

      One woman in the article was said to spend her own money hiring someone in India to do data entry so she could get more personally done. At her own expense.

      That will become first common, and then obligatory. It becomes a situation where you (not the guy in India) keeps the stock options, and you're totally an Amabot as far as your belief system, so you go hungry because you're spending all your money subcontracting out so that you can radically outperform everybody else. There's clearly no rule against it and it doesn't hurt the company so that becomes the new normal.

      It becomes a game of only the craziest, most kool-aid drinking people competing directly with each other to bring new value to Amazon, and the cost of this is not taken out of the consumer (they free-ride) but out of these executives and white-collar workers. It becomes easier for them to expect the same from the blue-collar guys who haven't been replaced by robots, and again the customer doesn't pay for that, they free-ride.

      It produces a situation where if you intend to compete against Amazon you have to be batshit insane AND have all the network effects Amazon has. So bye-bye Wal-Mart, they are absolutely toast now that this new monster has eclipsed them. Amazon has worked out how to Wal-Martize people's minds, not just their hometowns.

      They will continue to deliver better value to the consumer than say Wal-Mart, but it's still a cancer on society unless everybody's living on a basic income and ability to work no longer matters at all. In the absence of that, this is basically corporate trade war on all of society.

    2. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the Scientology of hi-tech!

    3. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by kimanaw · · Score: 1

      Actually, their problem extends beyond the bad reputation; its a bit of a self perpetuating cycle.

      They've erected significant barriers in the interview process to avoid hiring lower performers, but they have a pretty high turnover. As a result, I suspect that they're grossly understaffed (a manager as much as admitted it when I interviewed there a couple years ago). So if you manage to navigate the hiring gauntlet, you're setting yourself up for long hours and high stress. Pay is pretty good (tho not particularly better than their SillyCon Valley peers), but its pretty well known that most people don't last more than 2 years.

      Hard to imagine why high-demand IT people would choose to work there, but it does seem to have a lot of cachet in Seattle. Bottomline: Its not a place to build a career, especially if you also want a home and family.

      --
      007: "Who are you?"
      Pussy: "My name is Pussy Galore."
      007: "I must be dreaming..."
    4. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      Could you expound on Uber?

    5. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Committing your life to retail? Really? You have to be a sick fuck yourself to be obsessed about pleasing sick fuck consumers who are obsessed about getting toys NOW.

    6. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, a bit. Uber's the same thing. It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.

      I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.

      The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important.

      If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.

      Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.

      As they say, a cult.

    7. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      Define understaffed. This, too, is working as intended. That's how it's SUPPOSED to be.

    8. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos on 2 good posts / observations.

      If true, then these "crazy people" are what used to be termed "workaholics", and is nothing new, especially in new mania-phases of market-trends. When reality reasserts itself the "new crazy value-add" should diminish or vanish over time as people learn the consequences of their demands and actions in the marketplace. Hopefully, the "damage" will be a improved taxi services that are more in-line with modern capabilities and technologies.

      Captcha: impulse

    9. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understaffed: Constantly having too much work, so people miss the big picture and innovations that could reduce workload, or just don't have the time to implement / research new ideas because of it.

    10. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As sad and fucked up as it may sound, I am actually waiting on this to happen and hope it hurries up.

      I honestly want to see Walmart and Amazon completely take over their respective markets and shut it all down. I want to see this world FORCED to finally see that the current economy is not a sustainable one to a great deal of those in it and that there just aren't enough jobs to go around and you can't expect many people to work as the are unemployable at any livable wage and can't compete with automation.

      Finally, watch them drug kicking and screaming into a world with a basic guaranteed income of some form where people aren't expected to work or the hours and wages are adjusted to Jetsons levels where they might work only a few hours per week and paid a decent living and one where a person really can turn a job down without risking their lives in the process.

      Need to get people out of the (Now broken) mindset of busting your ass and pulling yourself up from your bootstraps when that is getting a more and more rare occurrence and what normally ends up happening is people just spinning their wheels to go nowhere or just slow their decent.

    11. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      People will just have to make the time, do all that they're doing AND see the big picture and the innovations.

      They'll be dying like dogs, decades ahead of their time, but they will do it because that's the culture. We're talking about personalities for which there is no such thing as 'too much work', so long as there is a culture celebrating and encouraging their attitudes. It's a workplace-cultural thing. Ego plays a part.

    12. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by servant · · Score: 1
      Most of us have worked for bad bosses. Over time, the only ones left are the ones without options. ... I stayed because I had a morgage, wife at home, 2 kids to finish high school and put through college while trying to safe for some kind of retirement.

      .

      Finally one kid got a full ride at a good school, wife found a job that paid OK but we had to move, and we could make it on what she brought in. ... Now I am retired, she still loves her job, wifes employer furnishes house (requirement of job to live on site), and my kids are out of college for 5 years on their own.

      If I had seen a 'way out' in the market then, I would have left. It took 6 months after leaving last job to finally decompress (IT for a regional bank in TX). Wish I could have left sooner, but to old (getting IT jobs after 50 is very hard, even with 25+ years of experience. Yes, age discrimination but hard to prove so I just tried to let it go.)

      --
      ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
    13. Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Businesses can only race to the bottom so far. Eventually society steps in an says "enough is enough" and passes laws to reign in worker abuse. But this will be interesting because I am not sure that the rest of society is going to feel very sorry about a segment of workers making 50K+ a year in "cushy office jobs".

      Migrant farm workers sometimes go on strike when conditions get too bad. It would be almost surreal seeing a white collar strike.

  15. Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Key points I heard:

    - Midlevel mgmt can make their salary over again year upon year via bonuses and stock performance. (Implied: senior mgmt and up has it better)
    - Tech workers are expected to pay for their own desks, cellphones, travel on their "competitive salary"
    - It's regarded as reasonable to line up ambulances to cart away hourly workers who collapse than improve their working conditions
    - Standard office joke: Work comes first, life second and searching for the balance is against company policy
    - People weep openly at their desks, men exit conference rooms in shame, covering their faces so as to hide their tears
    - Anonymous feedback on employee performance is encouraged
    - Everyone is encouraged to confront every (non-manager) about sub-perfect ideas
    - Amazon is proud of being unreasonable in their demands

    Sounds like a toxic hell hole unless you're in the ruling class, then at least the money is good while it consumes your life.

    1. Re:Article summary by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite possibly it'll be the ultimate thing which buries the company though. Toxic workplaces tend to be very good at ultimately pursuing bad ideas that sink them, because they eventually drive away anyone who might have the drive to try and fix or oppose them. Drone delivery might be the first sign of that with Amazon. Plus - we haven't seen the fallout of a genuine crash in cloud hosting yet, and there's a lot of business being built on the idea that Amazon will always exist. Inject some genuine uncertainty and you have to wonder if they're in a position to deal with that.

    2. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that if you don't work 80 hours a week for whatever reason, you get told your performance is slipping.

    3. Re:Article summary by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Toxic workplaces tend to be very good at ultimately pursuing bad ideas that sink them, because they eventually drive away anyone who might have the drive to try and fix or oppose them.

      Bezos is the company. He bends the workers to his will. He's really good at understanding what the company needs to do to succeed, which is why they've done so well. When he leaves, the company will fail.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Midlevel management? I worked there and wasn't any level management and two out of the five years I was there received over my salary in stock (that vests over a 4 year period, year one 5%) and the total payout in some years of prior stock I'd gotten was over my base salary.

      I survived five years, long enough to get the blue edged badge. Then my dad died, and I told them I was taking a few days off for the funeral. I came back and was put on a performance improvement program. No one I've ever known or heard of has ever been on a PIP and not gotten fired.

    5. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, they don't have bereavement leave? You'd think there would be workplace shootings at Amazon every month.

    6. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NY Times published an inflammatory piece designed to spark controversy by presenting a very selective viewpoint. Having recently worked at Amazon, I feel obliged to speak out because so many people are jumping on the hate bandwagon. (NY Times authors got what they wanted!)

      - Midlevel mgmt can make their salary over again year upon year via bonuses and stock performance. (Implied: senior mgmt and up has it better)

      I know of individual contributors who have made their salary over again via stock performance bonuses. And of course senior management will have it better (I know of very few companies where this is not the case).

      - Tech workers are expected to pay for their own desks, cellphones, travel on their "competitive salary"

      This is flat-out wrong. My desk was definitely provided for me. I expensed $50/month ($600/yr) in cellphone costs because I used my personal phone for work email. I only traveled twice, but I expensed the flights, the taxis, the hotels, and the meals I ate while I traveled.

      Now, if I wanted a fancier desk, the company wouldn't pay for that. Also, if I picked a flight more than $100 above the least-expensive option, I had to pay the difference. That was probably the biggest sore spot for employees I knew who traveled frequently - their only options were 2-3 hops, which meant they spent all day flying instead of taking a much shorter direct or 2-hop flight that was a little more expensive. So, instead of working when they landed, they'd go to bed. We called that policy "frupid."

      - It's regarded as reasonable to line up ambulances to cart away hourly workers who collapse than improve their working conditions

      That one article from ~4 years ago has received a lot of mileage. It bears many similarities to this article, actually...

      - Standard office joke: Work comes first, life second and searching for the balance is against company policy

      I'm sure this depends on your team. Poor management will drive good workers away with this philosophy, and I definitely heard of that happening in some places at Amazon. However, my team understood that family was first through the highest management level to which I had visibility. I carpooled with a worker who has been with the company >15 years now, and his management seemed fantastic as well.

      - People weep openly at their desks, men exit conference rooms in shame, covering their faces so as to hide their tears

      While that's definitely sad, I never saw anyone weep at their desks. Meetings were always civil, and I was in a quickly-growing, competitive business.

      - Anonymous feedback on employee performance is encouraged

      As it was at Microsoft when I worked there, and as I hear it happens at other companies.

      - Everyone is encouraged to confront every (non-manager) about sub-perfect ideas

      That's so dramatic! But no.

      - Amazon is proud of being unreasonable in their demands

      More dramatic phrasing. The idea is, be bold. Try things that seem impossible. But if the ideas fail, recover quickly and move on.

      The bottom line is, as it is for every big company, if you talk to enough employees, you can paint any picture you want to paint. When I worked at Amazon, I started my day at 7:30am and ended it at 4:30pm, like clockwork, and any time after that was mine unless I was on-call. "Despite" this, I had exceptional performance reviews because I, along with my management, understood the importance of not burning out.

      And since I'm sure you're wondering: I left for an opportunity that met both personal goals (moving back to the east coast to be closer to family) and career goals. I wasn't looking to leave, and leaving was a *very* difficult decision.

  16. What do they actually pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do these fucksticks actually pay their white collar employees? Is it significantly higher than "market value" for the positions they hold?

    I worked a sysadmin job where they expected me to be on-site for 6x12 hours per week with occasional Sundays mixed in, meaning I had no days off those weeks. They wound up paying me around $90k with all the OT. Considering it was in the midwest, my wages weren't bad.

  17. Work/life balance is extremely important. by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 4, Informative

    So surprised this gets overlooked by so many. Want healthy, long-term productive employees? Make sure their LIVES are good. What happens outside of work will influence work quality much more than anything inside work, especially these cult-like attitudes. And realizing that 'work isn't everything', despite the blow to the CEOs ego, will go a long way to improving the whole system.

    1. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would they want healthy, long-term employees? Someone who has worked in the same place for a long time expects raises.

      Instead they accept a high employee turnover and keep wages at entry-level.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Because everyone knows that entry level employees are just as productive as those who have been at a company for several years.

      If you find that this is the case, the employees you have aren't very good and perhaps you are better off bringing in a new batch to see if you can get some better prospects. On the other hand, if you have a high turnover rate, you're going to end up lacking the kind of institutional knowledge that makes maintenance of existing code bases much easier or that allows you to refine your products over the years.

    3. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      If you find that this is the case, the employees you have aren't very good and perhaps you are better off bringing in a new batch to see if you can get some better prospects. On the other hand, if you have a high turnover rate, you're going to end up lacking the kind of institutional knowledge that makes maintenance of existing code bases much easier or that allows you to refine your products over the years.

      While I completely agree with you, and I think it's a good business decision and a good moral decision to hold on to people, the reality is that the economic advantages are not that significant in a cut-throat environment.

      And that's what Amazon's entire business model is: be cheaper than everyone else. Buy from us, put your local stores out of business -- you can get anything here, and it's probably cheaper.

      Well, take a moment and consider where such a philosophy gets us. In consumer goods, that attitude is what leads to the fact that it's hard to buy products that can be expected to last more than about 5 years. A few decades ago, towns were filled with repair shops -- now, if something breaks, most people throw it out and get another one. We're used to technology going obsolete, sometimes for no apparent reason other than to convince you to buy the newer model.

      Now, why do such products work? Because businesses make a trade-off: they can sell you a product designed to last for decades, and you'll never see that customer again. Or, they can give you something that costs a fraction of the other to manufacture, lasts for 3-5 years, breaks, and then you sell them another one.

      When people begin to view the world like this, jobs and workers also become "disposable." It's all an economic trade-off, and it becomes increasingly difficult to justify spending "extra for quality," since quality (and loyalty, in the case of workers) is hard to find.

      Is it cheaper in the long-term to run a business where you keep workers around for decades and pay them well as they have families and kids while taking home increasingly higher salaries just to maintain some semblance of "institutional knowledge" or whatever?

      Or is it cheaper to run those workers until they are near dead after 5 years or so and move on? And does it matter? Will Amazon even be around in 10 or 20 years for those workers? Does anyone really care in this era of random internet business flux, where people are used to switching jobs every 5 years or so anyway? Amazon has no reasonable competitors in its sector. Why does it need to care about quality? All it wants is the lowest possible expenses to have the lowest possible prices to drive everyone else out of the game. That's the short-term goal, and for that it needs short-term, inexpensive workers who will work their asses off.

    4. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Want healthy, long-term productive employees?

      Well, no, not really.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    5. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And their competators will thank them for their employee training.

    6. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because if you create high stress and have a high turnover, you will eventually hire that guy. The one who ends up on CNN where they interview his friends and neighbors where they all say 'He seemed like a normal guy, I never expected him to do something like that. I didn't even know he owned a machine gun..."

    7. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      The guys doing the hiring don't work on the factory floor, though. Why should they care?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    8. Re:Work/life balance is extremely important. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Repair shops are out of business because the cost of labor in USA is sky-high. It simply doesn't make any sense to pay someone $75/hour to repair something when you can get a new one for $150.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  18. Open secret by njahnke · · Score: 1

    This has been known for some time.

    The comments in this thread are good.

    1. Re:Open secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first "point" of that post is hyperbolic and is shockingly millenial-entitled.

      > That signing bonus they offer you to offset the fact that they give you jack shit for stock your first two years?

      That's not what the "signing bonus" is for, since the stock is not part of your salary. The opportunity to vest options is an incentive to not seek opportunity elsewhere which should be considered as such. If you can't understand the economics of employment, you might do better working at a liquor store.

      > If you are smart enough to get through an Amazon interview loop then you're smart enough to get through a Google/Facebook/Apple/etc. loop without any problems.

      This is not true as intelligence is only part of the hiring equations. Amazon is basically bottom of the barrel from that group. If you had actually interviewed at these places, that would be obvious. Google is brutally unfair in its own way, of course (how many months/years to get hired? spin the wheel of arbitrary project schedules).

      The worst parts of Amazon aren't even articulated in that post, just the whinings of individuals who happen to be at the bottom of the ladder. Ernst and Young, prestigious fashion and law firms...it's all the same for interns. Don't fool yourself.

  19. Amazon works "at risk of mental illness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People talk about the appalling conditions in China, while this is in the west! ..

    Amazon workers face 'increased risk of mental illness'

    Panorama: Amazon's Truth Behind the Click BBC Documentary

  20. Euphemism from hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...in exchange for the ability to create." I hate this phrase! People work awful jobs for Amazon in exchange for the money!

    1. Re: Euphemism from hell by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Yeah you start your own company for the ability to create.

      You work for a company for a pay check every coue of weeks.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Euphemism from hell by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...in exchange for the ability to create." I hate this phrase! People work awful jobs for Amazon in exchange for the money!

      this requires further examination. Amazon doesn't "create" *anything*. This is MBA-style creation, like creating new marketplace opportunities or new regional expansion initiatives. I'm not impressed.

    3. Re: Euphemism from hell by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      no, dumbass. if you want to create moon bots you don't start your own comapny, you get a steady gig at one of those brass button firms on the kickstered.

    4. Re:Euphemism from hell by retchdog · · Score: 1

      don't underestimate the amount of engineering required for the logistical infrastructure amazon has built. even apart from their gargantuan supply chains of physical goods, they also broker incredible amounts of computing resources. even if you don't like amazon, the chances are high that a company you do like uses the AWS "cloud" heavily, or even exclusively.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  21. Amazon by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I interviewed with Amazon, everyone seemed rather depressed. Most people there had joined right after college, so they didn't realize there were better options.

    The exception was a guy whose company had been bought by Amazon, who had the look of desperation, and all but said, "DO NOT WORK HERE." I was only practice-interviewing, but I took the hint.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Amazon by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I joined Amazon this year (through an acquisition) and I don't see anything described in the article. People don't work 80-hour weeks (buildings are almost empty after 7pm), the typical office hours are 10am-6pm and the general level of assholery is very low. Also, we have free coffee ( http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-... ) and red Swingline staplers on every desk!

      As for interviews - it's quite likely that your interviewers had several interviews before and they are just as draining as for candidates. Except that interviewers will also have to write feedback and do a debriefing next day.

    2. Re:Amazon by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Well that's cool.

      and red Swingline staplers on every desk!

      Really?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Amazon by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Yes, our team's manager has a nice sense of humor. Another advantage of Amazon - it's easy (and officially encouraged!) to move between teams. So the asshole team managers soon find themselves alone and unable to hire developers internally.

      Interestingly enough, everybody in Amazon today received a letter from Jeff Bezos, saying that Amazonians can escalate the issue directly up to him if they encounter any situations described in the NYT.

      Here's another take on this article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

    4. Re:Amazon by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I guess at any company, if you have a bad manager, it can make the entire company seem bad. At a company as large as Amazon, there are surely a few bad managers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  22. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > if you actually have to worry about losing your job, you aren't middle class

    So only those with corporate parachutes are middle class (those who don't care about losing their job)? You seem retarded.

  23. it is not lack of planning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We plan to work you guys to death to keep the project's ROI up.

  24. Re:Why not? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So only those with corporate parachutes are middle class (those who don't care about losing their job)? You seem retarded.

    No. I haven't had to worry about losing my job since my late 20s, since, by then, I'd built up enough savings that I could live for a year or more without working. Most of my colleagues spent all their money and would have been screwed if they were sacked.

    Knowing I can now live for a decade without having to work is always useful when an employer wants to screw me around.

  25. A phycopathic work environment by Revek · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a someone with absolutely no ethics thought up some of that.

    1. Re:A phycopathic work environment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i spent a minute delving through my greet roots to figure out what phycopathic meant, but came up short.

    2. Re:A phycopathic work environment by retchdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      read literally, it would mean "feeling like algae" (phykos/phycos=seaweed + pathos=feeling).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  26. Re:Why not? by Archtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I disagree. There are many possible ways of defining "middle class", but job security is not one of them - never has been. There used to be a time when middle class people enjoyed a lot more job security than they do now - but that's true of everyone.

    Apart from politicians and those who are in a position to blackmail politicians, almost everyone nowadays has to worry about losing their job.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  27. Like Microsoft in early days but more organized by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    When I read the article, it reminded me of my interviews at Microsoft (Winter of 1985) with regards to the attitude that they had towards employees and work.

    One of the things that I remember being told was that the Microsoft average employee peaked at 25 and left the company at 28 (with a suitcase of cash) to form their own business (or live on a beach). I was being hired to give my all for five years and then take a break. There was a lot of talk about supporting employees to help them work at this pace. What I didn't get was a sense of organization or where they wanted to go; I was being interviewed for hardware design and I got the feeling that they knew they were on top of the world and destined to be there forever, but didn't have a vision as to where they were going/taking the industry.

    Over the years, it seems like Microsoft changed and became more corporate and relaxed but Bezos and Amazon are making this into much more of a cult(ure) with solid plans and expectations. I'm not surprised with their focus on results they are the successful company that they are and I'm not surprised that their employees are burning out and are bitter.

    1. Re:Like Microsoft in early days but more organized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never worked at MS, but I was in the PC industry at the time. Around 1990 there came the trend of "self managed teams", and the morphing of the Personnel Dept into "Human Resources", which had a very high profile throughout the '90s. That was the golden decade of HR, they actually tried to help employees. And the self-managed teams were employee-friendly as well, it felt like a startup backed by the resources of a big company (to use a formula sometimes seen in today's job ads).

      Later HR became more of a defensive mechanism to protect the corporation against employee lawsuits - the book "Corporate Confidential", written by a "savvy" HR rep, was touted as must-read in the Mini Microsoft blog.

  28. Social Safety Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let my clarify my idea for a social safety net.

    Basic Income
    21- and younger, $250/person/month
    22-66, $500/person/month or $750/couple/month
    67+, $750/person/month or $1125/couple/month

    In the event of receiving social security (benefits or disability), we choose whichever is higher. It is not an addition to social security benefits/disability.
    I am working under the premise that couples have fewer expenses. They are free not to get married in order to get separate checks of course.
    If we eliminate SNAP, which I oppose, I'd increase payments by $200/person/month.
    Limited to citizens and permanent residents (Green Card) only.
    Paid for by a UBI (Universal Basic Income) tax in part (and the UBI tax only taxes those eligible to receive). Perhaps 10% rate.

    1. Re:Social Safety Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can you live on $750 a month for a couple? I live in a cheap part of town, and $750 would barely pay my rent and electricity. In the better parts of town that won't even cover the rent.

    2. Re:Social Safety Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a better investment would be to teach you retards who can't shut the fuck up about UBI some elementary school level math.

    3. Re:Social Safety Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would this basic income not be added to Social Security retirement benefits?

      Social Security retirement benefits are not meant to support you fully in retirement but working a job pre-retirement is.

      Your Social Security retirement benefits are tied (somewhat loosely) to what you and your employer pay into it based on your earnings - it is, in effect, a deferred wage. As such, if the Basic Income is given to those who are working, it should also be given unconditionally to those receiving Social Security retirement benefits.

    4. Re:Social Safety Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reply is meant for multiple people who replied to me.

      It's not an addition, it's a minimum. If someone is already receiving Social Security benefits or Social Security disability, then this would only be a benefit if this is greater than what they are receiving, which may be unlikely. If we want to raise Social Security benefits, we should do that anyway, and not because of a UBI-type thing.

      This would NOT be an addition to programs such as TANF. However, it would be an addition to SNAP. In fact, if we were to eliminate SNAP, I'd say increase all values below by $200/person/month.

      For the person who mentioned "some elementary school level math", fine, I'll explain it.
      For simplicity purpose, assume 300 million eligible. 150 million adults, 75 million seniors, and 75 million 21 and younger.
      For adults, 150 million. I believe about half of adults are married, so we have 75 million individuals and 37.5 couples. 75 million * $500/person/month * 12 months = $450 billion/year. 37.5 million couples * $750/couple/month * 12 months = $337.5 billion/year. Total: $787.5 billion/year.
      For 21 and younger, we have 75 million * $250/individual/month * 12 months which is $225 billion/year.
      Plus a negligible amount for seniors.
      I assume this idea would cost $1.0125 trillion/year.

      The benefits of this might be to provide relief to those who don't have steady work. While it isn't enough to live off of, it's better than nothing. Maybe it's not appropriate to call it a Basic Income. Maybe "Very Basic Income" would be better.
      It wouldn't be pleasant, but it's possible for maybe a group of adults, say four, to share a residence together. For places such as New York City and L.A. it wouldn't be possible, it might be much more feasible in other areas.

      As for the UBI tax, I'm thinking a combination of things, but mainly a 10% tax on one's federal AGI. Assuming adults receive $6k/year from this, a tipping point would be $60/year. Assuming no children or spouse of course.

      Yes, it would benefit the lazy. However, do you really think a lazy person is going to be satisfied with $6k/year? Do you really think they can survive comfortably off of that? Maybe they can leach off of a relative, but at least someone in that household would be employed.

      You can't force employers to hire everyone, which is one of my main concerns. People fall on hard times. You can apply over and over for jobs, but sometimes employers might not be hiring anyone. There are also people with less traditional jobs, such as writers, etc., who may benefit from receiving a monthly check (or direct deposit) of $500/month. It likely won't pay all, or even most, of the bills. But it's something.

      tl;dr
      This isn't tacking on more money for Social Security recipients, TANF recipients, etc. That would increase the financial burden for the government. (As for unemployment benefits, I have no idea how it should be done.)
      This isn't a true Basic Income, but a Very Basic Income. Something is better than nothing. A homeless family of four (2 children, 2 adults) would get (2*$250 + $750) per month or $1250/month plus hopefully foodstamps.
      It won't be a comfortable life if someone lives only this. Maybe if four adults share a place to live in a low cost-of-living area.
      I worked out the math above, and I assume it'd cost around $1.1 trillion.

  29. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a misleading summary. You must be new here.

  30. They're sorting for "the right" employees by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    While I don't disagree with you, there are people who thrive in an environment like Amazon's. Now, most other people would consider the people who are successful at Amazon as "assholes" and I think they'd be right.

    It doesn't sound like Amazon is shy about telling prospective employees what it's like to work there, so, to a certain extent, there shouldn't be any surprises for their employees when they're working there. That doesn't mean that it's not shameful to harass/punish employees when they have unexpected personal challenges and tragedies.

    The good thing about all this is that Amazon is taking the assholes out of the workforce.

    1. Re:They're sorting for "the right" employees by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We had an employee, he left of his own accord, who would work overtime - often clocking out first only to return to his desk and keep working. He thought that this was impressive and that it would impress management and make him invaluable. He also thought that his co-workers would be seen as less productive if they were not seen to be working as much as he was. None of that happened and his work was, generally, fine and he was generally no more productive than his peers.

      Maybe he should work for Amazon... I doubt they hire many traffic engineers however.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:They're sorting for "the right" employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had employee try to do this as well. When we found out we asked her to submit in writing how much extra she had worked both that pay period and in the past. We paid the extra time and warned her never to try and work off clock again. When she did it again, we paid her for the extra work and let her go. She immediately tried to sue us for back wages (over 500 hours worth) on all the times she claimed she worked extra.. Since we had fully documented the issue and paid for the extra work we knew about, she lost the case.

  31. Re:Why not? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have NO IDEA how fortunate you are. Or how bad things can be.

    During the Great Recession, some people were unemployed for THREE YEARS or more. The Obama Administration had to extend and re-extend unemployment benefits for people. Quite a few of them finally found jobs, but at substantially less pay. So you'd better hope that you really can live for 10 years without a paycheck. And that that "10 years" isn't coming from your retirement savings.

    It's not enough to have a really good skill set or be willing to move about the country like a migrant farm worker. Sometimes you don't know the right people in the right places, have the "perfect" match of skills or cannot manage to live on 120,000 Rupees a year.

    Or worse. you could be over 40.

  32. Sadly by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    The world doesn't care. They will keep buying from this company, just like they keep buying from the Walmarts, Apples, and others that have no problem killing others or driving them to suicide to make a buck. Its all business for them and its all about how much they can personally gain before the ride is over for them in the job.
    Do not worry though, America has exported this mentality just like its exported its food pyramid.

    Very few upsides unless you make it to the exec suite.

    1. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I typically buy from Amazon even though it's a shady outfit, reason is many products it is excruiatingly difficult to buy other than Amazon. Amazon webpages work on many browsers. Compared going to original source it's either that company's webpage scripting doesn't work, and if it does the product is 99 week leadtime.

  33. "You'll work harder with a gun in your back..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "... for a bowl of rice a day"

  34. Enough is enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I'm an anonymous coward, but enough is enough

    I havn't bought anything from Amazon for a few years because of their bad reputation in actually delivering things (here in uk anyway - Yelp anyone?). But when it comes to a business telling a women who has just miscarried,she must remain focused on the job - I draw the line. And yes I have RTFA

    I have just deleted all my Amazon wish list items (I was going to get them at some point), and closed my account with Amazon. Much to my surprise, they did it very quickly and didn't ask why - obviously they don't want to measure that sort of customer data.

    Looking forward to walking around a local book store - yes there some left, and if it costs more so be it

  35. Can anybody explain how thos works? by Catmeat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I could easily imagine having this degree of commitment to a job if I was working in a World War 2 fighter-plane factory, and it was a case of "build hundreds of these things every month or the Nazis will win". Or if I was in the team working on a rocket that delivers a giant hydrogen bomb that will deflect an incoming asteroid of dinosaur-killing proportions.

    The woman worked four days and nights straight selling gift cards!

    Anonymous denunciations and self-criticism have been lifted straight from the playbooks of Chairman Mao and David Koresh. So this management abuse of employees, and their willingness to suck it up comes across as some kind of cult that works on the gullible, desperate and greedy, after the relentless Darwinian firing process has sieved out everybody else.

    Is that anywhere close to the truth? I'm sure I would have walked in under a month and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why anybody else wouldn't.

    1. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people live to work, others work to live.
      Apparently amazon is trying to find the former.

    2. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by pesho · · Score: 2

      People are easy to manipulate to believing into anything. This is even easier if you place them in an environment where everybody reinforces a particular view. Look at Nazi Germany, the communist Soviet Union, North Korea, every religion... When everybody around you is crazy the normal people look like loonies. Having said that, there is no way for me knowing that I am not a part of a crazy indoctrinated cult and everything I post here is pure propaganda.

    3. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

      The only reason a smart person would want to work there is golden handcuffs. There must be something material ($$$) that most long time employees get there. Or they are not smart. Slaves did not have a choice to quit slavery. People under Mao or other communism regimes could not quit also. Pyramids were build presumably without forced labor...but you got gods' blessing. Manipulation and promises go only so long (hence attrition rates?). But given some products coming out of amazon (Fire Phone anyone) I have doubts there are many smart people left at Amazon.

      Perhaps TFA misses something?

      --
      4wdloop
    4. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that anywhere close to the truth? I'm sure I would have walked in under a month and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why anybody else wouldn't.

      You are now aware that these employess are in all probability, insane, and that Amazon is a Scientology-esque exploitation organization.

      The only question remaining is, how long can Amazon hide this basic fact behind myriad veils of technology, capitalism, kool-aid and and profit before finally being shut down. As this NYT exposes shows, not for much longer unless it increases its protection payments to the media.

    5. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      I think you would actually walk before the final interview. Could this kind of environment be a total surprise to a new hire?

    6. Re:Can anybody explain how thos works? by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      More specifically, Amazon is trying to find the kind of people that love the kind of meaningless work they offer.

    7. Re: Can anybody explain how thos works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody leaves out the crazy undoctrinated cult of American capitalism, which is why this stuff happens in the first place. If workers, especially warehouse types, would organize and work together this stuff would not happen. We Americans have been conditioned with all the anti-worker and anti-work propaganda that we believe individuals should go up againat monied interests alone and that it's some kind of level playing field.

      Oh, and a non-trivial percentage of us believe that jobs like this should be 'entry level' or some other euphamism I hear Republicans spew all the time on the corporate media, as if there's some kind of societal obligation to supply a permanent underclass of mistreatable workers just so business owners can make a profit without having to include 'pay your workforce' or 'provide safe facilities' as an expense item.

      That part is almost funny because they don't acknowledge that any other kind of social contract exists anywhere, but something that benefits people who've already benefited--that they're all for for some strange reason.

  36. this is a future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is modern day slavery. Unfortunately Amazon success sends a clear signal to other companies around the world - it works!
    Every successful and progressive manager will learn how amazon built a trillion dollar business and will reimplement these practices in their companies.
    This is a dystopian future of office job.

  37. Correct Title by sycodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The Challenge of working for Pricks"

    Fixed.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Correct Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prix Fixe

  38. "Challenge", a politically correct word for "Hell" by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    Judging by the information in the article, it sounds like Amazon is High School all over again. People sniping at each other to increase their status, the politically connected get protected, cliques banding together for survival, etc.. The only difference is the lack of life outside of the environment. Sounds like hell to me....

  39. Seems true by vistic · · Score: 1

    I've known quite a few people at Amazon and Lab126 and no one ever has anything but horror stories to tell. Usually they couldn't wait to get out of there.

  40. Re:Why not? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have NO IDEA how fortunate you are. Or how bad things can be.

    Oh, yes. Because I saved money rather than spent it, I'm 'fortunate'.

    No, I saved it because I have a middle-class attitude. And I have that attitude because I've seen exactly how bad things can be when you live paycheck to paycheck.

  41. Stack Ranking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds a little like Microsoft's stack ranking, which even M$ eventually found too nasty and counterproductive.

  42. Immanual Kant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kant would be rolling over in his grave at that place. What would the world be like if this type of place was the rule everywhere, and everybody behaved like the people at Amazon.

    1. Re:Immanual Kant by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Depends. If you don't have to work to live (your Star Trek replicator future) then let 'em entertain themselves by trying to be the awesomest of sauces. People devote as much effort to running up and down a field and kicking a ball, and nobody seems to mind.

      If this defines how people are compelled to live in order to exist in society, we have a problem.

      There's two solutions and only one of them requires muzzling Amazon and its like. The other solution is making sure that working this way is optional and that you don't have to work, to live and spend and sleep under a roof. In that case, Amazon's actually helping the world go around, by increasing efficiencies of things.

    2. Re:Immanual Kant by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Specifically, it's the 'people must work and compete or they deserve to STARVE!' mindset that creates a problem.

      If you discount that, Amazon gets a lot more freedom to do what they want without harming society.

    3. Re:Immanual Kant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's a difference between that and having to put up with a female that demands to be paid like a man, but not produce. Newsflash! Men don't become pregnant or otherwise screw up the workplace with their entitlement attitude and blood coming from wherever!
      The story about the poor girls misfortune is truly sad, but sadder still is that if Donald Trump had his way, you wouldn't have to face this ever again. Maybe you should try out for the Army Ranger program. My understanding is there are still two women candidates left that have a chance to graduate, not that anything will come of it. The point is, if you can't take advantage of political grandstanding at the expense of every other person in your organization, you're probably not cut out for it. I can't wait for Trump to take office and start televising his Dailey "Fire a useless bureaucrat" series. If I were Hillary, i'd run a few more crying ad's before it's too late and she winds up in Leavenworth. Holy Smokes! You thought Bill was the douchebag?

    4. Re:Immanual Kant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon is not feeding starving mouths though, and could become a new normal if subsidized.

    5. Re:Immanual Kant by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Your second option has always been available, but you have to make a few sacrifices like not living in a major city. Move out to the country and you can buy your own land for a couple hundred dollars and live as inexpensively as one could in rural Kenya. And thanks to modern technology, you can retain all your modern conveniences (computer, electricity, lights, hot running water, flushable toilets) for not a lot more money

    6. Re:Immanual Kant by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Amazon could make it waaaaay more economical to run a welfare state and feed starving mouths, if they chose to do so. If you can get a video delivered for a little over $8 it's evidence you have really done amazing (ha!) things in streamlining distribution, inventory and so on. I'm willing to bet that even with the huge economies of scale we see in things like government food stamp services, Amazon could do all that at half the overhead.

      If you went for universal programs such as UBI so the administrative overhead went away, you'd be getting even closer to the largely automated systems Amazon has perfected. Basically, though Amazon is stealing the opportunity for meaningful work, they're also a possible model for super-efficient ways to implement distribution and supply networks (say food, fuel, clothing etc.) and are likely doing way better than the government is.

      You could leverage that distribution network to wipe out starvation, homelessness, very cheaply. If you wanted.

  43. Management Principles for the "Best" is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the official Amazon.com webpage entitled "Our Leadership Principles," the section about hiring the "best" has a grammar mistake! The section heading "Hire and Develop The Best" is improper English, showing that the person who wrote it isn't even competent in the basics of knowing when to capitalize the word "the." Looks like they didn't have one of their "best" people on this job!

    You just can't make this stuff up!

    http://www.amazon.jobs/principles/

    1. Re:Management Principles for the "Best" is Wrong by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not incorrect English, but incorrect heading capitalization. Still it isn't half as bad as "Are Right, A Lot". I don't know which is worse there—the completely baffling heading or the total load of crap below it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Management Principles for the "Best" is Wrong by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oops. Missed a comma after "still". My bad.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Management Principles for the "Best" is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol you're dumb.

  44. Loss of perspective... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... also applies to the ever spiraling price of a house. People pay more because other people do, and they all end up desperate to hold a job to service their ever-growing debt. Thus it becomes the new normal.

    The only way to stop it is to not participate, and get others to stop participating. It's daunting to convince people against what almost all of their peers are telling them right now, but I think it can snowball, and get easier over time.

    We can fix it this way, or wait for the bloody, destructive revolution that will ensue when people are pushed past the breaking point.

    1. Re:Loss of perspective... by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

      Assuming rental market traces real estate pricing, how do you "not participate"? Is your family homeless?

      --
      4wdloop
    2. Re:Loss of perspective... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The only way to stop it is to not participate, and get others to stop participating. It's daunting to convince people against what almost all of their peers are telling them right now, but I think it can snowball, and get easier over time.

      This is exactly what I did. It's not terribly difficult (after a while, but big learning curve up front) or expensive. I could have done it on a minimum wage salary,especially if I wasn't as lazy and did more work myself rather than pay people. It is simply a different way of living, one that many people choose, and not one lacking in material comforts or insecurities.

    3. Re:Loss of perspective... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Buy a house in a remote area for ten thousand dollars and homestead. Living expenses are a few thousand dollars a year. It's not the 1840's anymore and you can still retain all the modern conveniences. If you have a free place to live, $5000/year is a lot of money. That's $100/week of goodies from amazon and ebay.

  45. fuck windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when the wind blows Microsoft has to be mentioned here. it's sickening. it's like a family of lepers extending their hand to you after they've licked it.

    it's not enough for a MS FP article every day, people feel the need (or are paid?) to bring them up for any reason.

    fuck windows 10.

  46. fuck M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 isn't even worth the sweat of my balls.

  47. Fuck Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't give a rat's ass how their employees feel, I just want to get my fucking order shipped. It's been a fucking week! Obviously, whatever "motivation" they're using isn't good enough.

  48. Don't like unions? by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this is how you get unions.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Don't like unions? by Warphammer · · Score: 2

      Historically, yes. But I don't think it'll ever happen in tech. In tech, the same pool of 'superstar' workers that fuel the engine that is this hypercompetitive system are sure they don't need such things - and for the most part they're right, for now. Until they get just a little too old or they have a health issue and just can't keep up with the machine anymore. Some thrive on it - the psycho workers discussed above - and serve as shining examples to the others. Most of them also came from mid-to-upper middle class backgrounds or better, and if they heard about unions from their parents at all it was probably about those bums on the shop floor working to rule again - hearing about the (very real!) negatives of unions without knowing any of the (also-real) positives. That's why I've run into tech people who are downright Marxist in every other way give the 'Well, unions USED to be necessary but these days...' speech. So, you try to organize, and 75% of the workforce think it's an anachronism that will just make their lives harder. Not likely happening. Ignoring the fact that a couple major tech hubs (though not Amazon) are in right-to-work states, getting a new union off the ground might be hard. And I suspect that if a wave of unionization ever hit white collar work, the final move from management would just be mass offshoring. Me? I grew up with my dad in a union. It was a not-entirely competent organization with such joys as an illiterate leader, goofy rules, and an imperfect track record at doing much of anything... But when we had problems, or the 2-3 times work put him in the hospital, they were a huge help. A mixed bag.

  49. Fundimentalism always looks the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fundamentalism is evil. Balance in all things is vilified. There is not one thing I want enough to sacrifice balance in this life anymore. Too bad it has taken many years for my tiny mind to figure it out. Life is too short to sacrifice quality of life for desire of winning. No thanks.

  50. You guys give "Anonymous Coward" a bad name by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Get some help for your Microsoft issues.

  51. Interesting Issue by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I have been employed in companies that had numerous employees who did not expect to put forth effort or thought in their work. Often they show some concern for the appearance of their task but could care less about the flow of work or have any expectations about thinking while working or trying to make things better for the employer. It seems that the greatest cause of attracting or keeping that kind of worker is either an unwillingness to pay well or an inability to give meaningful raises. The usual path of events is that the employer's greed eventually leads to the failure of the company. Right now bank clerks seem to be suffering a dose of this due to the use of debit cards. Many people now have no reason to visit a bank as the automated deposits and withdrawals by debit card have seen bank clerks being laid off in droves. So we see a situation in which a typical bank clerk knows full well that their days are numbered and any type of real effort may be absent from the clerks.

  52. Fucking hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of slaves.

  53. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > No. I haven't had to worry about losing my job since my late 20s, since, by then, I'd built up enough savings that I could live for a year or more without working.

    Changing the content of your argument to avoid the glaring flaw in your logic, isn't compelling. Keep trying to redefine what "worrying about losing a job" means as an excuse and here's your helmet.

  54. Re:Why not? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Even more fell off the roles altogether. Over 1,000,000 more dropped off the roles than found employment. It sounds like planning for long-term unemployment of more than 3 years is the right thing to do...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  55. You've clearly never been to Seattle by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    There are more and more obvious homeless/destitute people there than I have seen in L.A.

    This begs the question of how on earth unemployment rates are calculated, or are they merely plucked out of the butt of whoever publishes them.

  56. No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineering by trout007 · · Score: 2

    Instead, Amazonians are instructed to “disagree and commit” (No. 13) — to rip into colleagues’ ideas, with feedback that can be blunt to the point of painful, before lining up behind a decision.

    This is how things work in the REAL engineering world. (By REAL I mean industries when things fail people die and companies go bankrupt like shipping, aerospace, structural engineering, power generation, etc.)

    We need to be brutal when reviewing designs and analysis becuase Mother Nature doesn't care how good you think your calculations are. Sure some people get their feelings hurt but if can't take it then you should get out of the business. I am thankful when someone finds a flaw in something I did because that could kill people.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  57. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say the shear number of people who actually retired during those years compared to now as a percentage is actual proof that there was far more job security back then than there is now.

    A great deal of those from the Generation X and Millennials crowd will never get the chance to truly retire as their employers will make sure not to keep them around long enough to let that happen or the employee themselves will be forced to job hop to get the raises the positions are actually worth as many companies in some professions almost refuse to give raises unless they have to and some managers can actually get in trouble for giving them out.

    Most people I see now below the age of 35 will probably never get a chance to retire within their lifetimes and social security will be about their only options when they get too old to work or maybe dying before they get bad enough to need to retire.

    My father worked for about 22 years at Good Year before he left and he had to fight them for years over retirement because he had to retire medically. The new guys where typically will not be allowed to work more than about 10 years without either being in management or fired.

    My grandmother worked at a local hospital delivering babies for decades before she retired, one of her friends grand daughters got a job working at the exact same hospital and ended up having to take them to court because they attempted to lay her off on year 19 working with them trying to avoid having her retire from them.

    Let alone fast food, grocery store, or department stores where they will either fire you or cut back your hours more the more you make to avoid paying you and a few of the people I have seen who had been there over 12 years end up walking on eggshells because their superiors are looking for reasons.

    In the 60's and 70's you could retire and most companies enjoyed having someone long enough to do that as it made it easier on everyone. Now, the new guys in charge, avoid it like the plague.

  58. Re:Why not? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Middle income and middle class are not the same thing.

    The middle class was the professional class of doctors, lawyers, and business owners between the truly wealthy and everyone else. They didn't have to worry about job security since they were the owner/proprietor. They had high incomes but not enough to qualify as "wealthy". Today, they would be the 91 to 98% bracket (perhaps even the 95 to 98% bracket).

    It was useful for politicians to conflate middle income and middle class and so the terms have become mostly interchangeable in the united states.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. Biased Article by cutinf · · Score: 2
    Most of the comments so far seem to take the article at face value, so I thought I'd offer an alternative perspective. I've worked at Amazon for several years as a software engineer, on two different teams, and my experience has been a far cry from what is described in the article. Is hard work encouraged? Sure. Do I work 80 hours a week? Absolutely not. I average around 50. I don't take my laptop home at night, and I don't get work email on my phone. I certainly am not expected to respond while on vacation. Those women in my department who have left on maternity leave have come back and been promoted, seemingly contrary to the harsh treatment described.

    The other engineers I work with are some of the smartest and best I've met in my career (i've worked at several other large companies), and there is certainly an overall goal of excellence. Feedback and discussion is strongly encouraged, but I've never seen anyone break down into tears at work. The leadership principles cited are accurate, but my experience with them has been seemingly more in line with their original intentions.

    Their sampling seems biased to those who have left the company, either voluntarily or forced, which suggests to me there may be a negative bias. If you ever saw this comic: http://www.bonkersworld.net/im... , you may understand Amazon operates many independent divisions, I suspect the experience of employees varies by division. I don't know if NYT sought out particular opinions, but they only gave a sentence or two to those veterans they encountered with a positive experience - literally this line:

    "Some veterans interviewed said they were protected from pressures by nurturing bosses or worked in relatively slow divisions".

    It seems like focusing on those experiences wouldn't have made as sensational of an article though.

    1. Re:Biased Article by Shados · · Score: 1

      I don't work at Amazon, but I'm close to some people who do.

      As far as I see it, Amazon is extremely open about their policies, and up front about what they expect when they make an offer.

      For engineers especially, if you have an offer from Amazon, you probably have other offers too.

      "Hey, I know you have 3 offers, and we will work you into the ground if you take ours. But here's your salary and bonus, and you would get to work on some world class system. Do you still want in? yes/no"

      No one's tearing anyone's arm here, and Amazon isn't the only company hiring. Whoever says "yes" knew what they were getting into, and did so willingly, even though they had an alternative. So I don't feel bad for them one bit.

      Note, thats for their white collar employees of course. The warehouse workers are another story.

    2. Re:Biased Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get your point, but it sounds suspiciously like saying because my local utility in Omaha, NE didn't have a nuclear core meltdown, focusing on Fukushima is sensationalizing the problem.

      The happy, functional divisions at Amazon are not a problem, but if allowed to fester, the unhappy, dysfunctional ones at Amazon can cause severe damage over time. Remember, nearly all of the hull of the Titanic was intact, except for that pesky gash on the bow.

    3. Re:Biased Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to hear that it's not the complete hell the article made it sound. I worked at a large software development company that had many of the aspects described in the article, and some were not all that bad: it was more of a meritocracy, where ideas were presented and inspection for flaws/improvements encouraged, but it rarely got hostile, and generally the company was supportive of it's employees: many had been there over 10 years and were considered valuable assets.

      I currently work for a company that has worked with AWS. My impression was that there were a lot of smart people (at least as good as at our company), but under incredible pressure. Whenever I visited, I never overheard anyone laugh, and in meetings some of the developers, when not speaking, would be programming on their laptops. The environment detailed in the article would go a long way to explaining my experiences with AWS.

  61. American Employment and labor participation by hwstar · · Score: 2

    There are some of us who have attained financial independence and refuse to play this game. What we are seeing with the labor participation rate is two components. Those which are truly unemployable, and those which refuse to play the game with the current rule set because they are financially independent and
    chose to work on things which are personally rewarding such as open source software.

    These are reasons the labor participation rate is so low. The only way to change it is to go back to the way employment was structured in the early to mid 20th century, implement a universal basic income, or cull the citizenry which cannot sustain themselves. Historically, the latter option was chosen (War Famine, Disease). Let's hope that the middle option occurs, as due to global competition, the first option may not be viable.

    1. Re:American Employment and labor participation by hughbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks. I'm in the UK and pretty-much independent [and old, incidentally], I now refuse contracts in places like this. I did contract work for a while in a place that was being taken over by Amazon, it was horrendous, I did the six months and didn't renew.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  62. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you plan on retiring at forty and make $100k+/year, it's amazing what you can do even without risky investments. I see $10k houses all over the US. Buy one with 2 months salary, spend another 3 months making it very nice. Food is very inexpensive if you know how to cook (the poorest people on earth eat the best food provided they know how to cook), so watch a youtube cooking video every night and practice making something new. I guarantee that within a year, you'll be able to cook gourmet meals. Get roommates and live like you did in college.

  63. It doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are a vendor who works on a lot of high profile jobs that Amazon can't handle in-house. We work 40 hour weeks and our median employee retention is about 10 years. We also pay well and definitely know how to speak our mind when we think something is wrong, even sticking to our guns against anyone else if we can defend our position.

    Every. Single. Amazon. Employee. that comes to our office asks if we're hiring or know who is. I've never seen anything like it in my life. Every single employee is working on their exit strategy. And it's not some utopian meritocracy where the best remain the weak are purged. They're losing their best employees who are creative and smart because going into a 10 hour long meeting where everyone feels not just encouraged but required to criticize an idea isn't productive it's just everybody feeling they have to provide input or look like they're slacking. Sorry but sometimes something is good but Bob in accounting feels like he needs to add his 2 cents to be a contributor. Nothing is worse in a meeting than people who don't actually have anything to contribute feel mandated to speak up and derail a meeting because that's one of the 12 commandments.

    And for a process supposedly based on data, it ignores the largest data point that has been validated with over a 100 years of research: after 40 hours your employees aren't contributing anything. In knowledge based economies it's even lower, after about 30 hours you're just killing time.

    The model that they're chasing is the Chinese School system. What that accomplishes is cramming and metric pleasing but what it fails to accomplish is actual innovation and progress because all of your energy goes into satisfying the grading system not taking risks and giving your brain 2 seconds to step back and absorb what it's working on. There's no time walk around a problem when you're barely keeping up with your workload.

    Toyota figured that out with their NUMMI plant. They learned that if you push employees too far and you simply reward quantity over quality you end up with shit product.

    All Amazon is going to have in a few years is Type A assholes who are willing to kill themselves and they'll have no creatives, no inventors and nobody who actually is innovating. They'll have people who happily work 100 hour weeks to reduce the delay after clicking "Buy Now" and nobody coming up with the next Kindle.

    1. Re:It doesn't work. by bitingduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And for a process supposedly based on data, it ignores the largest data point that has been validated with over a 100 years of research: after 40 hours your employees aren't contributing anything. In knowledge based economies it's even lower, after about 30 hours you're just killing time.

      Just quoting this part, but the rest of your post is a worthwhile read, too--I'd mod it up if I had points.

      I've seen a lot of people who "work 80+ hour weeks" it's pretty rare that any of them are doing even 30 hours of productive work most of the time. In some cases they're such a mess that they're breaking things and moving things backwards. It's one thing to have a crunch and work double for a week or two or three. Sometimes it happens, and in many cases you can even be productive for it. But when people try to sustain it, it breaks things. Where I am, QA are expected to stop you from working if you've been on shift more than 12 hours and are touching hardware. Or even if you look tired. And if it's friday and there's a big task that has to get done? Sometimes the best thing you can do is send everybody home-- stuff gets broken on friday afternoons and weekends when everybody's tired and in a hurry.

    2. Re:It doesn't work. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And for a process supposedly based on data, it ignores the largest data point that has been validated with over a 100 years of research: after 40 hours your employees aren't contributing anything. In knowledge based economies it's even lower, after about 30 hours you're just killing time.

      Yes and no. You most certainly can do more than 40 hours a week of productivity, but you can't keep it up indefinitely. The longer you successfully keep it up, the worse the burnout after.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:It doesn't work. by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      All Amazon is going to have in a few years is Type A assholes who are willing to kill themselves and they'll have no creatives, no inventors and nobody who actually is innovating. They'll have people who happily work 100 hour weeks to reduce the delay after clicking "Buy Now" and nobody coming up with the next Kindle.

      Just noticing my own consumption patterns. I find myself buying far less from Amazon than I used to. I go the public library for most books now, keeping just a few in my Kindle app for reading while traveling or reference. I stream music now instead of buying it. I reverse showroom - Go to Best Buy, look at a few products, then read the reviews on Amazon to determine which one to buy since BB will match.

      Amazon's big advantage in the early days was their ability to sell new products to consumers without sales tax. Bezos leveraged this to build mindshare and brand, but now he doesn't really have that huge advantage over other retailers. Sooner or later Amazon will be average internet retailer - Lots of products for sale with low margins. That may be one reason they push their people so hard, the profit margins they have now are not sustainable. Could even turn into another Sears.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    4. Re:It doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen this as well. Every time we get a hire from Amazon they look like they've just survived some ordeal. I thought for years that their organization would implode when they ran out of people willing to throw themselves into the grinder, but it never happened.

    5. Re:It doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be a stream of 20 something people willing to put up with crap from an employer for less money. It sounds like Amazon is targeting this segment of the workforce and would prefer not to keep people around into their 30 and 40s.

    6. Re:It doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other retailers with software applications hungry for applicants in Minnesota, Arkansas and South Carolina. Heck if you already live in a mobile RV what is there to lose.

  64. Toilet paper and my wild mouse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had a button to press, that ordered toilet paper, I can envisage my wild mouse that has been living in my house pressing the button, it's pretty much explored most places so far, and 1000 rolls of toilet paper ending up on my doorstep. And if there was an authentication process required that would defeat the idea. It's a no solution for me. Oh yeah, and my mouse is wild, I don't know where it is without searching for it. How about a button to press and a flying vacuum drone cleans up the mouse poo while I'm out of the house including a sectional whole house fire put-er-out-er! Maybe Jibo can e-mail me mouse wandering footage when I'm out. for entertainment.

  65. Here's the gist of this whole article. by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have a family and that is more important to you than work, i.e. you want to be a husband/father/wife/mother first, you want to work to live instead of live to work, you care about your health and well-being, hate office politics (despite Bezos' claim to avoid red tap and politics, it is clear that things like Organization Level Review and Anytime Feedback Tool are clearly motivated and created simply for favorites and politics) then Amazon is not for you.

    As a side note, with a wife and 4 children I am surprised he hasn't gotten divorce papers.

    Most companies that value their employees understand the need for downtime, relaxation, family obligations and a flexible work schedule. It is clear that the only thing Amazon cares about is employees that are working..and working...at whatever cost. If you are not ok with that then you are not a 'Super star' , regardless of how good you can code or solve problems.

    So again if you are not into the idea of pleasing your employer above anything else - then Amazon is not for you. It is clear that the "kind of company that amazon wants to be" is a company filled with people with no other life or personal committments and void of health issues (or family members that are ill). Again, since Bezos has a rather large family - it's amazing that things like 'paid maternity leave' doesn't exist at Amazon.

    And then this quote, "he(Bezos), was able to envision a new kind of workplace: fluid but tough, with employees staying only a short time and employers demanding the maximum". So it appears that you really aren't supposed to retire at amazon. Work a little while - then leave. So if retiring at a company with 401k and stock options racked up (or with any kind of pension) is what you seek - then Amazon is not for you. If Amazon is not in it for the long haul with its employees then why should the employees return any kind of favors?

  66. The truth often has 2+ sides. by hey! · · Score: 2

    Take the idea that people are too conflict averse. I absolutely agree with that. But the danger is when beating the other guy starts to become an end in itself. Having mutual respect and support is also important. I've had really productive work relationships that were full of heated arguments, but respect enabled us to see when we were both right (or wrong) and were just arguing past each other.

    The solution to a false dichotomy (creative conflict vs. mutual respect) isn't to choose the other side; it's to find a way to do both.

    Or take the boast that standards are "unreasonably high". That makes no sense. It's illogical to be proud of anything that's "unreasonable", because "unreasonable" equals "irrational". It shows a defect in thinking. Now I really like the idea of being more data driven; people make too many decisions based on their "guy" (aka personal prejudices); it's just lazy, emotional decision making. But data doesn't make you infallible, and covering up your failures with an illogical slogan is just as lazy and emotionally driven.

    The thing is being a contrarian has its advantages; when all the other investors are selling, you're buying, and that tends to give you an edge. But it's not the same as knowing what you are doing. Ultimately both the conventional and contrarian choice in a false dichotomy is wrong.

    The culture at Amazon strikes me as only superficially rational, and I expect in the long run they'll pay the price.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:The truth often has 2+ sides. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or take the boast that standards are "unreasonably high". That makes no sense.

      I thought that was strange as well. I read it and thought "is that supposed to be a good thing?"

  67. Demand professional treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. I had a CEO walk into my office and start screaming.
    I walked out and left for an hour - hit the cafe on the ground floor.
    Came back, went to his office and explained that was NOT appropriate behavior. I am a professional and expected to be treated as such. If that was an issue, I resign - today.

    We calmly talked over the issues. I took notes and left. Then I responded in writing with the issues and either why they weren't issues or how they could be addressed. A discussion is just an opening offer. "Have this completed today" is an opening offer. Reply with a priority list of items being worked and your best estimate for each to be completed based on those priorities. List any dependencies - often bosses forget that 3 other things must happen before the item they want can be completed or that other priorities haven't been completed yet.

    I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck and today could have 5 new job offers, I'm certain. If you don't, get better skills, work harder, and stop expecting handouts. Start by demanding to be treated as a pro, but you have to act like one too.

    He never raised his voice in anger again, but in passion - HELL YEAH!!! We need that fire about the project/program be it good or bad. It should never be directed at the people.

    "This code is unacceptable." is fine.
    "Your code is unacceptable." is not ok.

    Direct it at the issue, not the person.

    1. Re:Demand professional treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't even necessarily get offended by "your code is unacceptable" -- if I wrote it and it's unacceptable, as happens sometimes with all of us, then that's just a factual statement. I would, of course, expect a serious and non-confrontational explanation as to *why* it's unacceptable, as well as the opportunity to rebut it if I thought the assessment was wrong.

      Where I draw the line is something like "you're an idiot," "you don't know what you're doing," etc. That's bullying and no workplace should tolerate it. (Plus, what does it say about the person who hired me?)

  68. Re:Why not? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    You have NO IDEA how fortunate you are. Or how bad things can be.

    During the Great Recession, some people were unemployed for THREE YEARS or more. The Obama Administration had to extend and re-extend unemployment benefits for people.

    And then they didn't extend it before the last mid term election, because letting people fall off the rolls entirely substantially improve the Department Of Labor job numbers, heading into the election. This is a common practice, for the party with executive authority, when heading into mid terms.

    Sometimes you don't know the right people in the right places, have the "perfect" match of skills or cannot manage to live on 120,000 Rupees a year.

    No idea where in the U.S. you are living that you get paid in Rupees, but given the current exchange rate, that's like $1,843/year. I assume you must be in the U.S., since you are citing the Obama administration and its unemployment benefits practices. You're not going to be living on that, even in Detroit, even with 10 roommates.

  69. Re:Why not? by AtariEric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, you are lucky because you have that much money to begin with. Millions of people work harder than you and want to save as you do, but can't - no fault of their own; they aren't born into the right upper-class mob of people to have access to those opportunities.

    Of course, I won't change your mind about your superiority; - you have an attitude, all right, but it's not "middle-class" - I'd go so far to say it's lacking in class entirely.

    --
    Don't trust any concentration of power.
  70. Re:Why not? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, saving money rather than spending it isn't "fortunate", it's prudent.

    On the other hand, you can't save income if you don't receive it anymore than you can benefit from a tax cut when you have no income to tax. A lot of people out there don't receive it now and some never will. Sometimes they work 2 or more jobs and still don't receive as much as some of us can do working only one job.

    I've always had a savings attitude. I haven't always been rich. I've seen jobs come and go, and often with uncomfortably long gaps between them. I repair when I can, and I forgo the "Always Low Price" cheap junk in favor of more expensive things that will last, when I can. And keep well away from the stuff that's neither low-priced nor durable.

    When I do well, I do enviably well. When I don't, I get reminded not to sneer at those who are less fortunate.

    My co-workers consider me one of the best in the business, my broker thinks I'm better than average at investing. I don't live in an overly-expensive house or own a luxury car. But I've felt the pain and expect to feel more.

  71. Not according to the BLS by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The unemployment rate in Seattle is about 3%

    Not according to the BLS; they say it's 50% higher than that (Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4.5%):
    http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/l...

    Of course, those numbers are also deflate, due to people falling off the eligibility rolls:
    http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welc...

  72. Re:Why not? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    I want some of what you're smoking.

    I don't think that the average person in the USA is making 100K or more a year.

    And I'd advise looking at the neighborhoods those $10K houses are in. You'd probably want to spend another $50K on a security system.

    It's true you can cook well using inexpensive ingredients, but poor people are rather famous for being malnourished, often while being overweight and diabetic. Just because rice and potatoes are cheap doesn't mean that it's healthy to live on nothing but rice and potatoes.

  73. Mostly? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    why the fuck do you think there ARE homeless people!!! dammit.

    Mostly?

    Drug addiction and mental illness? Personal choice to live in areas of the country with housing shortages due to zoning resulting in building out instead of up? Lack of crowbars in Detroit to engage in squatting? Unwillingness to start a small business? Fear of risk taking?

    We aren't actually bulldozing large numbers of houses under, and our population (even with illegal immigration) isn't growing as quickly as available housing, so it's not like the housing doesn't exist.

    1. Re: Mostly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building up is BS. It's not everyone's dream to live in Skyscrapers with no windows to open, no greenspace and no fresh air (even if there were windows to open).

      You definitely CAN build out. Look at Europe. You can find IT work in a city of 150000 ppl and live in a real house, with a garden and other great things. And this repeats over and over again. The US is not Japan. There's space. Use it. Properly

    2. Re: Mostly? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Building up is BS. It's not everyone's dream to live in Skyscrapers with no windows to open, no greenspace and no fresh air (even if there were windows to open).

      No, you're right. It's just all of the people who want to live in San Francisco, Austin, Mountain View, Seattle, New York, and Chicago who can't build out... you know: where all the jobs are located.

      You definitely CAN build out. Look at Europe. You can find IT work in a city of 150000 ppl and live in a real house, with a garden and other great things. And this repeats over and over again. The US is not Japan. There's space. Use it. Properly

      How about Europe starts granting emigration visas? Then we can just send you our tire, our poor, and our huddled masses, yearning to be free, and live in sprawling metroplexes, where the primary benefits are a working public transportation system, because, you know, Europe is kind of tiny.

    3. Re: Mostly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiny? Wow. Are you including Eastern Europe?

    4. Re: Mostly? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Tiny? Wow. Are you including Eastern Europe?

      No. I am only counting the countries in the European Union. Nobody wants to live in Russia under Putin, and no one wants to live in a number of the other Eastern block countries which are technically part of continental Europe, but not part of the European Union.

      In fact, there are several countries in the European Union itself which should probably not be counted either, since Germany is already fighting against (via maltreatment) of refugees from Turkey and several other countries where it's unpleasant to live due to, among other things, restricted communications access and Internet filtering in order to implement draconian social policies.

      Counted that way, they have about 1.6X the population of the U.S. in about 1/3 the total area of the U.S. (less, on both, is you leave out the undesirable parts -- say about 1.3X the population in about 1/4 the area of the U.S.).

      No, we are not going to relocate Silicon Valley to Bozeman, Montana, just to make Europeans happy about our average population density, or to make San Francisco more desirable.

  74. Re:Why not? by Bengie · · Score: 1

    I was born into a poor family, couldn't even afford a TV until I was in my teens in the mid 90s, and I was instantly made middle class shortly after graduating from my nearly free state Uni during the recent recession. I had my pick of the litter when it came to jobs, I was flooded with companies wanting immediately to hire me into the top 20% of local incomes. Yay for programming.

    I ended up holding off and turning down several jobs in 2008 because I really wanted a local job near family. The best part is I didn't need to do any job hunting, they came to me. Calling my phone, sending me mail.

  75. Re: Why not? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    In America, You just described "upper middle class" (professional class; doctors, lawyers, engineers).

    There's also "middle class" and "lower middle class".

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  76. Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All this is.

    Do they talk about business culture in failing companies? Because that would be more interesting. I don't see it.

    Mostly they investigate successful companies and then shit talk whatever they're doing that makes the place work.

    As to the poor woman with the stillborn child... anyone that can't spot the pathos being injected into the story there is blind.

    In the old Roman days, if you were being taken to court you could hire children... typically orphans... or unmarried women... often prostitutes... to cry at your trial. The presumption by the jury would be that they were your children and the woman was some family relation. And by having them crying openly in court... you could influence the jury because they'd feel sorry for the children and crying woman... and thus go easy on you.

    This tactic in rhetoric of attempting to play on the heart strings of the minds judging a situation is a very old one. And its frankly an offensive one.

    I'm sure there are people that work really hard at Amazon and I'm sure the company does their best to get the most value out of people as possible. But no one has to work there. You're not a slave. You sent your resume to Amazon. You talked with the HR rep over the phone. You went to an interview and did your best to make them want to hire you.

    So... no one forced you to be there. Amazon is not breaking any law. And while there are a few sob stories in there, the majority of the employees seem very happy.

    It is typical of the NYT to run a story of "Look, someone is successful - KILL HIM"... its what they do. But I'd think more readers would be aware of it by now.

    Its one of the reasons the NYTs is losing national clout despite trying very hard to remain relevant. They're biased. All news you could say is biased... but the editors are biased as well. One of the great things about the internet is that you can do version tracking on articles.

    You see an article published on a Saturday night... it changes on Sunday... It changes again on Monday... The author changes on tuesday. This happens all the time on their site. No declaration that anything changed. No declaration of why.

    Just presenting the story as if it was always X from the start. When clearly there is evidence that it changed many times.

    The NYTs is not the only site that does that. But its the only major news source I know of that does it as commonly or completely. I expect that from Buzzfeed or Gawker or something. But when the NYTs starts playing by the same rules... they become the same.

    You are not only what you do but what you don't do.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NYT is still one of the best sourced, most accurate news organizations in the world. Point to one time where they were wrong and didn't print a subsequent retraction.

      Your rant sounds like it has some sort of political motivation behind it.

    2. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Didn't say they were wrong.

      What you did was equivalent to this:

      ME: 1+1=2
      YOU: Bananas are yellow

      We're not talking about the same thing.

      ""
      The law of non-contradiction

      The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]

      In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).

      In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:

              It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
              â"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3]
      ""

      Logic.

      I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact.
      I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it.
      I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.

      You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.

      To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?"
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NYT did a huge favour to anyone considering work at Amazon. Amazon regularly sets up recruiting events in places other than Seattle, where they interview you, and entice you to join and move to Washington State. My former manager interviewed with them in Toronto (he's Canadian), got an offer, then packed up his wife and three kids to live and work in another country, all the way across the continent. I sure hope his work environment is not as bad as the article writes. It also vindicates my gut feeling of politely telling the Amazon recruiters to go away, since that kind of workplace is the exact opposite of what I have now, or even want to have at all.

    4. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The job market being what it is... its a buyer's market when it comes to labor. People are crossing national lines for the Amazon job because they value it as better than their opportunities where they are.

      The article isn't hurting Amazon. People will be knocking their doors down to hire them at those job fairs.

      And do you really think the NYTs is talking to the potential recruits of Amazon? Really? Have you seen the demographics on the NYTs? Their average reader is like 65 at this point... and tending older in the stats every year. And that stat would be even worse only a fair number of their readers die of old age every year which is shown in the circulation data of the paper.

      So not only do I reject the notion that the NYT is likely to change anything for Amazon, I also question the notion that the NYT is even speaking to that audience.

      And beyond that, doesn't Bezos own a competing paper for the national attention these days?

      for all we know this is just a cat fight between the two papers with the NYTs hoping that attacking Amazon will buy them some détente with their rival media outlet.

      Its the 21st century... we need to think about these things in a more sophisticated way than previous generations. Step back and see the lines of force.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The job market being what it is... its a buyer's market when it comes to labor. People are crossing national lines for the Amazon job because they value it as better than their opportunities where they are.

      I think you just did what you accused another poster of doing:

      ME: 1+1=2
      YOU: Bananas are yellow

      The NYT article is bringing light to the workplace environment at Amazon, thereby allowing the new recruits make a more informed decision about uprooting their entire families, abandoning their support base, and moving across national borders. You'd think they would want to be working in a place that is better than the one that they left, or at least one that suits them. It stops being about compensation when your wife starts to hate you and your kids begin to resemble the cliche absentee-parent variety.

      Isn't information good for all parties involved in monetary exchange?

      Don't hate the messenger, hate the message. I'm no fan of the NYT, but sometimes they release pearls like this. Heck, they might even be doing Amazon a favour by inviting more Type-A competitive workers into their ranks while discouraging the rest. Amazon's turnover is lowered and potential recruits are better informed about their decision. Win-win.

    6. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that the NYT is lying, or that the woman is lying about how she was treated?
      Or that she was lying about a stillborn child?
      I don't have to work at amazon; that's true. But if we want to discus how they run their company and we disagree with how they do it we are free to do so.

    7. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're the second person to make the same mistake... I'll repeat myself as well then:

      Didn't say they were wrong.

      What you did was equivalent to this:

      ME: 1+1=2
      YOU: Bananas are yellow

      We're not talking about the same thing.

      ""
      The law of non-contradiction

      The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]

      In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).

      In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:

                      It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
                      Ã"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3]
      ""

      Logic.

      I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact.
      I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it.
      I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.

      You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.

      To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?"
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by MPAndonee · · Score: 1

      How did this screed from an Amazon insider get upvoted like this?

      --
      Nothing to see here -- move along now...
    9. Re:Look, someone is successful... Kill him. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ... Wait, you think I"m an Amazon insider? The only time Amazon ever gave me money was when I got refunds for defective products.

      What is with all the stupid shitheads that always assume that anyone that defends a corporation must be paid off by the corporation to do so?

      You presume the corps are always wrong? If not, then defending them when spurious arguments are made against them is just intellectual integrity.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  77. Re: Why not? by robi5 · · Score: 1

    Class isn't only, or even primarily, about money. Read Fussell: Class.

  78. Can Good Come From This? by MonkeyTrial · · Score: 1

    Is it really likely that something good and beautiful can be created by people working under this kind of regime? A cheaper role of toilet paper that gets to your house really fast...is that what some of our smartest people want to devote their lives to? Increasingly we let technology companies drive culture, and I can't help but think that nothing truly beautiful and valuable will come out of people working in conditions like this. It is a lie we tell ourselves as we look at attractive devices and use amazing software...in the case of Amazon and companies like it, these things are born of bad soil. Beyond just not wanting to buy anything through Amazon, I don't want this kind of company in my city (Seattle).

  79. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    We need to be brutal when reviewing designs and analysis

    No, you need to be accurate and complete. Painful/brutal is totally optional.

    You need to ensure a drone doesn't kill someone. You can accomplish that through quite a few methods. Being a dick is unnecessary.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  80. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by trout007 · · Score: 1

    Brutal - direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  81. Re:"Challenge", a politically correct word for "He by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Not just Amazon. Most big companies are that way to varying degrees. I remember hearing from some folks who worked at Apple around the turn of the century that one of the big things that Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple was jerking a knot in a lot of people for such behavior. But even in companies that aggressively try to combat it, you'll still find a fair amount of politics lying just beneath the surface, ready to turn a great workplace into a hostile work environment at the drop of a hat.

    I don't think any big company can be completely free of such problems, if only because nobody can monitor everything that's going on, and it is hard to avoid occasionally hiring the sort of person who feels that the best way to get ahead is to pull somebody else back. With that said, if you're running a company, there are some common sense things you can do to minimize the damage it causes:

    HR policies:

    • Do exit interviews whenever someone leaves a job for another job (whether within the company or not) and record the results. Make that information available to future hiring managers as a matter of course.
    • Monitor the number of people leaving a department for any reason.
    • Correlate the two when you see departure numbers that are abnormally high, and take action to fix the problem, whatever it might be (understaffing, bad management, bad working conditions, etc.).
    • Give your HR staff the power to intervene when they suspect that something is seriously wrong. And when you hire workers for your HR department, choose people who will be strong advocates for your workers, not pencil pushers who are merely recording information for future reference.
    • Design programs for employee retention that encourage internal transfers as a first course of action when any manager claims that an employee is exhibiting performance problems, so that if those performance problems are caused by problems in the work environment (or worse, are distortions or outright fabrications), the problems will go away, and you'll have a solid employee again—one who will appreciate your company even more for having treated him or her with respect and dignity rather than like a replaceable cog in a giant machine.
    • With the possible exception of brand new employees, never allow any manager to terminate any employee for performance reasons unless that employee has failed to live up to the standards of managers in two different departments (provided that another suitable department exists).

    Manager training:

    • Encourage hiring managers to look at an employee's entire history rather than just looking at recent performance reviews, because even good employees can end up with bad reviews when put in a bad environment, and some employees resist stepping outside of their box to try to get away from even the worst environments, trying to convince themselves that things will get better, even as they keep getting worse.
    • Discuss the psychology behind workers staying in jobs long past the point where they truly fit as part of your manager training, so that good managers can spot those problems before they become serious, can recognize the difference between a bad environment and a bad worker while deciding whether to approve a transfer, and so on.
    • Design programs that encourage workers to return to your company with seniority, without arbitrary limits on how long they can stay away. This discourages rapid job switching between competitors (which harms worker performance), and reduces the risk of people fired for political reasons finding themselves unable to return without taking a huge cut in benefits.

    Vacation policies:

    • Give employees reasonable time off at a level that is at least as good as the rest of the industry, and mandate that they take it (not just "time off will stop accruing", but "you must take the time off, and will be subject to disciplinary action if you set foot on the premises or attempt to work from h
    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  82. Re:Why not? by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

    > No. I haven't had to worry about losing my job since my late 20s, since, by then, I'd built up enough savings that I could live for a year or more without working.

    Sounds like you've led a boring and uneventful life. I feel sorry for you.

  83. Boxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why a handful of employees at Boxed can produce a better shopping experience than Amazon. Even my regional grocery has online ordering and free next day delivery, price competitive with Amazon. I wonder if Amazon will even be relevant in the future, other than for media purchases.

    The environment described at Amazon kills innovation.

  84. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, BULL SHIT. Unlike you, I actually work in aerospace, and it's NOTHING like that. Sure, we take things seriously because people's lives are on the line. New ideas are scrutinized, but people aren't attacked for having them.

  85. fuck crying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd start beating the shit out of people who picked at me. and if i got fired for it... sheeeeeeiiiit.... they're gonna have to measure my arrest by how many cops it took to bring me down.

    bezos needs to get popped on the nose.

    1. Re:fuck crying by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      damn right. i never understand how these bullies end up on the top without someone kicking their teeth in first. if some exec started blowing up at me he'd be eating out of a tube the rest of his life.

  86. Amoooozon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all Amazon cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows.
    WORK, COWS, WORK!!

    -Jeff Bezos

  87. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, in real engineering, it can be "disagree politely but firmly", argue about technical issues but be nice to the humans, then commit once a good design is found.

  88. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I get that. Totally optional. You can disguise unpleasantness as long as that doesn't prevent the message from getting across.

    Sometimes its better to be brutal. Sometimes, it doesn't even work to not be brutal. But most people would prefer that their errors get pointed out softly.

    I mean, "How does your design handle failure condition X" is not brutal. But there are definately other ways to phrase the issue that are.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  89. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Former Amazon SDE II here, spent just over a year and a half working for them.

    What you just said is EXACTLY what makes it so hard. It really is, other than the intentionally unrealistic workload, an amazing place to work. Decisions are made based on data. You can be wrong, and everyone can disagree with you, but if you've built up enough reputation capital, nobody will stop you from spending it how you want (because they're secretly hoping you're wrong, or because they think you're right but don't want to attach their reputations to yours). And then, if you turn out to be right, great!

    You'll get code reviews so good, it ruins you for anywhere else. It's expected that the review takes as long as the coding. You're given time for, and expected, to create design documents for anything that'll take more than a day or two to code. If you're working on something you haven't tried before, you can just request, and get, a Principal Engineer review of your design, and come out knowing that what you have is solid. You work right on the hardware (or virtuals) your code is running on. There's so much logging and metrics (ensured by the code review process) that most bugs are trivial to solve.

    Until you hit another department. Then, you're faced with asking people already working 80-hour weeks if they can help you out. You'd better have something to trade, or have fun waiting 3 months for them to make a tiny API change. And you'll be getting shit from your manager the whole time. You can ask your manager to talk to theirs, and that might get things done--it's about 50/50. When it does, great, the other team just hates you forever, hopefully you never have to deal with them again. When it doesn't, well... maybe you can try working with another team. Don't let it block you, and no, it won't be explicit enough that you can just tell your manager they're going back on their word.

    Anyway, yeah. It's the only time I've ever properly experienced "software engineering". I'll be chasing that dragon for a while, trying to find it outside an environment where working a 112-hour week is just something that happens.

  90. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by trout007 · · Score: 1

    It looks like people have an issue with my use of brutal. By brutal I mean valuing being honest and direct and not avoiding these to save someone's feelings. I don't mean you have to be a jerk about it. But if someone is wrong or you think they are wrong you then you need to be persistent about it until you are satisfied.

    I work in aerospace as well. And I value peer reviews with people that actually look for flaws rather than a rubber stamp.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  91. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by trout007 · · Score: 1

    "I mean, "How does your design handle failure condition X" is not brutal. But there are definately other ways to phrase the issue that are."

    That can be brutal if it is during a large design review and you didn't consider that mode. But it's still necessary. If you have a culture of not doing that you are going to hurt someone.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  92. Re:No. 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, I suspect that you probably aren't all working 80-100 hour weeks doing those engineering calculations (or, at least, I hope you aren't, since, as you say, lives depend on it).

  93. When I left Amazon... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I got a threatening letter from their legal department sent to myself with a copy sent to the HR department of my new employer.

    This was all in California, where non-competes aren't valid, but obviously AMZN's lawyers already knew that. (else they'd be some pretty useless lawyers)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  94. What happened with Fire Phone? by nikhilhs · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what happened with the Fire Phone? Does no one say the idea was horrible?

  95. Re:Why not? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    I really love this attitude that seems so prevalent now. Rather than blowing your money like a teenager as most do until they're in their forties, you practiced commendable fiscal restraint and maturity and put some aside. You have every right to feel good about your achievement.

    The response? "You fucking entitled criminal you! How dare you, when there are people who have LESS than you? What privilege!"

    I've had a gutsful of people with bullshit attitudes like this. Can we just get on with the nuclear war already? I'm happy to take the first mushroom cloud myself if it'll get the ball rolling.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  96. Re:Why not? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, yes. Because I saved money rather than spent it, I'm 'fortunate'.

    Fortunate on 2 counts actually.

    First You made more than you needed to live. Many people at or below the poverty line don't have extra money to set aside.

    Second, Evidently, nothing substantially unpleasant ever actually happened. When you had your six months or whatever living expenses saved away, you weren't laid off, and then fell off your front porch, wiping out your savings one hospital trip, and then some, and THEN finding yourself unable to work for several months... because no matter how much you set aside, there's always the chance that something bigger will hit you. You were fortunate that nothing bigger than you saved for ever hit you.

    I too have your savings attitude, and I think its extremely prudent. It lets you absorb life's little hits without it being a big deal. But I don't pretend for a second that I haven't been fortunate that life hasn't thrown a bigger hit than I can absorb.

  97. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What fucking bullshit.

    Every whiny shitbag I've ever heard complain about needing a "living wage" was doing it on a cell phone, wearing brand name clothes, with $150 shoes, their 70" tv blaring in the background, driving a recent model car, and paying for a bunch of stupid fucking children that should have been aborted.

    Fuck you.

  98. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, when you're poor, you should totally be willing to live like he average third-worlder in the vague hope that someday it all turns around.

    After all, in a year, that $360 you saved by not having a phone, $300 you saved by wearing duct tape instead of shoes, and the $350 you saved by not having a kid to feed, shoot, that'll earn you another $10 in the coming year. Do that for 20 years and you can actually wear shoes without idiots running you down for it.

    How expensive do you think healthy kids are, anyway? I have two and only just now as adolescents are they noticeably impacting our finances.

  99. I hope this culture doesn't bleed out by ardave8952 · · Score: 1

    I hope this culture doesn't bleed out into the work culture at large in the vicinity of Amazon HQ. I've already dealt with enough hyper-aggressive (former) Microsoft culture that has escaped into the wild. Separately, the job boards here are so overwhelmed with Amazon job listings that I've often wished for a special "block Amazon job listings" feature. I now see that this is likely caused as much by turnover as it is by growth with the company.

  100. Re: Why not? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    The terms are meaningless.

    It's much clearer to say poverty, low income, middle income, high income, and wealthy.

    Everyone from low income to high income (i.e. over 80% of the citizens) is "middle class" these days. Only those in poverty and who are wealthy don't qualify. And by wealthy- I don't mean people who have to work ever. People who make over $400,000 a year self describe as middle class while people who make $40,000 also self describe as middle class.

    If almost everyone is middle class, then no one really is middle class.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  101. From physical hazards to psychological ones by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Safety on the job is a huge focus to keep us from physical harm. What about the psychological hazards?

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  102. I now buy very little from Amazon by hughbar · · Score: 1

    I'm in the UK, have worked for a company that was taken over by Amazon. It was pretty horrendous, metrics, continuous tension and shouting. I wouldn't work there again, and, I won't be asked, anyway.

    In addition, because of their tax avoidance and now this, I'm buying less and less from and looking for an alternative to EC2. I'm aware that this will cost UK jobs, but I feel that I don't want to see any company like this in the future of the UK. Shame, because it's an inventive company and doesn't need all this shouting and screaming.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  103. Re:Why not? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

    Not to sound cold, but would your saving get you through for 3 years? I know mine wouldnt.

  104. Re:Why not? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

    You could kill yourself. That way, your angst and anger will no longer bother you. You'll feel much better. Try it. Now!

  105. Re:Why not? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    Well, I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of suicide as I have responsibilities, although I am pleased to say this does not include dependents.

    So tell me, why do you - with the gravitas that comes with a five-digit-uid - feel that recommending my suicide is a better option that lacerating me with a cogent counter-argument?

    In all honesty do I come across as someone who cannot be reasoned with?

    More importantly, is my anger at what I perceive as the undoing of the last shreds of meritocracy in Western society so terribly hard to countenance that I must be put to death as punishment for speaking of it?

    If so then I rightly want no part of your world, Sir.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  106. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    The fact that you don't see describing your mode as brutal as a problem shows you're a bit of a jerk... Sorry, we need to be brutal here, as it's the mode you prefer.

    --
    That is all.
  107. It's nearly a "You have to be there" situation by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Cult members have a difficult time leaving too and they usually have a way out.

    Dogs can break free of their electric fence too... or when the fence is off they can do so easily... yet both situations work quite well at keeping the dog policing it self.

    Modern Psychology is powerful enough to get many people to enslave themselves. It's not perfect, but it only needs to work well enough on enough people. Once caught up in such a situation, it has to be difficult to escape - and since it requires a deeper understanding to really grasp, outsiders will be clueless in their judgements of the victims.

  108. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your lack of decent company doesn't invalidate the other posters' experiences.

  109. Re:Why not? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    You have NO IDEA how fortunate you are. Or how bad things can be.

    During the Great Recession, some people were unemployed for THREE YEARS or more. The Obama Administration had to extend and re-extend unemployment benefits for people. Quite a few of them finally found jobs, but at substantially less pay. So you'd better hope that you really can live for 10 years without a paycheck. And that that "10 years" isn't coming from your retirement savings.

    It's not enough to have a really good skill set or be willing to move about the country like a migrant farm worker. Sometimes you don't know the right people in the right places, have the "perfect" match of skills or cannot manage to live on 120,000 Rupees a year.

    Or worse. you could be over 40.

    Inflation will take your 10 years, and chop it down to one year and a half. And from the stress, medical bills will take over and consume the residual.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  110. Monitoring... by BrianJohns · · Score: 1

    Monitoring productivity in employment can mean just viewing daily or weekly reports and graphs with regard to an employee's output. Just about every employer does it nowadays where IT work is involved and a measurable quantity of processing is needed. HOWEVER. Machine processing and reports very seldom take into consideration the special circumstances of the individual employee. I mean let's face it, when a Manager, Regional Manager or Territory Manager goes over the figures, they're looking at graphs and numbers and there's nothing to reflect the individual employee's circumstance and that's what Macro-management is about. Like in the case of the pregnant worker, there are going to be factors that people and machines should take into consideration. People working in environments where their daily work load is doled out to them via machine reports then tend to regard the people those reports represent as parts of a machine and not people. Even coworkers could possibly become like that in a sort of automated sense that doesn't challenge your sense of right and wrong and stimulate creative thinking in all employees (including Management) instead of focusing on linear productivity from the people who in that sense are parts of the machine. So when the data reflects by some means the individual circumstances of the employee so that those checking the reports or even an automated analysis process is aware that there are special considerations to be taken into account and flags them for a person to know about, then maybe people will *break* out of that *I'm a part of this machine process and I've got to deal with this other part's low performance by either repairing it or replacing it* mode of thinking. We're the most wonderful invention that Mother nature has ever created so far on this planet (better yet, we're tied for first with all the other life and natural processes here). We're incredibly adaptable and flexible and can wrap our magnificent brains around a variety of complex tasks that still baffles even the best of our combined technologies. So when we ignore that, we're really turning our back on the greatest of our potential contribution to a company as an employee. That same idea is ultimately responsible for us regarding parts of the process merely as other parts rather than people. So sometimes those aspects befall employees like our poor pregnant lady here who feels defensive as a result and rightfully so. This however does not represent the overall mandate of the company or Amazon as a matter of fact because it is a side effect of process rather than policy. How do companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter overcome such hurdles? By allowing their employees creative time (during their breaks) and by having a stimulating environment that keeps their minds from going into autopilot. The truth is that we're less when we work on autopilot because our brains are the result of a constantly changing environment. So the problem is likely not policy but rather process and the side effects thereof. But by talking about it, we become aware of the problem and learn not to misidentify it and maybe the company in question then can deal with it better rather than being branded a bad employer by it which wouldn't work out well for that poor lady, or the company either. It's about keeping people so that they remain people while doing their jobs and that means cases in dealing with our fellow employees require us to think rather than running on autopilot. As far as real-time monitoring and that being shared with other employees? I don't agree with that just the same as I don't agree that civilians should be allowed to do it to other civilians in their home space (save hospital, elderly home or legal incarceration where lives may be at stake). In a company I think that monitoring means that Management has access to reports generated by the process groups that employees work under and that should be humanized so that the employee does not become a mere number. A Pregnant Woman is not a number and I think that Amazon knows that and most people do. They just have to get out of that autopilot way of thinking that can arise from productive process. Brian Joseph Johns

  111. Re:No. 13 Disagree and commit sounds like Engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's one thing to criticize ideas or calculations. It's completely different to have a policy of having everyone crack down on ideas regardless of how good they are and then set up an anonymous tipping system where people can black talk (is that right?) others without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

  112. Workplacespeak by AnnaZed · · Score: 1

    Note to Keith Ketzle (the freckled Texan triathlete with an M.B.A. quoted in the article).
    Your assertion, “Conflict brings about innovation;” is (a.) not true and (b.) makes you sound a bit like you've been lobotomized.

  113. I saved BIG TIME. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I has saved money to survive for quite a while. But when you are unemployed for a while, you cannot get a job and you burn through your savings.

    I am very frugal and it wasn't enough.

    And when you are unemployed, you are damaged goods. "If you were any good, you would have a job." Is what I heard time and time again. The fact the my employer was shutting down North American operations and a bunch of us were on the market did not matter to them.

    Tl;dr you are lucky.

  114. Personally, by MPAndonee · · Score: 1

    I found this illuminating:

    https://dcgmentor.wordpress.co...

    --
    Nothing to see here -- move along now...
  115. Re:Why not? by toddestan · · Score: 1

    If I was going to do this, I'd buy a house in a very rural area. A lot of rural areas are in decline as the large mechanized farms means it takes less people to farm, so unless there's some other industry to fall back on (logging, mining, tourism, proximity to a major interstate, etc.) there really isn't a purpose anymore for these small rural towns. The upside would be that I would also have some land to grow a garden and living in the countryside would be rather serene. The downside is that I'd probably still need some income, even if only part time, and the reason the place is cheap in the first place is that there are no jobs to be had. Oh, and the lack of high speed internet.

  116. Re: Why not? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    I haven't had to worry about losing my job for the last 15 years. It's never taken more than a month to find a job as a software developer.

  117. Bania Gandhi tricks by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "If you can't DEFEAT them, INSULT them" --Bania Gandhi

    Fasting/roaming half-naked in streets are cheap tools/tricks used by Bania Gandhi to INSULT (not defeat) British regime during India's struggle for Independence;

  118. Solution by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Tax Corporate Revenues, Not Profits;
    https://wh.gov/ijhBs

  119. Zero-sum by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Unlike Capitalism, Globalization is Zero-sum.
    https://wh.gov/ijhBs

  120. Corporate world by NewYork · · Score: 1

    You cannot survive/succeed in corporate world unless you're a sociopath

  121. Sounds like by NewYork · · Score: 1

    dog eating dog world

  122. Re:Why not? by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Bingo; You made my day;

  123. Re: Why not? by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

    Exactly. actually there's Lower Middle Class, Middle Class, and High Middle class. as it's been said, the upper class the 1% vs those of us 99% is thin, whereas the middle classes are the reasons the 1% exist. So for a company like Amazon and it's subsidiaries, Uber (etc, etc, etc) Apple, Microsoft, and all the way down to small scale retail stores like Fred Meyer or Safeway or Lowes or Home Depot, you're going to those who are "cultish" towards work or you're going to find those who are only there for the paycheck. That being said, if you have the mentality you can survive at Amazon, or any other company where it's tough and you're expected to make results, the people who complain, are those who can't do it and hack it because they expected it to be easy and then left because they don't have the stomach to step up the game like others. If you really want to work for a company like Amazon, but yet you don't want to put in the effort or will, why would you want to work for that company? If you really want to be different and make a change, then start up your own company, it's what everyone else does these days apparently, Kickstarter's great for that. I worked for Amazon in one of it's Fulfillment Facilities, and trust me, the turnover ratio there is big, some people don't last a week.....then again those people came for the money, not realizing what they were getting into because they were desperate for a job. Those that survive in the warehouse, are the same who if given the opportunity would survive at Amazon, because they have the will. I survived the warehouse, because I'm not the type of person who gives up, and I'm used to hard work, I'm 27, and a college graduate with a B.A in literature, paying off my loans so I can get my masters. so the fact that I was willing to work for 13.25 at 10 hours (11 during peak) from 6:30 pm to 5 am in the morning speaks to the fact that it takes maturity and brains to succeed in this job market. If you're not willing to do that, then hey, go work fast food, they pay you 15.50 to do mindless work that a high school drop out can do. If you want good hard honest days work, then apply yourself, go to school and not drop out.

    --
    Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  124. First things first by NewYork · · Score: 1
  125. Re:Why not? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    One of the few bright lights in a financially miserable decade has been low inflation, So I wouldn't worry too much there. Although things did start climbing again a year or 2 back.

    But you did point out a double-whammy. When you're living off savings, you're probably not only spending interest/dividends that you'd otherwise re-invest, you're likely bleeding principal, thus reducing future income in an accelerating spiral. Unless you've got enough assets exclusive of home and auto that the income on assets alone is sufficient. Probably about $2Million or so, depending on your expected standard of living. Which is more than you're likely to sock away working for 10 years on the average US job.

    And, as you also pointed out, in America your likelihood of having insurance in the event of medical issues arising has been very dependent on having a job. At least until recently.

  126. Re:Why not? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    So, he said, "kill yourself", in response to your "kill everyone, me first" and he's the one with no cogent agument?

    To your original point, there is alot of anger and resentment building. The generation that started working in the late 90's was too late for everything.
    Every job I've had was full of stories about how we used to get raises, or used to get bonuses, or used to have spectacular parties at work. We get the 1.5% raises, $10 gas cards, and potluck pitch-ins.
    We've put in the time an energy at the bottom, only to see the top lopped off or have the door barred. For every person who had parents who enabled them to start a debt-free life (or, maybe an Uncle... Uncle Sam). There are 10 who got shit on by life and struggled on. It does breed resentment, especially when your told that you made wrong decisions. Often, there was no decision to be made.

    Hopefully our society can redress these issues while they are only angry rumblings. The young and hard working want things to get better, but there are alot of old and bitter who like things the way they are and will do anything, even elect Trump, to keep it that way.

  127. Re:Why not? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Inflation on services, education, healthcare, and housing has been out of control. Even food can fluctuate wildly.

  128. Re:Why not? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    So, he said, "kill yourself", in response to your "kill everyone, me first" and he's the one with no cogent agument?

    Are you telling me, with a straight face, that you cannot see a difference between the two concepts?

    Your disagreement with the sentiment is no basis to dismiss it as a nonsense.

    To your original point, there is alot of anger and resentment building. The generation that started working in the late 90's was too late for everything.

    I haven't heard it put that succinctly before, but yes, I was one of those people and there's plenty of anger here.

    Every job I've had was full of stories about how we used to get raises, or used to get bonuses,

    This was also my experience. Everything was always better 'before'.

    That's not the nub of it though. I'm pretty liberal, which to me means 'live and let live' but that's just not in fashion any more. Those who have always wanted to interfere in peoples lives now seem to have the power to do so quite effectively. We also can't discuss facts a lot of the time because of this stinking 'right to not be offended' mindset.

    Progressives are gaining even more power and they want to give away even more money belonging to other people. The world feels used up to me. I'm sick of the Human race; what we've become and what we're becoming next. The people with the power are, as you say, quite happy with the status quo. We will not get our shit together, we will fight each other, AGAIN.

    As always, the entire biosphere and the beautiful forms of life we have on this planet will suffer along with us when we do.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  129. Boozo In Major Search And Destroy Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Boozo, Amazon Lord, is now back-peddeling like crazy and in on a major Search-And-Destroy killing spree within Amazon (US). For Bezos the best way to beat the bad pub is to search out the perps within Amazon US, fire them, sue for damages, get them to kill themselves, or with a little help payed for by Bezos otherwise.

    The other bad press could hit from Amazon Southeast Asia where three-year old children are employed and payed in oranges.

    Bed Time For Boozo (Bezos) for sure.

    Ha ha

    1. Re:Boozo In Major Search And Destroy Mode by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

      Well if that's the case, then I'm sure we'll here about it, or not... This whole article was because someone was disillusioned and quit, and decided to stay this is the whole way that Amazon is. From what I see there, it's not. people are like fish on these boards.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  130. Re:Why not? by AtariEric · · Score: 1

    I, too was born into a poor family - but no grades, no matter how good, could make college affordable to me, and no degree will ever make me acceptable to employers, no matter no good I program. You don't know how lucky you are not to be the subject of prejudice.

    --
    Don't trust any concentration of power.
  131. working at amazon by perih60 · · Score: 1

    long story short , my mother did not allow us to study , so over a working live starting at 14 , if a job went against my believes ( not religeos ) i found another job , ( a bit like tesla , who after digging ditches for a while , because his employer cheated him ( edison )! in my case this has meant that i am now qualified in 3 trades , and one kind employer trained me to manage small firms . i did not complain , try to tell my bosses how to run their firms , if not happy i quit . found great employers as well ! two in particular , when i was 19 , 40 years later we are still mates , i can never thank them enough !

    --
    the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
  132. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, black?