Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Is Cutting Hundreds of Corporate Jobs (techcrunch.com)

According to a Seattle Times report, Amazon is laying off hundreds of corporate workers in its Seattle headquarters and elsewhere. "The corporate cuts come after an eight-year hiring spree, taking the company from 5,000 in 2010 to 40,000 in its Seattle headquarters and gobbling up several retail businesses throughout the country," reports TechCrunch. From the report: However, according to the report, Amazon's rising employee numbers over the last two years left some departments over budget and with too many staff on hand. In the last few months, the company implemented hiring freezes to stem the flow of new workers, cutting the number of open positions in half from the 3,500 listed last Summer. The layoffs will mainly focus on Amazon's Seattle office, but there have already been cuts in some of its retail subsidiaries in other parts of the country, such as the Las Vegas-based online footwear retailer Zappos, which had to lay off 30 people recently. And the company behind Diapers.com, Quidsi, had to cut more than 250 jobs a year ago. The moves suggest Amazon may be trying to rein in spending and consolidate some of its retail businesses.

61 comments

  1. Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are being replaced by "Corporate Robots" - marginally safer than "incorporated robots".

  2. This is very confusing to me... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    I thought Amazon was going around the country to find a place for they're second headquarters where they promised 50,000 jobs.

    So are they cutting a bunch of middle managers and these 50k jobs are going to be all tech centric?

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not sure what is confusing for you here. You can be cutting unnecessary staff while still growing or having growth plans. You don't keep unnecessary positions just because you are growing.

    2. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not sure what is confusing for you here. You can be cutting unnecessary staff while still growing or having growth plans. You don't keep unnecessary positions just because you are growing.

      It also helps to sucker governments in to handing you a bunch of tax breaks if you can promise to hire a bunch of people and fulfill that promise by putting the equivalent number of people on the street in the last town where you ran your scam.

    3. Re:This is very confusing to me... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      as someone who worked there they have like 12 different manager levels just to manage 1 floor. they have alot of unnecessary jobs for the sake of jobs. its good there finely cutting that out.

    4. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government...

      TRUTH!

    5. Re:This is very confusing to me... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Wow. "Hundreds" are not in most common usage the equivalent number to 50,000. Once "hundreds" become "thousands" or "tens of thousands" usually it is reported as such instead of 500 "hundreds".

      Or we can wait for 499 more articles just like this one, then they will be equivalent.

    6. Re:This is very confusing to me... by gravewax · · Score: 2

      Government is a completely different rotting barrel of fish. With government they just hire more staff to do the work that the incompetents can't do while keeping them employed as unions can't possibly accept a public servant as being sacked for being useless.

    7. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried to recruit me, but I ignored them because of persistent rumors off cutthroat and crappy culture. Who needs it? Now this happens. Maybe they should have been paying more attention to their financials instead of building a fucking indoor jungle in the middle of downtown Seattle. I mean Christ, who wastes money on that kind of crap? Why not just skip the indoor jungle and raise take home pay or give out bonuses or maybe not engage in random mass firings. If Amazon is trying to attract workers, I'd say that they're doing it wrong.

    8. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I did 5 weeks there as a contractor and begged the recruiter out.

      Not my culture. F* that place.

      That said I still buy almost exclusively from amazon.com

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    9. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't the positions that are getting cut.

    10. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they're just trimming the fat so they can bring on new recent grads and h1b holders, both of which work for peanuts compared to someone who's been with the company awhile.

    11. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Fuck unions, with their lazy "40-hour work weeks", Communist "workers rights", degenerate "vacation time", and their deplorable "health and safety standards". Fuck them! I mean, who doesn't want to go back to 19th century factory working conditions?

    12. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh yes typical union response, can't possibly be a middle ground where you can sack incompetents, it is always all about taking away everyones rights.

    13. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have they done lately?

    14. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought all these corporate tax cuts would lead to all sorts of new job hiring (positions) and raises.

      Do you mean to tell me that cutting corporate tax rates doesn't directly or even proportionally translate to money invested into workers? I don't believe it.

    15. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this one example set by Bezos (who happens to own the left wing Washington Post, BTW) completely negates all the companies actually investing and giving out bonuses.
      Companies that severely over extended themselves or have been circling the drain for years (Sears, Kmart) are not going to have everything magically fixed by the tax cuts.
      Welcome to reality.

    16. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh yes typical union response, can't possibly be a middle ground where you can sack incompetents, it is always all about taking away everyones rights.

      Yeah it's this strawman "all or nothing" crap that only prevents actual resolutions from being made.

    17. Re:This is very confusing to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On you first day as a Government GS worker you are assigned a contractor to do the work for you...

  3. Probably long overdue by ranton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Probably long overdue by geekmux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.

      If you're not properly managing under-performers to turn them into performers, you're doing it wrong.

      Some under-performers cannot be fixed. If you're not weeding those out in the first 90 days of employment, you're doing it wrong.

      Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition, because you can't fucking stop doing it wrong.

    2. Re:Probably long overdue by luther349 · · Score: 1

      the problem with amazon is so many layers of management and favoritism uts not about the top preforming employee but who kisses the most ass.

    3. Re:Probably long overdue by luther349 · · Score: 1

      if you walk in during there holiday hiring spree thinking your going to have a job 3 months later your doing it wrong. and relly for your own sanity you dont wanna be there more then a few months.

    4. Re: Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they're firing the people who are doing it wrong.
      In this case, the issue is simply a matter of middle management bloat. They can't "do it right" because there's nothing for them to actually do.

    5. Re: Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and they're firing the people who are doing it wrong.
      In this case, the issue is simply a matter of middle management bloat. They can't "do it right" because there's nothing for them to actually do.

      This company has done nothing but grow since members of middle management were hired. That means the business has not shrunk to create a problem of "nothing to do". If you fail to justify the people you're hiring, you're doing it wrong.

    6. Re:Probably long overdue by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition,

      Except in Amazon's case, they are extinguishing most of their competition. So there's nowhere for them to go.

    7. Re:Probably long overdue by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You presume that they were at the top of their game at Amazon, whose business model surrounds finding high-margin industries, and sucking away the distribution to attempt to use supply chain and logistics and increased selection to justify margins. Take any of those pieces away, and Amazon leaves that industry segment alone.

      Amazon is NOT starting at the top, and so there IS some place for them to go. Amazon is far more of a McJob than they'll admit.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a big problem that we have thanks to the constant gobbling up of smaller business to larger ones.

      No matter how you slice it the larger a business gets the fewer people it needs as a % of the work force to do many jobs, small company say 25 people 1/2 person is needed to manage HR/pay roll in a company of 50-100 people 1 person is usually still all that is needed. The company I work for has around 20 HR/payroll people for ~ 6000 employees.

      There are a lot of jobs like this and no amount of middle management bloat that is going to overcome these losses.

    9. Re:Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, never underestimate environmental reasons for so-called "under-performance". If you consistently pick 1 winner out of 10, you consistently create and maintain a culture of losing majority.

      Either you suck at hiring and you don't train, or you're a scumbag not worth your time here on this lovely planet of love.

    10. Re:Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with amazon is so many layers of management and favoritism uts not about the top preforming employee but who kisses the most ass.

      Sounds just like every other corporate job lol

    11. Re:Probably long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding ding! We have a winner.

  4. This is why I skipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have been offered a number of opportunities to interview for Amazon, but have not interviewed with them at all, for concerns of this nature and other reasons.

    There's no reason for me to put my head on the chopping block for such a large, impersonal business where I've heard one too many stories about how they drive their engineers to work long hours at a level of high performance that seems unsustainable long-term. I'll keep my quality-focused job instead and not worry about burnout and layoffs.

    1. Re:This is why I skipped by luther349 · · Score: 1

      there interview is show us your ged/hsd and your hired. you litterly sit down with 50 other guys at once.

    2. Re:This is why I skipped by gravewax · · Score: 1

      while I don't like Amazon and I doubt I would work for them either, BUT this sort of practise is the sign of a healthy business not bad one. The worst type of company to work for is one that doesn't get rid of the dead wood.

    3. Re:This is why I skipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like Amazon? I bet you don't like Facebook? Man you're cool.

    4. Re:This is why I skipped by gravewax · · Score: 1

      facebook bugs the shit out of me too, but Amazon I don't buy from them or use any service from them, I vote with my wallet when I see a company that uses business tactics that I believe are not in my long term interests. Feel free fawn all over them, I am sure you think you are cool, personally I don't give a shit whether I am.

    5. Re:This is why I skipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have been looking for a crap job at a FC...what you're saying is completely ludicrous otherwise.

    6. Re:This is why I skipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      litterly

      You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  5. Re: but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all went to the poor and middle class and left nothing for those who need it most: the unfortunate fabulously wealthy and the humble megacorp.

  6. Re: but, but, but ... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Ahh the poor. "... those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies."

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  7. Re: but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or rent and food.

  8. Re: but, but, but ... by luther349 · · Score: 2

    well as someone who worked there they litterly hire anyone with a degree. there turnovers are way to insane for them to be picky. the issue is with the hire ups they have way to many that are the same job renamed 12 different times.

  9. Re: but, but, but ... by luther349 · · Score: 1

    yep a single guy with no kids or gf cant even afford rents these days.

  10. Re:but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, pray tell, do tax cuts have to do with firing useless people?

    Sorry, Amazon has no obligation to gibyoudat just because you're incompetent.

  11. Re: but, but, but ... by sheramil · · Score: 2

    well as someone who worked there they litterly hire anyone with a degree.

    Just curious - what was your degree in? Please tell me it was literature.

  12. Or it could just be by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    a result of normal business cycles. The holiday season has passed and is over for now. But it will ramp back up and there maybe a hiring increase again.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  13. HQ Related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the are moving the HQ, then I'd image some fat trimming anyways.

  14. Laying off Hundreds? Sooooooo? by GregMmm · · Score: 2

    If you have ~40,000 employees, laying off hundreds seems like the normal hiring process. People come and go. Also, if you want to get rid of business groups who under perform or are not the focus of the business anymore, you remove those jobs. Then hire in other areas. Common practice in large organizations. Not sure how this really is a story. I'm not even touching on the seasonal aspect of their business.

    On the other hand, if they were laying off say 10% of peeps in Seattle, then you have a story.

  15. Re: but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe he got his degree in proving the Caine-Hackman theory

  16. Re: but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like a real garbage degree.

  17. H1B Reduction by richman555 · · Score: 2

    Well hopefully they are reducing their H1B visa workers first.

  18. Re: but, but, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're working in tech in Seattle, with no kids, gf, or wife and have no money, then you're also doing it wrong. Trade that trendy little apartment in that trendy little neighborhood for a house you can afford to buy in Pierce county and take the commuter train to work.

  19. Hampton Deville should have seen that coming by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    :).

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Hampton Deville should have seen that coming by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      As far as I am over-clarifying all my not-too-evident post for the (unfortunately) huge number of poorly-understanding individuals, note that Corporate is a new very funny TV series (the one referred in the Wikipedia article linked from the aforementioned smiley) about a fictitious company called Hampton Deville. The title of this article is "Amazon Is Cutting Hundreds of Corporate Jobs" and that's why "Hampton Deville should have seen that coming" was meant to be funny because of playing with the unintended double meaning of "corporate" (generic adjective vs. the name of that TV show). It was just moderately funny, that's why I put ":)" rather than "LOL". Just a relaxed pun also meant to let anyone interested about that new looking-really-good-so-far show. Any person having still problems to understand the exact meaning of that previous post should better avoid dealing with me. Thanks. LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  20. Re: but, but, but ... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Rich Hillaryists sure do have contempt for ordinary working people.

  21. Mass firings can serve a 2nd purpose by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Just ask IBM - They reduce costs to prop up stock value.

  22. read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It likely has NOTHING to due with profits or efficiency. The internal amazonian "old fart tool" uses DynamoDB and is about to run our of table space.
    hahaha. Amazon is the devil! and Jeffy Bozo reminds me of that bald obnoxious fella from The Princess Bride.

  23. Corporate HQ by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Um isn't Amazon looking to move it's HQ soon? Makes sense to go through a few boxes to get rid of what you don't need before you drag it to the new pad...

    I'd guess this is all part of the same corporate process.