Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Is Raising Some Workers' Pay Further, Adding Bonuses After Controversy (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Amazon is sweetening the pay for some of its longtime warehouse workers after employees criticized the loss of bonuses and stock awards as part of the company's pledge to boost all wages to at least $15 an hour. The world's largest online retailer grabbed headlines last week with its minimum-pay pledge -- followed by concerns from veteran workers who feared their compensation would actually decline because the company also eliminated bonuses and stock awards. Amazon said any workers already earning $15 would get raises of $1 per hour. Now, some of those employees are learning their hourly raises will actually be $1.25 an hour. Additionally, Amazon is introducing a new cash bonus of $1,500 to $3,000 for tenure milestones at five, 10, 15 and 20 years. Workers with good attendance in the month of December will also get a $100 bonus, according to the company. "All hourly Operations and Customer Service employees will see an increase in their total compensation as a result of this announcement," Amazon said in a statement. "The significant increase in hourly cash wages effective Nov. 1 more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and future (stock) grants."

112 comments

  1. Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    pay and benefits. Most of my friends here in Seattle work for Amazon, and they make less than market, are expected to work 60+ hours a week, be on call 24/7, and aren't allowed vacation time unless they're from Asia.

    1. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They must like it since they donâ(TM)t go elsewhere.

    2. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > unless they're from Asia

      I understand that flights to India or China are expensive and take a lot of time so you want a minimum of two weeks off, but it just sucks for workers from America. I haven't had a full week off since 1993 when I had my first job out of college. Just sucks that we're not allowed time off and they get a lot of time off every year. My Indian friends that work at amazon.com all get at least two weeks off a year while my friends that are local only get a long weekend off here or there. I currently work for a Microsoft vendor based out of India that allows all Indian employees two weeks off contiguous while they don't allow any locals to take any time off since we have to take-up the slack while they're gone. We have to work even harder and get basically no time off. I'm diabetic so I need to see my doctor, but I've had to cancel every single appointment I've had for over three years due to one reason or another. I need to see my doctor.

    3. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "less than market" is right. I live on Dexter in SLU near amazon.com's new buildings so I applied there. It's nice to be able to walk to work and walk home for lunch, but it just sucks making so much less.

    4. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The lack of vacation time except for Asians is pretty normal in the Seattle area. I grew up in Seattle and graduated from Univ of Washington with a CS degree in 1989, and I haven't had an entire week off my entire adult life but most of my coworkers from India have always been allowed two or more weeks off. Yes, I understand the hassle of 24+ hours of travel time and the expense to take you entire family home, but it's unfair to the rest of us. In addition, requesting time off from amazon.com just sucks. I've been trying to see my eye doctor to get new glasses for almost five years. I keep making appointments, and my time off either gets denied or it's approved then later denied since something comes up. It sucks that the company plus myself pays so much for vision coverage, but I can't use it.

    5. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      sounds like you need an union!

    6. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like he is full of shit.

    7. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lack of vacation time except for Asians"

      It's like that everywhere in tech.

    8. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All for a company that sells other peoples stuff. Must make you proud.

    9. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you waiting for, death?

    10. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Dude...get a real job.

    11. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Thirty years in the industry and you have not learned any balance or the abilityto say "I need a couple weeks off"? Sure as hell would not hire you as an engineer let alone as a box packer.

    12. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need to get approved time off for a Dr's appointment? And you're presumably an "exempt" status employee?

      I'd never work for a company like that. It's complete and utter trash.

      Salaried, exempt staff, by definition are supposed to have a basic level of autonomy.

      Perhaps it's time to speak up for yourself, get a real vacation approved and take it no matter what. Once it's approved the discussion is simply: "I made plans. I won't be in."

      If they decide to later deny it or terminate you, so much the better. Keep the approval email and collect unemployment and/or sue for wrongful termination. IANAL, but most states have mandatory sick (including Washington) and pto time... not allowing you to take it is essentially a violation of the law. If you have a 30 year written history of this behavior, so much the better.

      Any employer/manager of decent quality knows that vacation time is vital for employee performance. Allowing folks to go (frankly more than a year) without _at least_ 2 weeks off is usually disastrous.

    13. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol fag

    14. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would anyone work under these conditions?

      I've never worked ANYWHERE with any policy other than "You get X amount of time off, when you take it is up to you - pretty much."

      My current company gives everyone a month of PTO - and you have the option to buy another week. We're hiring, 3 devs, right now.

    15. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the problem? Obviously your friends are happy to work for Amazon (if they weren't happy, they'd leave) so what's it to you, if they happen to enjoy such challenges? Maybe your friends are workaholics so you just don't understand them.

    16. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They must like it since they donâ(TM)t go elsewhere.

      Not really. They're gone one way or another in 18 months on the average, either by job hopping, perhaps internally, or by being fired. Much of Amazon is all about putting in that work only to pad your resume for the next job, vacation between jobs, and then repeating the process till they have built up a resume to get the career they want. At least, that is how the people I've known at Amazon have treated it.

    17. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Dude...get a real job.

      You mean other than being a Russian AC troll? I've been in the tech industry in Seattle for 25 years now. Taking three weeks off for Burning Man every year is more common than never being able to get time off for an eye exam.

    18. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "Most of my friends here in Seattle work for Amazon, and they make less than market"

      If that's what Amazon is paying, it sounds like it IS the market and paying accordingly.

    19. Re:Wish they would do something about engineer... by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "I've been trying to see my eye doctor to get new glasses for almost five years."

      That sounds more like slavery than a job. You know some places are open nights and weekends. Or do they make you work 24/7 as well?

    20. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU you can't legally have so little paid time off.

  2. $3k !!!!! by rfengr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $3k bonus after 20 years! Woot! That’ll pay for the knee replacements!

    1. Re: $3k !!!!! by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

    2. Re:$3k !!!!! by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This just shows the problem with creating a really high minimum wage. Everyone who was already making that amount will want a raise, too. If half your employees already make $15/hr, and half make the actual minimum ($7 something), then giving half your employees a raise to $15/hr will only make the other half unhappy.

      "I had to work here 10 years to get up to $15/hr. Now they're paying newbs who walk in the door on day 1 the same amount I'm making after ten years ... how unfair is that?"

      And complaining that they get a $3000 bonus after working ten years, oh my, how unfair is that! Paying for knee replacements is a health insurance issue. Worker's comp in many places. Worker's Comp in Oregon is so much better than health insurance because there is no deductable and no "in network" for care. You get a bill for a service for a worker's comp claim you send it to SAIF and they pay it. You have to drive 60 miles to see a specialist? You submit a milage claim and they pay it.) When I got my last worker's comp claim approved, they sent me a stack of reimbursement forms preprinted with my info, all I have to do is fill in the amounts and mail them back.

      I hope Amazon loves the results of their social experiment. It will only prove to them how over-employeed they are and push for even more automation, like the Japanese warehouse that cut its employees by 90% after automating.

    3. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woot! Go to college and pick a better career, or barely get through high school and pack boxes! Woot!

    4. Re:$3k !!!!! by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "This just shows the problem with creating a really high minimum wage. Everyone who was already making that amount will want a raise, too."

      It's only a problem in the immediate context and really it's only a problem because clearly employees were being under paid, thus Amazon's raising their internal minimum wage. If employees were paid properly so this sudden adjustment didn't need to be made this wouldn't be a problem.

      "I hope Amazon loves the results of their social experiment. It will only prove to them how over-employed they are and push for even more automation, like the Japanese warehouse that cut its employees by 90% after automating."

      Of course Amazon's big problem right now is a labor shortage due to low unemployment. Make no mistake, this wage change has absolutely nothing to do with altruism, it has everything to do with making themselves competitive at their lowest levels with McDonald's.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or stop sucking at life... Case in point, I dropped out of high school and never packed boxes. 18 years after dropping out I currently have a base salary of 121k, a well funded 401k and a fancy, fully funded HSA. All this while supporting a family of four. Eat it box packers. Pickup a book and learn something.

    6. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because workers comp is like that where you live, don't assume its like that for most of the U.S. My wife used to work at a nursing home where they chronically understaffed. While lifting a patient that should have been a two person lift (but they only had one person for that wing), my wife hurt her back. Two separate doctors recommended getting an MRI but workers compensation required preapproval and they refused to approve it. They also refused to approve other procedures strongly recommended by the doctors. To this day she has back trouble that multiple doctors have said was avoidable if she had been treated properly. Unfortunately, our health insurance refused to cover it as it fell under worker's compensation.

    7. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christopher Dale Reimer (aka creimer, The Original CDR, etc.) has been identified by JSOC as a Russian troll.

      The Reimer family is typically from the Eastern part of Germany and it has been found that Chris have maintained contacts with homeland influencial people.

      I would like to point out that East Germany was communist and controlled by Russia (CCCP) before Ronald Reagan took USSR apart.

      I can confirm this is true, see creimer East German beard pictures below:

      Creimy's real pictures:
      Before the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
      After the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/gVad65

      And his obviously nazi father picture here, he converted to communism after the war:

      https://ibb.co/mHCKB9

    8. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my Christmas bonus after taxes. I get one every year. Not that I'm bragging. :p

      Bullshit creimer, you are a top notch bragger and everybody on Slashdot knows it!

      You even brag about saving your father life with a single vote because you voted for a given governor! What a delusional dummy bragger!

      How My Vote For A 1988 California Cigarette Tax Saved My Father's Life

      https://ibb.co/mHCKB9

    9. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pickup a book and learn something.

      You could start by learning the difference between "pickup" (noun) and "pick up" (verb). Note that they are not pronounced identically.

    10. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a troll mod. You should get one for every post. Not that we're bragging. :p

    11. Re:$3k !!!!! by cre1mer · · Score: 0

      You even brag about saving your father life with a single vote because you voted for a given governor!

      Too bad you didn't watch my video. You might have learned something. I didn't "vote for a given governor!" I voted for Proposition 99 in 1988. A cigarette tax that forced my father to quit smoking because he didn't want to pay $2 per pack. Californian smokers pay $8+ per pack today. Because he quit smoking after 34 years, he died at 75 instead of 60 as his older brothers did. What's ironic is that my father and uncles smuggled untaxed cigarettes from Oregon to Southern California and sold cartons from the trunk of their car to construction workers in Los Angeles after World War II.

    12. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be more wrong. Read this.

    13. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my Christmas bonus after taxes. I get one every year. Not that I'm bragging. :p

      And you shouldn't be. That's tiny.

    14. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, this wage change has absolutely nothing to do with altruism, it has everything to do with making themselves competitive at their lowest levels with McDonald's.

      And why is this bad... Competition is pushing the "little man" to higher qualities of life. Free markets are driving better results than some federal/local minimum wage requirement.

    15. Re:$3k !!!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be more wrong.

      Tell it to the 60k people in Ontario who lost their job when the minimum wage was increased by $2.40/hr. Ontario bumped it's min. wage from $11.60 to $14/hr in one year, the estimates...estimates were 60k jobs lost by 2019. The reality was so much worse, you can find the usual sites like vox, vice, huffpo all falling over themselves that min. wage hikes really don't kill jobs. The fact that Ontario accounted for 68% of all jobs lost in Canada tells a different story, speaking of which out of those 60k people who lost their jobs? Most are still unemployed 9ish months later. Round it out that job growth is flat, and companies are finding it more cost competitive to operate in the US then Canada even with the 30% difference between the CAD and USD.

      Yep...just working out really well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:$3k !!!!! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      No, it shows the problem with increasing minimum wage by a large amount once every 10 years, which is basically what the US has been doing since 1980, instead of having small increases every 1-2 years. You can argue that $15/hour is too high, but based on the past 50 years or so, minimum wage should be around $10/hour now. In the 1960's and 1970's, minimum wage went up 10 cents almost every year (up to 20-25 cents per year by 1980). After 1980, it went up every 10 years instead (except for one shorter gap of 5 years in the 1990's), with a larger increase spread over 2-3 years.

      The last increase was 2007-2009, with a total increase of about 40% from the previous minimum wage from 1997. So we're due for another 40% increase, which would bring it up to about $10/hour.

      Minimum wage data

    17. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Minimum wage hikes do cost some jobs, but most people who get laid off find employment again within 6 months, and for minimum wage workers, at a better rate of pay on account of the minimum wage hike.

      Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?

    18. Re:$3k !!!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Minimum wage hikes do cost some jobs, but most people who get laid off find employment again within 6 months, and for minimum wage workers, at a better rate of pay on account of the minimum wage hike.

      In theory those people find work. But look to the US, where people were unemployed so long they fell right off the official stats. Here in Ontario, we've shed nearly 400k good paying middle income jobs because of the policies of the previous government. The anti-manufacturing, pro-service industry crap hurt a lot of people.

      Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?

      That depends. The problem right now is that wages haven't kept pace with inflation like they have in the past. Wages in the US for example were so flat that some people who were employed 15 years ago are now just seeing their wages outpace inflation. Round it out that companies like amazon are deliberately deflating wages, and act in a way to stop people from unionizing for sample is far more serious then say raising the minimum wage.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?

      If they accept it, then that means they have decided it's fair. It's almost as though these people know more than you about how much money they need to live on.

      Why do some people want to run other peoples' lives? Isn't the entire purpose of government to prevent people like you, from fucking up other peoples' consensual arrangements?

    20. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?

      That depends.

      Wrong answer.

      The problem right now is that wages haven't kept pace with inflation like they have in the past.

      Of course... and the solution to this is to start actually paying people fairly, not to compound the problem by not paying them right just because it might cause a momentary dip in the highest paid's bottom line who could afford it anyways. In the long run, the improvements in productivity that result from better wages more than make up for the financial losses. Ford figured that out a century ago.

    21. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No, if they accept it, it more likely means that it's the best that they are able to do because everyone else is too cheap to pay them a decent wage in the first place, and the only way to force people to pay better is to mandate it, by law.

    22. Re:$3k !!!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wrong answer.

      No, that's the right answer. Regulation in general works in a negative way, especially in countries where a company can simply close up shop, export the job production and continue selling in that same country.

      Of course... and the solution to this is to start actually paying people fairly, not to compound the problem by not paying them right just because it might cause a momentary dip in the highest paid's bottom line who could afford it anyways. In the long run, the improvements in productivity that result from better wages more than make up for the financial losses. Ford figured that out a century ago.

      And how do you determine what is "fair" to pay a person for their labor? Right, and that's your wrong answer wrapped up into a tidy bundle. The theory your proposing hasn't worked out anywhere at all, and in fact acts in a negative fashion.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If a job is so menial that it doesn't justify paying a person to do it a decent wage if they are doing it full time, then it's not a job that should be done by people at all.

      If that's not an option, then if society still needs the job to be done, then it follows that it must be worth paying someone a decent wage to do it... and how mundane anyone else might find that job to be is irrelevant.

      To suggest otherwise is to treat people who work at such low paying jobs as less than human.

    24. Re:$3k !!!!! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We graduate 1.5 STEM students from college for every entry-level STEM job opening.

      Now, tell me again how going to college and picking the supposedly "hot" degree will ensure high pay.

    25. Re:$3k !!!!! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You might want to re-read your links, as they don't really say what you claim they do.

      But even taking your claims on face value, 60,000 represents 0.4% of Ontario's total population. The remaining 99.6% is better off (overall wages for the province are up), as will be that 60,000 in the long run. That's a pretty good trade-off.

    26. Re:$3k !!!!! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This just shows the problem with creating a really high minimum wage.

      Few things are quite as American as describing an increased standard of living for the working class as a "problem".

      Everyone who was already making that amount will want a raise, too.

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      I hope Amazon loves the results of their social experiment. It will only prove to them how over-employeed they are and push for even more automation

      Do you like your corporatist boots black, or do you like them with a bit of sugar? Amazon would be pursuing robotic automation whether they were paying $15 or $1.50 an hour. As soon as it's feasible, mass production will commence immediately and most of their human warehouse staff would be laid off regardless. So maybe not be such a tool for a man that could pay for free college in the United States and end world hunger all by himself, and not even notice unless his accountants told him of the reduction in his net worth?

    27. Re:$3k !!!!! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Tell it to the 60k people in Ontario who lost their job when the minimum wage was increased by $2.40/hr.

      Problem: the "job losses" opponents of minimum wage cry about are almost entirely due to people being able to work at one or two jobs to get by, instead of two or three. As for the remainder, if your business doesn't pay a living wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist. And you never talk about the job increases due to all the money going into local economies, because workers have more money to spend, i.e. there's more demand, the source of all jobs. Not giving capitalist scumfucks more cash in case some if it trickles down to a prole.

    28. Re:$3k !!!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If a job is so menial that it doesn't justify paying a person to do it a decent wage if they are doing it full time, then it's not a job that should be done by people at all.

      Really? Seems to me most people like to have purpose in their lives, like to work. Many of those menial jobs, were filled by people who failed education or have mental problems. Gives them a chance to function in society, work with people, humanizes them.

      If that's not an option, then if society still needs the job to be done, then it follows that it must be worth paying someone a decent wage to do it... and how mundane anyone else might find that job to be is irrelevant.

      This is wrong. The definition of "decent wage" is never defined, a person who works as a janitor will never make the same as a person who's a line selector. But both jobs have value to the person in question.

      To suggest otherwise is to treat people who work at such low paying jobs as less than human.

      No, to treat a person being paid such a job is a sign of arrogance and the belief that's all they can ever amount to.

      Besides, I have strong idea that I know where your entire reasoning is going to end up. Some form of "basic income" project, and believing that it would solve all social ills. Let me tell you a thing about that, Canada has been operating a basic income plan for natives for nearly 100 years at this point, they get money and are required to do nothing. You know what this has led to?

      Social decay, cultural decay, moral decay. There's no desire to improve because you always get the money. Drug abuse is rampant, other forms of substance abuse is rampant. I'm sure you heard about the "inquiry into missing native women" or whatever it's called too. A FYI, that's the second one...the results were the same as the first one. All those missing native girls and women? Killed mainly by other natives, entire problem swept under the rug. To make matters worse, this independent inquiry which was made mainly made up by natives then decided it wasn't important anymore because it cast their entire culture in a bad light. To put simply, they refused to be introspective of why things were as they were.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re:$3k !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Seems to me most people like to have purpose in their lives, like to work.

      There is little evidence to support this, but plenty of counter-evidence.

      Throughout history, most people have demonstrated to be a bunch of lazy selfish fools who submit themselves to whoever can promise them more shit - preferably free shit.

      Most people are also cowards who would submit themselves to the strong rather than fight for freedom.

      Most people fall prey to mob mentality and other bugs of the human mind, leading them to believe in superstition, lies from charismatic con men, etc.

      Most people in history work not because it gives them meaning, but because of the fear of starving and/or punishment from their superiors. They might even hate their jobs, and buy lottery tickets every week hoping they'd hit jackpot so they won't have to work ever again (of course such people usually blow away any their winnings)

      Most people are content with bread and circuses - a phrase coined as early as ancient Rome.

      America prides its mythos of being exceptional for not doing those things, because it would be the exception, not the rule, of history.

      Many of those menial jobs, were filled by people who failed education or have mental problems. Gives them a chance to function in society, work with people, humanizes them.

      Nonsense, those jobs were filled by lazy bums who are where they are because of poor life choices, and if given the choice, would rather spend all day getting high or playing video games. They're the reason the right opposes UBI (like you did, in the rest of your post)

    30. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The definition of "decent wage" is never defined....

      I would define as being, at a bare minimum, whatever "living wage" is presently defined at.

      ... a person who works as a janitor will never make the same as a person who's a line selector.

      I never suggested they should be paid the same. I suggested that they should both be making a decent wage, which means that they are both making *AT LEAST* enough money to functionally live on (if they are working full time, that is... if they are not, then the amount they make should be proportionally less), independently, in society without further depending on any government assistance or subsidization.

      Besides, I have strong idea that I know where your entire reasoning is going to end up. Some form of "basic income" project, and believing that it would solve all social ills.

      Not even a little bit, no.... Honestly, while I do have pretty strong socialist leanings, I would posiitvely *NOT* advocate a UBI in our current society. I can imagine it may ultimately become necessary at some point in time, but I think that if it does, society itself will have already changed in whatever major ways were necessary for it to actually work. Not that I know precisely what these ways are, but I know that we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be even in my grandchildren's lifetime, let alone mine.

    31. Re:$3k !!!!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I would define as being, at a bare minimum, whatever "living wage" is presently defined at.

      That's called "the poverty line" and the minimum wage is generally pretty close to that level. That also means $15/hr in san fran, ca for example will mean you're poorer then the person working in macon, ga at $8/hr.

      I never suggested they should be paid the same. I suggested that they should both be making a decent wage, which means that they are both making *AT LEAST* enough money to functionally live on (if they are working full time, that is... if they are not, then the amount they make should be proportionally less), independently, in society without further depending on any government assistance or subsidization.

      Except that's where this always ends up in this line of reasoning. A "decent wage" is variable to the person. If I lived in Toronto, Ontario and was making $120k/year I'd barely be making ends meet, that's around $55/hr. On the other hand if I live in Ingersoll, Ontario and making $120k/year I'd be exceptionally wealthy. That's about three times the median income.

      Not even a little bit, no.... Honestly, while I do have pretty strong socialist leanings, I would posiitvely *NOT* advocate a UBI in our current society. I can imagine it may ultimately become necessary at some point in time, but I think that if it does, society itself will have already changed in whatever major ways were necessary for it to actually work. Not that I know precisely what these ways are, but I know that we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be even in my grandchildren's lifetime, let alone mine.

      That's a good thing, because as I mentioned we can already see it in action.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:$3k !!!!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That also means $15/hr in san fran, ca for example will mean you're poorer then the person working in macon, ga at $8/hr.

      While I can't speak to the particulars of the wages that you are citing, did I say anything that suggested I meant otherwise?

  3. $1.25/hr raise! by plopez · · Score: 1

    Oh hold me back! /s

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:$1.25/hr raise! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh hold me back! /s

      That's an 8% raise for someone earning $15 an hour. Would you not like an 8% raise?

    2. Re:$1.25/hr raise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hold me back! /s

      That's an 8% raise for someone earning $15 an hour. Would you not like an 8% raise?

      When everyone else in the company gets a 110% raise, it feels slightly off. It's a subtle message of "we don't value your position as much as we once did"

  4. Re:Clear solution by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give billionares huge tax cuts and they'll still whine about poor and oppressed they are.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  5. Bonus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where? How much?

    1. Re:Bonus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, sorry, it was a typo. It was supposed to be bone us.

    2. Re: Bonus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. I was picturing something different

  6. Waste Of Time And Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, Amazon probably spent a year in management meetings, calculating benefits, updating training materials and policies, etc... when finally deciding on $15. Then some workers and the media complained and a week later they change it again. Seems like they skipped the worker feedback section when initially trying to decide what to do. Either that or their management are complete wimps and can be completely blown over with the slightest amount of bad PR. Or perhaps they had this plan first, then reduced it a bit to see if they'd get away with it. When the PR backlash came, they can now claim doubly-so that they're updating to reflect the best wishes of the workers and the workers will be extra glad since they think they got something extra. When in reality Amazon gets a triple-win and the workers get tricked.

    1. Re:Waste Of Time And Money by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Between the continuous turnover and an improving job market, this is just turning up the optics on what many companies are forced to do these days. With the lowest unemployment rate, wages are skyrocketing, over the last 24 months, average wages have gone up nearly $1.50/h with the lower income brackets now making ~$300/month more than just 12 months ago (compared to $100/month for those in the higher earning brackets).

      $15/h is advertised in many malls these days for entry level jobs. I just tried to hire on a federal contract (the wage is fixed if I want to get the subsidy) for $10.25 for an entry level job and got all of 3 applicants and I'm not even in a major metropolitan area like NYC, LA or Seattle.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  7. No Name Vans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a super mega company like Amazon why wouldn't you want to put the name on your delivery vans? The van could say something like...Amazon.

    Just an idea.

  8. That sounds excellent for their employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That sounds excellent for their employees. How about for once, we give Amazon some credit for this.

    There will probably be many opportunities to excoriate Amazon in the future. Let's see.

  9. That's not really a problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    it's a tactic management has used for decades to excuse poor pay. You keep a few better paid employees because it keeps everybody from organizing and demanding better pay. I saw this in the call centers in the late 90s/early 00s. Management would tell the existing employees how lucky they were because they started at $10/hr when the new guys started at $7. Nevermind that $10/hr wasn't enough to get by even back then.

    Also before everyone piles in with the old "if you raise wages prices go up" nonsense, if that were true humanity could never progress as a species. We'd still be subsistence farmers and the big mac index wouldn't be a thing. Prices go up slower than wages when productivity goes up faster than wages. And productivity has been raising pretty much non stop if you focus on raw output (yes, an increasing number of low wage service employees replacing high paying manufacturing jobs means that measured productivity growth across the entire economy is flat, but we're still making more real goods with less people, see here).

    Basically so long as you're making more stuff with less or even the same people you can raise wages without price inflation, because that's real wage growth. e.g. there's more stuff for everybody. Well, not since 2008 though. Since 2008 the more stuff part of the equation has gone to the top 1%....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's not really a problem by virtig01 · · Score: 1

      Basically so long as you're making more stuff with less or even the same people you can raise wages without price inflation, because that's real wage growth. e.g. there's more stuff for everybody. Well, not since 2008 though. Since 2008 the more stuff part of the equation has gone to the top 1%....

      The "more stuff" part maybe hasn't gone to you, but globally, the gains aren't restricted to the top 1%. Billions of people have entered the middle class (and millions have joined the 1%).

    2. Re:That's not really a problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Also before everyone piles in with the old "if you raise wages prices go up" nonsense, if that were true humanity could never progress as a species.

      It is obviously true, because you are forgetting the implicit "all other things being the same" condition. All other things being the same, doubling the cost of labor will absolutely cause the prices to go up. It cannot do otherwise. If you have a shift of ten people at McDs and the wages (and associated taxes, etc) double, then the prices will have to go up.

      Now, the reason we "progress as a species" (which is itself a stupid way to refer to this) is because all other things are not the same. You have a shift of ten but realize you can automate the jobs of four of them. You realize you can cut the quality of the product and save on the ingredients. You vertically integrate so the costs of the ingredients go down. You find savings in other areas so the prices don't have to go up as much.

      Prices go up slower than wages when productivity goes up faster than wages.

      What was that? "Productivity goes up"? So that's something that didn't stay the same. It's not a result of doubling the minimum wage, however. If someone can do 10 operations an hour (retrieve order from pallet, whatever) they aren't suddenly able to do 20 per hour just because you paid them double. Productivity increases require other actions. It's dishonest to shove all the good things onto a pay increase and ignore all the other changes that reduce costs so prices don't go up as fast. That's what you're doing when you argue that "doubling wages doesn't mean prices go up".

    3. Re:That's not really a problem by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It is obviously true, because you are forgetting the implicit "all other things being the same" condition. All other things being the same, doubling the cost of labor will absolutely cause the prices to go up. It cannot do otherwise.

      More absolute nonsense, as prices are set to maximize revenue. Let's say you're middle management and you come into the CEO's office, to tell him that you've raised prices in response to the latest increase in the minimum wage. He asks if the price increase has cost the company more in lost customers than it has gained in creased revenue, and you tell him no. Then he fires your dumb ass for not doing that price increase years ago, so the company could enjoy more profits.

      If you have a shift of ten people at McDs and the wages (and associated taxes, etc) double, then the prices will come out of quarterly profits

      FTFY.

      What was that? "Productivity goes up"?

      Yeah, its been steadily going up for decades. Which means you have even less of an excuse to deny an increase in the minimum wage, when workers are producing more and more and more for their feudal overlords.

    4. Re:That's not really a problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      More absolute nonsense, as prices are set to maximize revenue.

      When your costs go up, they come out of that "profit", and to keep the profit the prices have to go up. A company that has a 2% margin like many grocery stores do cannot accept a 10% increase in costs and keep the prices the same.

      Let's say you're middle management and you come into the CEO's office, to tell him that you've raised prices in response to the latest increase in the minimum wage. He asks if the price increase has cost the company more in lost customers than it has gained in creased revenue,

      The number of lost customers is completely irrelevant if your prices no longer cover the costs of doing business. Any exec who tells the CEO that "we've kept 100% of our customers but every sale is now costing us money because Uberbah says we don't have to raise prices to cover that" isn't going to keep his job.

      "All other things being the same" is a crucial clause that is implicit in any argument that deals with one factor. Costs go up, all other things being the same the prices have to go up, too. You can only cut into the profits so much. You can only cut quality so much. You can only automate so much. But all three of those are things that aren't staying the same.

      Yeah, its been steadily going up for decades.

      But not because people are being paid more. Being paid more does NOT balance out the costs by improving productivity. You ignored that tiny detail I explained last time.

      Which means you have even less of an excuse to deny an increase in the minimum wage,

      You are either not reading what I wrote, or you can't understand it. I said nothing about denying an increase in minimum wage. Go argue with someone who actually said that.

  10. boni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you mean boni?

  11. Shithole country has shithole wages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shithole. BIGLY.

  12. Re:Clear solution by saloomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your sig says "debt is slavery". Are you suggesting those that accumulated debt are putting people into slavery? No one asked them to sign up for credit cards, car loans, home loans, or anything else. Slavery means "without consent". When you apply, sign, and shop, you consented.

  13. Re: Clear solution by astrofurter · · Score: 0

    "No one asked them to sign up for credit cards, car loans, home loans, or anything else."

    What rock have you been living under? I get unsolicited offers from usurers all the time.

    Our economy is structured so that home ownership requires submitting to usury. Our tax laws penalize anyone who does not submit to large scale usury. Travel is vastly more difficult for those few upright souls who refuse usurious credit cards.

    Maybe it's time for a Palintokia?

  14. Re:Clear solution by jrumney · · Score: 1

    I think the clear solution was in the post before this one. Robots don't care about pay rises, stock options, bonuses or overtime rates.

  15. Empirically Need Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cause and effect, no unions in Amazon is like a person without an immune system. This is just anti-biotic shot that is for PR stunt.

  16. Alright, here's your bribe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now vote for the Democrats like good slaves!

    1. Re:Alright, here's your bribe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just pissed because you can't fap to Taylor Swift anymore. LOL.

  17. Re: Clear solution by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Travel is vastly more difficult for those few upright souls who refuse usurious credit cards.

    Thanks for telling me this—And here I thought I was getting along just fine, since I don't even have a credit card and my debit card has worked without issues for me in every country I've ever visited (about 30 of those, last time I bothered to count). Silly me!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. Re: Clear solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See what happens to your 'credit' score if you don't use debt, then try to rent an apartment. Not ven buy a house. Or even get a job in some cases. We're enslaved by debt. and punished for not having it. Oh sure, you could avoid it if you dropped out of the system, lived under a bridge, had your kids taken away by the state, etc. But yeah, it's voluntary. Most of us are wage slaves. Many of us here are house negroes, though, and get treated better than mist be the master, and therefore reject the wage slave label. They even take money our of your check before yiou even see it. They take your taxes before you have the chance to spend it in a tax deductible manner? So, your forced to work at leadt a few months each year for the master, without compensation, against your will, and your only alternative is homelessness and poverty.

    Yeah, your not a slave.

    No wait, this is the internet. You own your own multi-national company, make billions, and every night you drill your hot, 10+ supermodel wife with your 19" cock.

    So you're no slave, but everyone else ...

  19. Re: Clear solution by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    I'm happy to hear you have had better experience with debit cards than have I and my friends.

    The biggest travel issue was rental cars. It seems that all airport rental car companies (in the US at least) really strongly prefer a credit card. They are usually willing to rent to debit card holders, but only on the condition of withdrawing a multi-thousand dollar deposit from the renter's bank account.

    I've also heard stories about people having difficulty renting hotel rooms (again in the US) with a debit card - however I have not personally experienced that.

  20. Bezos running in 2020? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like someone wants to run for president in 2020 and has been told that screwing his employees over for years is a negative.

  21. This exactly is one of the problems with a minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone has to lose. The middle class loses buying power when you increase the minimum wage. For everyone you"help", someone loses. Guess what... It doesn't help the minimum wage earners either. Everything becomes more expensive. I'd really have to do the math on this, but believe that it helps the rich.

  22. 100 bonus for good attendance at Xmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $100.......That is kind of weak.

    I remember most people in Brazil when I was there 30 years ago seemed to get an extra paycheck during the holidays. It was the way people could have a little extra during a special time and helped families avoid the financial strain at the end of the year.
    Made it easy to pay of debts, get presents, have money for visiting family.

    I always found that system to be a great way to help with the spirit of people at the end of the year.

  23. Re: Clear solution by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I've used my Swedish bank card in the US many times to rent vehicles and rooms. It has a Visa card number but it's a debit card. Never had it turned down by any business that accepts Visa cards.

    I have run into a few places in China (locally-owned shops or China-only businesses) that take only UnionPay cards or cash, but ATMs are plentiful and I've never had any trouble with those.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  24. This is like... by ytene · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... "Congratulations, peons!!! Your terms and conditions have just been upgraded from abject slavery to indentured servitude!"

  25. Re: Clear solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am happy for you that you are rich. Most people don't have the necessary funds to pay cash for everything. I can't afford a house without borrowing, or purchase a decent car without borrowing. Also, here in the US, if you don't have credit you will have a low credit score, and guess what? Employers will rather not hire you if you have low credit score. So, the idea of choice starts to become a little more blurry. Sure, you are not physically kidnapped and chained, but I can't just decide to quit either.

  26. Re:Clear solution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 0

    Your sig says "debt is slavery". Are you suggesting those that accumulated debt are putting people into slavery? No one asked them to sign up for credit cards, car loans, home loans, or anything else. Slavery means "without consent". When you apply, sign, and shop, you consented.

    Under the Federal Reserve system, all money is lent into existence. Every American dollar represents a debt owed back to the Federal Reserve. A few people manage to have no debt, but that just shifts the debt burden onto other people.

    You and I have little choice but to participate in this system. Signing up for home, business or car loans is essentially required. In order to participate in capitalism you need capital. For the vast majority that means borrowing it from a bank or someone with a lot of money. So yes, we are forced into a system based on debt without our consent (or perhaps with coerced consent), and must work to pay that debt. The term slavery is a bit stark, but its not far off when you look at how the monetary system actually operates.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  27. Gee, A Hundred Dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ezra, you've had good attendance. I bet you thought I'd forgotten your Christmas bonus. Here you go!

    Ezra: "A hundred dollars. Maybe I'll go to the movies... by myself..."

  28. Re: Clear solution by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

    No it isn't. Even if you have a credit card with a 25% interest rate, you still get a grace period before interest is due and you can pay it off and owe NO interest whatsoever. Nothing usurious about that.

    Even so, you can also just as easily use a DEBIT card, avoiding the issue of borrowing money altogether.

  29. Re: Clear solution by nazrhyn · · Score: 1

    We're enslaved by debt

    One small correction here: we're not enslaved by debt in the sense that you're talking about, we're enslaved by credit. It's entirely possible to have good credit while not being in debt, slavery notwithstanding.

  30. Re: Clear solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all CCs offer a grace period.

  31. Re: Clear solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be clear, it is commercial banks that do the majority of this lending and monetary creation.

  32. Re: Clear solution by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    It's entirely possible to have good credit while not being in debt

    Uh....no. To get a high FICO score, you're going to have to be in debt to somebody.

    Just having a credit card that you pay off every month doesn't help, because a component of your FICO score is the mix of your credit accounts. If you don't have something like a mortgage or car loan, it is going to hurt your score.

  33. Re: Clear solution by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Rich? Hardly. I merely have reliable income and a very clear set of priorities. 90% of my travel relates to family, BTW—neither my wife nor I are natives of Sweden, Europe, or even the same country.

    And we were talking about *credit cards*, which absolutely no-one ever uses to buy a *house*, FFS. I have a mortgage just like 90% of homeowners in Western countries do.

    And I've ~20 years experience in my field, the last 15 of them split between three of the biggest names in the industry, and I'm the author or co-author of about a dozen books on the subject. Anyone who thinks my credit score or lack thereof has any bearing on my qualifications is somebody I don't need to work for.

    Once I was in a situation that I suspect wasn't too different from yours. I escaped it by educating myself, setting very definite (but flexible) goals for myself, watching and jumping on every opportunity that arose to further myself towards those goals, and not resting until they were achieved. No reason you can't do something similar. Good luck!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  34. Brilliant move by Amazon but bad for competitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how people are not seeing what Amazon has truly done here:
    amazon has the most automation out of any company dealing in the retail space (fulfillment centers, go stores)
    Automation systems are a huge capital expense and barrier of entry (Only the biggest can afford it and out of the big retailers the only ones not struggling are Target and Walmart who both have high employee costs as they lack automation.

    Amazon champions for better pay , get all sorts of publicity which ultimately ends up as free advertising (generate new customers)
    Amazon cuts existing workers benefit packages to increase wages (so really it was a 0 sum game nothing was gained and Amazon lost nothing)
    Amazon is heralded as the company that pushed for higher wages (positive spin as the news media would have you believe)

    In reality Amazon just forced every single competitors most expensive operating cost (employee wages) to go up exponentially depending on the size of the competitor while they insulated themselves by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Add to this that they buy in such huge volume the only possibility of competing with them was by having lower operating costs which this move has now eliminated advantage and with Amazon's increasing automation without a huge capital investment in equal automation or better no one will be able to compete against them.

  35. Re: Clear solution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Just to be clear, it is commercial banks that do the majority of this lending and monetary creation.

    Yes, indeed. Many of those banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, while some are not. Regardless, they are all creating money from debt, in the form of federal reserve notes, or numbers on a screen representing such notes.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  36. Re: Wish they would do something about engineer.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Sure. But your taxes are so much higher, so your money can be used to buy shit for other people. No thanks.

  37. Re: Clear solution by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    So fucking get one that does. There are THOUSANDS to choose from.

  38. that's American capitalism for you by Uberbah · · Score: 1
  39. Re: Clear solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    No it isn't. Even if you have a credit card with a 25% interest rate, you still get a grace period before interest is due and you can pay it off and owe NO interest whatsoever. Nothing usurious about that.

    25% is the definition of usurious a few times over.

  40. Re: Clear solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Thanks for telling me thisâ"And here I thought I was getting along just fine, since I don't even have a credit card and my debit card has worked without issues for me in every country I've ever visited (about 30 of those, last time I bothered to count). Silly me!

    Try renting a car with a debit card and get back to us, snowflake.

  41. Re:Clear solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Your sig says "debt is slavery". Are you suggesting those that accumulated debt are putting people into slavery? No one asked them to sign up for credit cards, car loans, home loans, or anything else. Slavery means "without consent". When you apply, sign, and shop, you consented.

    What a sweet, elitist summer child you are. Car breaks down and you have no choice but to fix it unless you want to lose your job, followed by an eviction? Put the repair on credit. Have to go see the doctor but you have a shitty health insurance plan with a high co-pay and deductible? Put it on credit. It's not a choice when it's a matter of necessity.

  42. Re: Clear solution by saloomy · · Score: 1

    You absolutely can rent a car with a debit card, they typically place a hold on around $250.00 which isn't that much. If you think its too much, you probably don't have the means to be financially responsible for damage you cause it.

    Also, if you don't want debt, don't spend on credit what you can not pay off. All of my cards are at $0.00 balance every month, because that helps keep me in check. I only finance what I have to (home, auto), and the auto is at 2.9% which is just about the same as the rate of inflation, so its near 0.

    You don't have to be a "slave". You can be... responsible.

  43. Re: Clear solution by saloomy · · Score: 1

    A common mis-conception. Having good credit means making a payment every month (which you can't do if your balance is $0). You need to make a purchase (even just filling up gas), and then pay it down to $0. What mostly determines your score is:

    A) How long your accounts have been open for and in good standing
    B) Your payment history (again, you should make a payment every month, even if it's for a pack of gum).
    C) Your debt to income ratio (this one is mis-understood: the less debt you have, the better! All the way down to $0)
    D) Your available credit (the less balances you have, again the better).
    E) Your applications for credit. You take a hit when you enquire a few times. In fact, the new FICO 9.0 score is supposed to take into consideration multiple enquiries and not have them all affect your score if its because you were shopping your loan for some large purchase around).

    There. now you know.

  44. Re: Clear solution by saloomy · · Score: 1

    The govornment is creating debt, thereby lending it out. It gives you the ability to spend it (though bank lending). You don't have to take out a loan. You can start from $0 and work for your money. When you earn, you can spend, invest, and save. If you save, then the bank you saved with lends that out to others. So in a sense, you can have people indebted to you, just for being financially responsible.

  45. Re:Clear solution by saloomy · · Score: 1

    It's always a choice. Car broke down and costs a few hundred to fix? Too bad you just had to have the latest iPhone. Got sick and had shitty insurance? Too bad you didn't pay for better insurance.

    We have such a strong safety net in this country, and are THE MOST generous nation on earth (literally, in terms of dollars donated). If you are truly poor, go to a church, or other NGO. Fill out help forms from your city, county, state, and federal programs. People will help you. For fuck's sake; start a go-fund-me page. Do something.

    But don't bitch because you lived at or beyond your means and didn't save for a rainy day. That's your own damn fault.

    I can't believe this guy. Be thankful your fiscal irresponsibility was mitigated by the credit system which caught your back when you needed it. Now you can get back to work, or get healthy again, and practice living on a little less so you can pay that off. When you are done with that, stay at that spending level, and save what you used to spend. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN WELLBEING.

  46. Re:Clear solution by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You're so far out there you can see Pluto from your house. People like you are why gulags were invented, so you can spend a couple of decades digging ditches while rethinking your life choices.