My husband needed therapy after working for Amazon

>so that his managers would not worry that his home life was impacting his work ethic

It isn't on the employee/spouse; this is why you have managers that sometimes have to tell employees to go home. We're so fearful of losing our jobs that we bend over backwards for employers. This is what happens when employers have an advantage.

>I know some upper management probably look down on this

So your boss is fine with it but your boss's boss may not be. At least you aren't living in fear of losing your job.

>I realize keeping this balance may disqualify me from ever becoming VP of engineering

Why should it keep you from becoming VP of engineering? That's messed up.

It's these sort of articles that questions my use of Amazon for my retail purchases. Not just from the ethical standpoint of overworking people but also from the practical effect of getting most of what I want on time at a price I want because I can't say that Amazon today really does a good job on that front either.

For example, if I want to purchase electronic components for my PC New Egg still beats them every time in price and delivery times (imo). Anytime I buy something like a stick of RAM from Amazon I tend to get burned on the delivery time (unless I use Prime) or the price (certain third party retailers just run out of stock). So, I never trust Amazon with my component purchases.

Similarly, I'm finding their clothing section is getting more parse every year for plus sized clothing so I wind up buying socks from Sock Dreams, most outfits from Torrid (casual/off-work) or Lane Bryant (office-friendly/semi-formal) or some other retailer.

Oddly, Amazon still beats Zappos on large size shoes (Zappos use to be the goto retailer but not anymore they seem to have culled most of their stock of non-fetish large size shoes).

All this article and the NYT article just convinces me further that Amazon may become my retailer of last resort since all the thumbscrews in the world isn't worth anything if it comes down to a meager savings in price or time.

Serious question, isn't this what unions are for?

In the US, that's the big difference between exempt and non-exempt. I'm glad I have a lower, less prestigious job because it's classified as non-exempt. That means if I'm on call, I'm paid for it. Which means the company really has to think "is it worth having this guy sit around in case something breaks?". It also means company policy prohibits me from having a company cell with email access, because I shouldn't be working off the clock. This lets me work on many side projects because at 5:00p, I'm done. If they need me to do more, they pay me more.

I won't say the system is perfect, but when the company incurs a cost for being legally obligated to pay more for more work, I think the employment social contract becomes more fair. Aside from top level executives (CEO, etc.), I'm not exactly sure I can find a reason that people should be classified as exempt.

Lawyers and doctors are the often cited examples of exempt employees. Sorry, if an attorney spends a few more hours one week on trial prep, his firm is billing for it, so pay him/her more. Similarly, if a surgeon's operation goes sideways and ends up taking two hours more, pay him/her more.

If the idea that any labor past 40 hours in a week was "free labor" for a company was discarded (or better yet, actually cost the company more than the first 40 hours, i.e., "overtime"), we could reduce the number of people who are working more than 40 hours per week and start hiring more unemployed people. On a micro-scale, does it make sense to have 4 people consistently working 50 hours each with 1 unemployed person, or does it make more sense to have 5 people consistently working 40 hours per week?

While you're at it, maybe 35 (or 30?) is the new 40?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Gradual_decrease_...

Agreed. The other glaring hole I see in this article is the absence of any push back or assertion of boundaries. Was this guy's manager even aware of the sacrifices this guy was making? Did he ever sit down and say, "24/7 rotation every three weeks is exhausting and more than I signed up for; we need to hire." Did he tell HR he was reaching a breaking point? We are adults with demanding jobs; we have to assert boundaries. If we get a call asking us to come in, it is very reasonable to say, "I'm away on vacation with my family, can someone else cover this?" If the answer is no, then you make your choice, but your manager at least knows that sacrifice that is taking place. If you can't work with your manager to make life livable, talk to his manager or talk to HR. There is no excuse for toiling away silently and playing the martyr. The very fact that this guy's wife wrote the article instead of himself gives the impression that he doesn't know how to self-advocate.