11–20 of 172 posts
Skip the overly dramatic Orwellian outrage porn and go straight to the banal conclusion: > What became apparent over my time there was that, whatever the dramatisation of previous investigations, working at Amazon is just shit – but no more shit than any other mundane, badly-paid job.
> In fact, everything was completely by the book. Huh? According to the same article, the book said that he should have been given a copy of his contract and a daily list of goals. The book also said that there should be a careful point system to judge employee performance, not "late twice and you're sacked". Furthermore, are 11-hour shifts really by the book? Does the book say three of those hours have to be paid ov…
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive is the relevant set of rules. The key one is "there must daily rest of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period", which an 11-hour shift complies with.
> Does the book say three of those hours have to be paid overtime?
No. They're just paid time like any other shift.
(Before somebody jumps up to wave their hands about opting out of the working time directive: as noted on that page, there is only one rule that you can opt out of, and that's the rule about a 48-hour maximum working week. There is no opt out for any of the other rules.)
In sum, Amazon should be mechanistically compelled into socially harmonious behavior, not shamed into it.
Skip the overly dramatic Orwellian outrage porn and go straight to the banal conclusion: > What became apparent over my time there was that, whatever the dramatisation of previous investigations, working at Amazon is just shit – but no more shit than any other mundane, badly-paid job.
Also note that the article is written by a guy in the UK who is hired for seasonal warehouse work. Not a middle manager/higher salaried employee as was the case in the NYT article that sparked the outrage.
Examples:
* "I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f...
* "Brutal Conditions In Amazon's Warehouses Threaten To Ruin The Company's Image": http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-conditions-in-amazons-...
* "True Stories of Life as an Amazon Worker": http://gawker.com/true-stories-of-life-as-an-amazon-worker-1...
* "Inside Amazon's Warehouse": http://www.mcall.com/news/local/amazon/
Skip the overly dramatic Orwellian outrage porn and go straight to the banal conclusion: > What became apparent over my time there was that, whatever the dramatisation of previous investigations, working at Amazon is just shit – but no more shit than any other mundane, badly-paid job.
Also note that the article is written by a guy in the UK who is hired for seasonal warehouse work. Not a middle manager/higher salaried employee as was the case in the NYT article that sparked the outrage.
I think it's great articles like that get posted here - it's a window to employment conditions that techies would never accept. It's a good reminder of privilege.
It's silly to blame Amazon for what we think is immoral behavior, as if we were going to shame Amazon into decency. Amazon is following the law here. It is the law which is indecent. We must think not about why Amazon is indecent, but rather how Amazon is lawful. In sum, Amazon should be mechanistically compelled into socially harmonious behavior, not shamed into it.
Almost any improvement will be at the expense of cheap goods, so get be prepared to pay for that improvement too. I believe this is the key reason we never see anything done about immigration in the US or pollution in China: at the end of the day, we care more about the cheap goods than the workers or pollution.
> "I can't quit now, because the cost of getting to the agency for the interview and drug test – and getting here today for just five hours' pay – means I'll have made a loss." Talking about circumstances this is a bad one.
Skip the overly dramatic Orwellian outrage porn and go straight to the banal conclusion: > What became apparent over my time there was that, whatever the dramatisation of previous investigations, working at Amazon is just shit – but no more shit than any other mundane, badly-paid job.
Also note that the article is written by a guy in the UK who is hired for seasonal warehouse work. Not a middle manager/higher salaried employee as was the case in the NYT article that sparked the outrage.
I think it's great articles like that get posted here - it's a window to employment conditions that techies would never accept. It's a good reminder of privilege.
I absolutely would accept those employment conditions if I didn't have any other options and needed to make money to survive. I would also spend my free time learning a skill so I could get a better job at some point in the future.
> It's a good reminder of privilege.
It's not a matter of privilege, it's a matter of ability. In tech more than any other field, because you don't need a college degree to get a good paying job. You just need to have the desire and ambition to learn.