51–60 of 1001 posts
They must have automated enough, or shifted enough work to contractors that this is now materially not a big deal.
I wonder if anybody else remembers 2007 foxconn pledging to automate 90% of their factory workers out of a job when they started unionizing.
The blog post says "employees". No reporter I've seen has bothered to ask if it applies to contractors.
I mean, they get such bad press for the way they treat their workers it only seems fair to laud them for this. Good move. They have more to do though. I've went through a few articles on this but I didn't see any of them mention what Amazon's minimum actual pay was before this, just the federal minimum wage. Anybody know?
Did Amazon actually pay any worse or have worse working conditions than any other unskilled warehouse job? If so, why didn’t the employees change jobs? If not, why is so much criticism directed at Amazon specifically, rather than at capitalism itself?
Monosopy.
I mean, they get such bad press for the way they treat their workers it only seems fair to laud them for this. Good move. They have more to do though. I've went through a few articles on this but I didn't see any of them mention what Amazon's minimum actual pay was before this, just the federal minimum wage. Anybody know?
Did Amazon actually pay any worse or have worse working conditions than any other unskilled warehouse job? If so, why didn’t the employees change jobs? If not, why is so much criticism directed at Amazon specifically, rather than at capitalism itself?
What's the point of criticizing capitalism if there are no viable alternatives?
Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, recently introduced legislation to end what he calls “corporate welfare” — and it’s pretty clear who he had in mind, since the bill was titled Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS). Bernie out-marketing AMZN is pretty funny.
And it only comes now, 20 years after the company's founding, after it has huge profits (and can deduct expenses like salaries in the profits before paying tax), after it has crushed all competitors with extremely low wages that were only possible because many employees received government handouts too (so subsidized wages), and after it de facto has secured itself a monopoly.
And many employees are still on temporary contracts.
It's too little and too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t think people have been criticizing Amazon specifically? I think they have.
It's usually best, when criticizing something, to come prepared with concrete examples that demonstrate the issue you're talking about.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
While this is a very welcome development it would be more impressive to see them reform their slave like fulfilment center work practises. Employees are forced to walk massive distances, have their every move tracked and are penalised for taking bathroom breaks. I doubt many people in Silicon Valley would consider $15 an hour a fair compensation for the oppressive work conditions.
Yet I know of many people now who work hard jobs and make 15 dollars an hour or less. Why does it matter if people in SV think it's good pay?
It's in fact a labor hammer on mom & pop businesses - who never pay well - at a time when there's an intense labor shortgage. Most likely, Amazon had to raise wages to fill its labor growth demands, and it's a PR benefit simultaneously.
Given Amazon's profits are set to explode higher in the next few years, with AWS and advertising (~$20b in profit in 2020 is likely), it'll give them a competitive advantage to continue to raise wages as necessary and crush everyone else that can't follow. Your typical small or mid-size retailer simply can't generate the kind of return that Amazon can from advertising (which has extreme margins), it puts them in a competitive league above and beyond, which will spill over to being able to better compete on labor. It's good for labor, bad for competitors.
Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, recently introduced legislation to end what he calls “corporate welfare” — and it’s pretty clear who he had in mind, since the bill was titled Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS). Bernie out-marketing AMZN is pretty funny.
Maybe I've got no sense of humour, but I think that's unprofessional and something like bullying, rather than funny. Legislation should surely not target one individual by name like that?