Bye, Amazon • Hacker News Board

Re: Bye, Amazon

#741

Post by sneak » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

herdodoodo wrote: post #724

sneak wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a mistake to equate Microsoft and Amazon's behavior (active collaboration and voluntary engagement in provision of dedicated/custom services or even one-off entire lines of business) and Apple's behavior (we sell the same hardware, unmodified, to everyone who wants to buy it) in this instance. Addendum (EDIT): Bad phrasing on my part attempting to characterize the behavior. I am not affiliated with Appl…

>we I hope you can recognize the conflict of interest here. You appear to work at Apple, and that might just make you less likely to acknowledge the overwhelming number of unethical practices Apple partakes in. EDIT: Sorry, you can ignore ^this^ paragraph - just saw your edit. My apologies for making accusations. I find it especially interesting you attack Amazon over their disastrous warehouse workplace policies (yo…

I don't like it when anyone productive and resourceful collaborates with violent people for any reason. We're on the same page.

You'll note that I did not attack Amazon for their warehouse conditions.

No one is forced to work in an Amazon warehouse and neither is Amazon the only employer in any city in which they operate; if they are there working it's because they themselves decided that it was the best job option available to them, and it must be equal to or greater than their other job options, making Amazon's offer of employment a net benefit to them, or, in the worst case, equivalent to the second best job available. Until very recently unemployment in the US was at record lows, and there were many other jobs available and looking for staff.

It might be difficult to accept, but every single person who works at Amazon is there because they want to work there. If someone has decided that that's the best option for them, it's not my place to second-guess them (aside from the moral issues of supporting a company with the AI-drone-war inclinations of Amazon).

The same goes for the people who work at Foxconn. The plant where they put up the suicide jumper netting had a lower suicide rate, per capita, than the province in which it sat (even before the nets).

Re: Bye, Amazon

#742

Post by gnopgnip » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #344

CalRobert wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the challenge with large mortgages and heath care requirements taking away people's moral agency. Maybe that's the idea.

Talking to US friends about jobs is always weird because they're so afraid of quitting/being fired, because their health insurance is tied to their jobs. This whole system conspires to make people afraid and subservient. Why you guys haven't replaced it with someone that actually frees you, is always a mystery to me.

Most people don't understand their options. If they lose their job they probably qualify for medicaid, or for a subsidized plan through the exchange. In the short term they can purchase COBRA, and keep their existing healthcare. They may be able to purchase the same healthcare privately, or through the healthcare exchange.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#743

Post by taurath » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #643

NullInvictus wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been involved in both working in services and in the management level of a restaurant business. It is still my opinion that the pay, disposability, lack of dignity, lack of future, lack of community, and disrespect are the primary drivers for bad workplace behavior. Treat people like animals, and they will act like animals. It's just exploitation, and I work my current job with fear of having to go back to tha…

The idea that they "shouldn't exist" doesn't make much sense to me. As long as you treat your employees with respect and pay legal wages, who are we to say that the wages are "poverty wages". Many of these low wage, entry level positions are/were meant to be filled by young people, still living with parents, or part time workers who may have a spouse that is the primary earner. The problem is that due to lack of othe…

> As long as you treat your employees with respect and pay legal wages, who are we to say that the wages are "poverty wages".

When working those wages leave you in poverty its poverty wages.

> Many of these low wage, entry level positions are/were meant to be filled by young people, still living with parents, or part time workers who may have a spouse that is the primary earner.

This is not the case, and has never been the case. The economy is not set up for the benefit of teens on summer vacation.

44% of all workers aged 18 to 64 made a median of $10.64/hr and an annual income less than $20,000. Its hard to overstate how many people across the country are living on poverty wages - the "young people" theory to me frequently only comes about from people who've grown up in affluent areas and had evening jobs at grocery stores. Most low wage workers in this economy are invisible.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet-the-low-wage-workfor...

Re: Bye, Amazon

#744

Post by Vrondi » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #412

supergeek133 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a two way street. If you've never been involved at a management or ownership level of a business that has "low pay" labor (e.g., food service, warehouse, retail sales). For every 2-3 decent workers there is one that just takes pure advantage of the environment (e.g., stealing product, stealing time, etc). Sometimes this occurs at great cost for a period of time before it is discovered. EDIT: This was…

> This makes companies take extreme policy measures... Governing to the lowest denominator is just poor management. > ...because the financial impact is so disproportionate... For who? Bob "steals" an hour of overtime worth $25 but he's still in your facility at your disposal. God forbid... > "If you pay me more I won't act like this" This I agree with. You get what you pay for. Period. > But depending on the busines…

If pizza costs more than a certain amount, I am eating at home, and so are a lot of other people, leaving a lot of restaurants, who exist on thing margins already, to close.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#745

Post by snotrockets » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

pathseeker wrote: post #730

pietrovismara wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just compare the incentives for both parts to be dishonest and you have your answer. What would workers gain from being dishonest except the risk of being fired or retaliated upon? And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working conditions? Finally, isn't it a natural instinct to side with the weaker element in a fight? Does Amazon really need your supp…

> Just compare the incentives for both parts to be dishonest and you have your answer. What would workers gain from being dishonest except the risk of being fired or retaliated upon? Pay raises, more time off, better benefits. A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization. >And why, if organizers are lying, can't Amazon just disprove them by showing to the public their perfect working cond…

> Pay raises, more time off, better benefits.

And those are bad because?

> A newly hired employee has very little to lose by supporting unionization.

And yet, most don't. The mind boggles.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#746

Post by jethro_tell » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

twomoretime wrote: post #732

tyre wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the workers organize and risk their careers without just cause? He mentions petitions with thousands of signatures. Are all of those people just…I mean, what? If they were lying, then Amazon could easily come out and say, "They're asking for regular breaks every four hours and we literally give them that. They ask for PPE and every employee is given X, Y, Z. They want us to reduce our carbon footprint by 10…

>why would the workers organize and risk their careers without just cause Warehouse stocking is not a career. Most of these people are hourly workers with little to lose. You can't apply the same standards to white, blue, and no collar workers because the nature of both the work, the people, and the culture are totally different. If that statement shocks or offends you, I encourage you to take a temporary job at a pl…

As I understand it, the 8000 people that signed the petition of support to organize were not hourly workers but corporate white collar workers with high pay that have issues with climate response and worker protections for blue collar workers. Like Tim, the guy who wrote this essay.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#747

Post by ses1984 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

pathseeker wrote: post #735

specialp wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes for me too. The fact that Amazon is so cheap that they want employees to sit around for 20-30 minutes after their shift unpaid to get searched to make sure they aren't stealing blew me away. It is one thing if Amazon wants to do this and pay their employees, but to not pay is wrong. And they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court... That was the snapping point for me too…

Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...

Waiting to be frisked is not analogous to commuting at all.

If amazon isn't paying for your time in line, they have no incentive to make it fast. They can invest the bare minimum to protect their own interests, and fuck over their worker who have to wait in line. If they had to pay workers for their time then there is an incentive for them to make the line move quickly.

I can't imagine a setup that is more hostile to your fellow humans as forcing them to waste unpaid time.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#748

Post by jessaustin » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

treve wrote: post #600

twblalock wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Minimum wages should be raised and nonviable businesses should adapt or go under. That's a recipe for significantly increased unemployment which would affect the most vulnerable workers the most. For most people in a low-paying job, the alternative is no job. If they were able to get higher-paying jobs they would have already done so.

Then why have a minimum wage at all?

Why, indeed.

In a society with a functioning safety net, minimum wage wouldn't be necessary. That wouldn't only be better for those who can't work at all. All employees would benefit, and eventually most businesses would as well. Here in USA I'm not sure if such a safety net is possible, but I hear good things about other societies.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#749

Post by Vrondi » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

fzingle wrote: post #568

griffinkelly wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purely anecdotal, but my dad has a story around this--his company wasn't doing great, and they needed to increase factory output, so one of the best ideas was to create a factory profit share amongst all the factory employees. They called a random group of employees together to run the idea by them, and after they presented, they asked them what they thought. One guy then asked, "So does this mean I have to work hard…

Sure one way to read this story is "I don't want to work harder" and criticizing that attitude. Here's another way. As the worker, already working full-time, maybe you have better things to do with your life than working harder. Furthermore, the worker is probably thinking: "If they want me to work more hours, why not pay me for more hours, including time-and-a-half overtime, per the law? Why offer a profit-share? An…

In the example you are replying to, the employees are literally being promised they will be paid more for increased work.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#750

Post by product50 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #653

pwinnski wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bray didn't quit over the conditions in the warehouses, he quit over Amazon's brazen and dishonest firings of organizers. It's possible that if every Amazon warehouse were run as well, those organizers would not have arisen, but it's Amazon nastiness toward them that's most alarming.

Have you considered the possibility that Amazon actually treats their workers okay and that it's the organizers are dishonest? Why does the presumption of evil only go in one direction?

No one at Hacker News will consider this.

Here people will criticize big corporations (by generalizing few anecdotal examples) and demand higher pay while sitting inside their million dollar houses (and stopping new housing construction near them) ordering stuff from Amazon.