Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's confusing why investors haven't pushed harder for AWS to be spun-off into its own entity.
The largest customer of AWS is Amazon. AWS would not be profitable without Amazon.
[deleted]
Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
211–220 of 244 posts
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#212> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.
When I left Amazon (as an SWE), with about 11mo of tenure, I was apparently at about median longevity. Yes, some of it is their growth, but a significant reason is also that they churn through people unnecessary. It's ridiculous to me that a big tech company treats people so terribly and continues to get away with it.
Isn't that because 11 months of tenure prevents any RSUs from vesting and so they want you out then if they are going to want you out soon?
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my previous job in Germany. Sector: Tech and Research. Excellent managers, amazing WLB (worked till 8PM once and the manager apologised next day), well paid: earning the median income straight out of college. Had an excellent union and everyone in company hierarchy worked cordially and yet deferentially with them. Unions are not necessarily a form of attack. Unionise.
I’ve always wondered if collective bargaining makes things easier in some way for a management.
They do because they can go to the executives and deny unreasonable goals outright, something to the effect of ‘how do you think four people with 39h of work weeks can do this’, implying that these hours are not going to increase so let’s hold our horses.
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my previous job in Germany. Sector: Tech and Research. Excellent managers, amazing WLB (worked till 8PM once and the manager apologised next day), well paid: earning the median income straight out of college. Had an excellent union and everyone in company hierarchy worked cordially and yet deferentially with them. Unions are not necessarily a form of attack. Unionise.
German unions are much different than US unions though.
Probably because its easy and common to Unionise in Germany, they don’t have to go through hell and high water to form a collective (as silly as it sounds in the first place!)
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#215> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.
> I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." What does it take to be considered a "veteran" in the military? > The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. ( https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/Determining-Veteran-Status.pd…
As used in this thread's context, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veteran#Noun describes this meaning as:
> 1. A person with long experience of a particular activity.
The military version is a bit different:
> 3. A person who has served in the armed forces, especially an old soldier who has seen long service; also called a war veteran to distinguish from veterans who weren't in armed conflict.
The etymology from https://www.etymonline.com/word/veteran is:
> c. 1500, "old experienced soldier," from French vétéran, from Latin veteranus "old, aged, that has been long in use," especially of soldiers; as a plural noun, "old soldiers," from vetus (genitive veteris) "old, aged, advanced in years; of a former time," as a plural noun, vetores, "men of old, forefathers," from PIE wet-es-, from root wet- (2) "year ... General sense of "one who has seen long service in any office or position" is attested from 1590s. The adjective first recorded 1610s.
You can see definition (1) dropped the "soldier" restriction, and (3) dropped the "old" restriction.
I therefore don't think you can apply your understanding of (3) when (1) was meant.
FWIW, there's also a veteran car, which is one built before 1905: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile#Vete... .
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#216> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.
When I left Amazon (as an SWE), with about 11mo of tenure, I was apparently at about median longevity. Yes, some of it is their growth, but a significant reason is also that they churn through people unnecessary. It's ridiculous to me that a big tech company treats people so terribly and continues to get away with it.
Most of Amazon's employee base are in the warehouses, and there's a significant amount of churn there, especially seasonal. Being median at 11 months is really not that weird considering the sheer nature of warehouse employment there, and considering it's highly likely you were there through at least one Q4.
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I left Amazon (as an SWE), with about 11mo of tenure, I was apparently at about median longevity. Yes, some of it is their growth, but a significant reason is also that they churn through people unnecessary. It's ridiculous to me that a big tech company treats people so terribly and continues to get away with it.
Most of Amazon's employee base are in the warehouses, and there's a significant amount of churn there, especially seasonal. Being median at 11 months is really not that weird considering the sheer nature of warehouse employment there, and considering it's highly likely you were there through at least one Q4.
He mentioned he was a SWE though.
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your point except a "truthful and inclusive environment" would be positive (or at least neutral) to unionization. So, clearly the latter.
Unions arise for a reason. In an inclusive and trustful environment, those reasons can be addressed without adding another authority into the mix.
Your comments sound like those Walmart training videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bFEs4ZoXw
Got that message of: we’re all just one big family where everyone loves each other. Now, don’t you call Child Services on us when we discipline y’all a little, ya hear?
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#219It's time for the corporate death penalty. God, Amazon is so evil.
Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their mandate would be to avoid unionization. So obviously the “ruling through fear” option. I don’t see how optical illusions have anything to do with it except muddying the waters.
At some point in your life, you'll find that something you always thought was true and couldn't understand how anybody could see was false actually could be understood to be false by a totally reasonable person. At that time, I think you'll understand what I mean. Unions are created because of unacceptable conditions. Fix those conditions in time, and no unions. No fear required.
At some point in my life I’m going to realize that the documented violent history of labor-capital was all just a fabrication and it just so happens that the standard American anti-union talking points—America might have the most violent labor-capital history of any Western nation, by the way—were reasonable and based in reality? No, I don’t think so.
Besides, your comment is just a generic relativistic refrain and doesn’t contain any argument at all. No: not all viewpoints are reasonable.