Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 618 posts

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#21

Post by miningape »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #16

> But I had a huge stock investment coming up. So there was no way I was going to rock the boat in any way, shape, or form just trying to get to this date. So the employer has a financial inventive program to encourage people to stay in the organization long term, and some hyper-rational VP repurposes that reward as a kind of tenure cliff forcing people out just ahead of it? All the pieces are in the article, just wa…

I was thinking the same thing reading this article. In this case it seems it was pretty clearly meant to push this employee out before their stocks vest because its probably a lot cheaper to spend $100,000 hiring a new person than lose several 100's of thousands to a decent worker who has just been at the company for a while.

While atrocious its very clear math, but I hope employees keep leaving after they vest.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#22

Post by Kiro »

underseacables wrote: post #3

Amazon seems like a really awful place to work, at the warehouse or at the corporate office. Why do people still work, and want to work, there?

The narrative on HN is almost always driven by negativity so I wouldn't presume that things posted here are representative of the actual working conditions at corporate, or exclusive to Amazon.

Here's an alternative view that popped up in my feed yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IVdaysrIS74

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#24

Post by FirmwareBurner »

aestetix wrote: post #11

This seems common in American companies. I wonder how much of this is a result of lawsuit culture. For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates. And perhaps this has carried into feedback for actual employees. It sounds like the author wasn't even he was on a performance improvement plan, he had to infer it and pull it out of his manage…

>This seems common in American companies.

If that same American culture is all over companies worldwide now, is it still American culture anymore?

>For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates.

Same in Europe, you get ghosted or at best, you get the same bland cookie cutter politically correct copy-paste rejection massage, no matter what the actual reason is, even if you explicitly ask for detailed feedback and promise to be open minded and not sour about it.

So back to my original question, is that still an American company thing, or just a $COMPANY_THING now?

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#25

Post by hef19898 »

thereisnospork wrote: post #20
aestetix wrote: post #11

This seems common in American companies. I wonder how much of this is a result of lawsuit culture. For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates. And perhaps this has carried into feedback for actual employees. It sounds like the author wasn't even he was on a performance improvement plan, he had to infer it and pull it out of his manage…

PIPs exist pretty much solely to create cover for firing someone[0]. Really just an awkward beaurocratic necessity with a deceptive name. [0] Almost all employment in the US is 'at-will' so in principle anyone is fireable for any reason that isn't in a short list of illegal discrimination (e.g. can't fire someone for being black, or for not sleeping with you). In practice having even a flimsy veneer of poor performan…

You what's funny? When this PIP culture hits German labour laws. Then the result is basically pointless bossing, which ultimately results in, for the employer, rather expensive severance packages. Nothing funny about bossing, but funny that employers still want to force their head through a wall, instead of just offering the package they have to pay anyway from the get go.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#26

Post by bilekas »

I will probably get some slack for this, but not ever usage of a PIP is necessarily a bad thing..

The example above and large companies in general do seem to use it as a firing tool or at least pretence.

From experience we had one developer on our team who was gradually just showing less and less interest and quality of work was dropping so much so it was effecting the rest of the team.

I wasn't involved but he was put on a PIP that was quite well layed out and measurable. After the process he was better than before. I can't put it down to the PIP only of course, but as he said it was a way for him to focus on what was wrong and get back into being consistent.

Super rare I'm sure, but just thought I'd at least five one good example of its use case.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#28

Post by _the_inflator »

aestetix wrote: post #11

This seems common in American companies. I wonder how much of this is a result of lawsuit culture. For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates. And perhaps this has carried into feedback for actual employees. It sounds like the author wasn't even he was on a performance improvement plan, he had to infer it and pull it out of his manage…

Senior Manager here. This is common to any large entity and may only influenced by workers' rights and culture.

1. Large numbers

In large companies, you have numbers. There are 10000 individuals so to say. There is a difference between individuals and groups. The larger the group, the more HR and controlling tend to use their understanding of statistics. This is the conflict between groups and individuals. Why take care of one person? In sum, it does not pay off.

This is not my opinion, but I heard it over and over behind closed doors: Where wood is chopped, splinters must fall, and so instead of working with the individual, you have different scenarios of the cost of litigation vs. others.

2. Job Offers and Rejections - Behind the scenes

Also there are processes to be met officially. Say there is a job offer on a job portal and you apply to it. Behind the scenes, there is already the right candidate with the right profile. However, in order to get the candidate through all the controls along the process, you have to evaluate other candidates as well. In the end, HR "knows" whom to pick, and this is also a reason why a perfect job interview can mean rejection. You simply are not the chosen one.

Process met, company happy - rejected candidate falsy scrutinizes himself. Would you as a company tell the candidate: "Hey, sorry for your time, investment, interest etc. But there was not really an offer for you, we simply had to comply to a process. Have fun + bye!"? Nope.

Take this into account. There is a balance between "Not the right fit" and "Not the chosen fit".

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#29

Post by aestetix »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #24
aestetix wrote: post #11

This seems common in American companies. I wonder how much of this is a result of lawsuit culture. For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates. And perhaps this has carried into feedback for actual employees. It sounds like the author wasn't even he was on a performance improvement plan, he had to infer it and pull it out of his manage…

>This seems common in American companies. If that same American culture is all over companies worldwide now, is it still American culture anymore? >For example, American companies won't tell job applicants why they get rejected, lest they get sued by the rejected candidates. Same in Europe, you get ghosted or at best, you get the same bland cookie cutter politically correct copy-paste rejection massage, no matter wha…

It is absolutely not the same in Europe. Maybe it depends on the country. In Germany, you are expected to give honest (and sometimes brutal) feedback, but always with a way to improve in mind. But the idea of taking a company to court for something like this in Germany is laughable.

Re: I worked in Amazon HR and was disgusted at what I was seeing with PIP plans

#30

Post by hef19898 »

Kiro wrote: post #22
underseacables wrote: post #3

Amazon seems like a really awful place to work, at the warehouse or at the corporate office. Why do people still work, and want to work, there?

The narrative on HN is almost always driven by negativity so I wouldn't presume that things posted here are representative of the actual working conditions at corporate, or exclusive to Amazon. Here's an alternative view that popped up in my feed yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IVdaysrIS74

Of, both things can be true you know? I worked there, left for various reason, don't regret my years there and even considered going back. Why? Because most other places, and I have seen quite a few, are similar, Amazon is just up front, hobest and open about it. And, even more important, they follow their own rules, meabing as an emoloyee I can play the game as well since the rules are kind of known. Most other places, there either are no rules, or they are used totally at will by management.

I prefer honesty, even or especially, when cruel, about being stabbed in the back by axe.

Post reply on HN