An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com • Hacker News Board

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#81

Post by ignostic » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:12 PM UTC

GoodIntentions wrote: post #74

ignostic wrote: post #55

An open letter to Jeff Bezos, and it's practically worthless to a CEO. If the point is, "stop hiring contract workers," the letter should get to that point rather than complaining. Let's look at the merit's of the authors argument, stated mostly in the second paragraph. Allegedly contract workers produce low quality or inconsistent work, and that training costs are wasted. All of the supporting evidence is anecdotal,…

I agree that it is nothing any CEO would act on of itself but.. I suspect the point was to put enough personal context into the complaint to provoke sympathy, provoke noise, get it widely read and even hopefully get it across the CEO's desk at some point where the author's thesis will at least fleetingly get considered. At that point, gathering information to test whether the temp system is a net loss or a net gain c…

Calling it a "thesis" is awfully generous. It really doesn't matter if it accomplishes the same, but I have a hard time believing that the author was so deliberate. The simpler explanation is that he was just emotional and complaining about perceived unfair treatment.

Sympathy can lead to action, but provoking sympathy on an irrelevant point can lead to action you never expected. It might simply lead to finding the manager in question and dealing with that one problem. Whether thoughtful or emotional, focusing on the process itself would be more likely to inspire the prescribed changes.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#82

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:14 PM UTC

Kapura wrote: post #76

Jormundir wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not judging the company on a few internet articles, they're judging the company on the immoral hiring practices they use. Even if it's not for the entirety of the company, it is still significant. Obviously they pay tech workers well, they have to in order to get them to work there. They would have a very difficult time contracting tech employees, because there are so many alternative places to work. A perfec…

So you're saying that this company, which is playing by the rules (in that they aren't breaking any laws with their hiring practices), ought to make a move away from the practices that made them a hundred-billion dollar company because you feel that it's immoral. Do you see how that might look somewhat idealistic and, dare I say, foolish? I never supported the 'Occupy' protests mainly because you can't influence a co…

I agree in general, particularly about the appropriate response being to change the rules. However:

the practices that made them a hundred-billion dollar company

Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Amazon got to be big by avoiding long-term relationships with low-level employees, although it may have helped them to get bigger, faster (depending on the actual costs of contractors vs. full-time employees). My understanding of how Amazon got to be a huge company was by building large warehouses and powerful cataloging systems, and then have first a copy of any book, and later a copy of just about any thing for sale. Pricing is part of that and historically the firm has been competitive but not that great. To me the major plus has been convenience, quality of selection, good return policy etc. I can often do better if I shop around, but that has to be offset against the cost of dealing with multiple suppliers, time spent searching out better prices etc. - if Amazon is only 5% more than competitors it might not be worth my while chasing that 5% for most items.

Having said that, I'm more motivated to deal with other suppliers now because I don't want to support such zero-sum hiring policies with my trade $.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#83

Post by steveklabnik » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:14 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #73

steveklabnik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun bit of trivia: in a Marxist framework, where the whole 'exploitation' thing came from, it's actually assumed that the worker gets paid a fair market wage. Exploitation doesn't actually rely on someone being paid less than their fair share. I'm not saying that people here are using that term in it's technical way, but people have different opinions on what 'exploited' means, and it can cause friction.

Which is why I'm trying to figure out what, specifically, is being objected to. I'm getting the sense that there is a context beyond the article that I am not familiar with, which is fair enough, I suppose, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this employment was in any way unusual or exploitative, at least, not as I understand it.

Taking off my Marx hat, generally, people mean something along the lines of "an employer can take advantage of the fact that people will take any work rather than starve, and this drives wages down to a point that's unfair." In other words, an employer can exploit the fact that people are desperate.

So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty position, and we should try to do better, as a society.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#84

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:18 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #83

bmelton wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I'm trying to figure out what, specifically, is being objected to. I'm getting the sense that there is a context beyond the article that I am not familiar with, which is fair enough, I suppose, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this employment was in any way unusual or exploitative, at least, not as I understand it.

Taking off my Marx hat, generally, people mean something along the lines of "an employer can take advantage of the fact that people will take any work rather than starve, and this drives wages down to a point that's unfair." In other words, an employer can exploit the fact that people are desperate. So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that…

And that would be a fine argument, I suppose, if I'd seen anything in the article about the wages.

Like I said though, if that's the case, it's either outside the scope of this article, or I just missed it. Is that indeed the case, that Amazon is paying exploitative wages for these positions?

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#85

Post by ArtDev » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:19 PM UTC

As I understand, all of the large tech companies do this. We do the same work as employees, but without any benefits or job security. The best permatemps get jobs elsewhere and the worst are let go. The rest of us try are left in limbo hoping to be hired someday..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#86

Post by steveklabnik » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:19 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #84

steveklabnik wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking off my Marx hat, generally, people mean something along the lines of "an employer can take advantage of the fact that people will take any work rather than starve, and this drives wages down to a point that's unfair." In other words, an employer can exploit the fact that people are desperate. So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that…

And that would be a fine argument, I suppose, if I'd seen anything in the article about the wages. Like I said though, if that's the case, it's either outside the scope of this article, or I just missed it. Is that indeed the case, that Amazon is paying exploitative wages for these positions?

In this case, it's not the wages, it's the fact that they can't work for more than 11 months and that there's no chance of upward mobility. A person with no experience is given a 'real' job while a temp isn't even considered.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#87

Post by vacri » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:20 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #31

pasbesoin wrote: post #8

Ama-Mart Wal-zon Take your pick. I don't care whether you are "online" or off. Treat your workers like shit -- yes, your workers, you wankers; I don't care what shell employment manoeuvring you use -- and run a business model that takes advantage of, if it's not outright predicated upon, the public dole, and I will be disinclined to send my business your way. Other readers here: If you don't like it, vote with your d…

The worker was grateful for the opportunity, and enjoyed his time at Amazon, though he felt unmotivated toward the end. He was paid fairly, and presumably commensurately to either his skills, experience, or what he was willing to accept. He entered into the contract freely, was not abused by the employer in any way, and knew full well going in that his employment term would be most likely limited to 12 months. Yet st…

It's nice how you do the "he was paid fairly with unicorns and rainbows, with sweet choirs singing him to his rest... .... ... ... (or what he was willing to accept)", front-loading the idea that the employment was an ideal situation rather than what the guy may have had to take at the time. You could say exactly the same thing about illegal jobs paying under minimum wage.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#88

Post by potatolicious » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:21 PM UTC

garybizzle wrote: post #28

ryanobjc wrote: post #14

I used to work at Amazon, and this is disturbing, but not really surprising. A focus on cost instead of value is a core element at Amazon. I ultimately left because what could be described as a failure to recognize value over the actual cost. 5 years of controlling high-value but high-cost things left my department with a shredded staff. By the time the economy was improving in the 2006-8 timeframe, nearly all my col…

The author also mentions "Although it may seem like the company is saving money — because you don’t have to provide temporary workers with medical coverage or paid vacation time." I just want to point out that contractors actually cost the company MORE money than employees, on average around $30k/year per worker. I think the main reason contractors are used is because many full-time employees "settle" somewhat and do…

I used to work for Amazon, in a different department than the author, and I agree with this part. My old team employed two contractors "in perpetuity", to my protestations, and the reason wasn't monetary.

Not directly anyways.

At the time (circa 2009-10) upper management was freaking out about the economic downturn. Hiring caps were put in place, and every team was watched like a hawk for "unnecessary" headcount. Bringing in a full-timer was basically impossible, especially for a position that was "second class" (read: not a PM/TPM/SDE).

Turns out though, you can hire contractors just fine so long as you could prove need - and this conveniently let you hire someone without exposing yourself in upper-managerial whack-a-mole.

All in all, I learned a lot at Amazon, but it is a terribly managed company as a whole. There are good parts, there are bad parts, but much of the upper management is more interested in politics than the product/customer/company. This sort of systemic dysfunction was just one of many "quirks" of working there.

Funnily enough, that same hiring cap was what eventually got me to leave. During this whole time the team had a need for more software engineering hands, but we were always turned down by management since other teams had more acute needs and needed to fit under the hiring cap. We built up a massive tech debt in the meantime as our maintenance and workload increased at breakneck pace.

Eventually, a couple of years later, the hiring restrictions were relaxed and my team of 3 engineers opened up seven positions in the same month. I spent the next 3-4 months basically interviewing and sitting in meetings full-time. Then I decided I enjoyed coding more than interviewing people and explaining why interviewing people for 5 hours a day was causing nothing to get done.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#89

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:24 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #87

bmelton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worker was grateful for the opportunity, and enjoyed his time at Amazon, though he felt unmotivated toward the end. He was paid fairly, and presumably commensurately to either his skills, experience, or what he was willing to accept. He entered into the contract freely, was not abused by the employer in any way, and knew full well going in that his employment term would be most likely limited to 12 months. Yet st…

It's nice how you do the "he was paid fairly with unicorns and rainbows, with sweet choirs singing him to his rest... .... ... ... (or what he was willing to accept)", front-loading the idea that the employment was an ideal situation rather than what the guy may have had to take at the time. You could say exactly the same thing about illegal jobs paying under minimum wage.

> That's a nice reframing of his entire essay, which was about how the employees were being abused and how that was making them feel shit and shipping inferior product.

I must have read a different article than you did.

I didn't see anything in there about how employees were being abused whatsoever. Yeah, he thought that the politics were goofy, but they always are. Yeah, he thought that it led to an inferior product, but that doesn't mean he hated it, or that he was abused.

I don't see how I've attempted to 'reframe' it in any way, but we each took dramatically different things away from that article.

> You could say exactly the same thing about illegal jobs paying under minimum wage.

Except those jobs would be... illegal? This one is, from what I read, not illegal in any way. I don't see how you can make a legitimate comparison between something perfectly legal and something expressly not.

Re: An open letter to Jeff Bezos: A contract worker’s take on Amazon.com

#90

Post by grecy » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:24 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #70

grecy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worker was grateful for the opportunity Uh-huh. And if I give you no food for a week then throw you a dog bone you'll be grateful for that too. What a disgusting way to behave.

Again, there's been nothing to suggest that these were sub-par working conditions. Except for the length of the engagement, which is fairly normal, I don't see anything even remotely unusual about this working arrangement.

Employing someone for 11 months so you can avoid paying benefits is disgusting.

Just because it's not "unusual" doesn't make it acceptable.