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

#91

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

ryanobjc wrote: post #35

garybizzle wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's hard to say if specifically someone did a cost/benefit/value analysis. But when you work in a culture of doing things that are frugal, cheap, and those are rewarded, you will be rewarded for doing things that SEEM frugal and cheap. So even if there is long term value reduction, no one realizes this, or has done the math, and thus it seems like Amazon is saving a butt-load. After all, the face value (in terms of…

> you will be rewarded for doing things that SEEM frugal and cheap.

It's exactly this. Temps are used because they appear to be saving money when reported to The Boss (whoever that may be.) People seem to forget the majority of folks in these companies only care about what they need to do to keep their jobs, so if HR needs to appear to spend less money, they're going to utilize the easiest method for that to happen.

I think everyone has this image in their head that companies operate as efficiently as possible, and if they aren't doing something, there must be a good reason. Often times, this isn't the case; it's more like a freighter being held together with duct tape and shoestring, and through some miracle, it floats.

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

#92

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:28 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #90

bmelton wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If he was hired on the promise that his contract would only be 11 months, and he knew that up front, I don't see why it's a problem. If he were just randomly fired after 11 months so that they could avoid paying the difference, then I would completely agree with you.

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

#93

Post by vacri » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:29 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #89

vacri wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I edited the comment within a minute, I thought I'd caught it before it might have been seen.

This being said, creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I've had to leave two jobs previously because the structure of the position meant it was impossible for me to turn out quality work. My initial pre-edit comment overstated this considerably, admittedly, but I do disagree that there was no comment on what can be considered abuse in the essay (eg promotions based on physical attractiveness)

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

#94

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:29 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.

It's not unusual, but what I and some others find objectionable is this concept that people are get let go after 11 months to avoid a deeper contractual entanglement (eg become eligible for benefits or pension contributions or whatnot), regardless of performance.

This is particularly irritating to read about when full-time employees such as the manager in the story enjoy greater authority and job security despite being demonstrably less competent. That says that people who are wise enough get into management roles can get greater rewards without needing to be particularly (or at all) skillful, while people who choose to develop some operational skill or otherwise start at the bottom are suckers whose opportunities are decoupled from their competence or productivity - and there's a strong feeling that in many firms, this sorting takes place at the time of hiring, before the contract employees have an opportunity to become familiar with the corporate culture. Such a setup, where it exists, is deeply at odds with the meritocratic ideal that is heavily promoted in American culture, education and by most employers.

tl;dr treating employment like prostitution is destructive of goodwill between suppliers and consumers of labor.

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

#95

Post by vacri » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:31 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #89

vacri wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except those jobs would be... illegal?

I'm not talking about the legality of the job, but the argument structure. By saying this on the legality, you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive.

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

#96

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:32 PM UTC

I'm confused as for why one would let go a successful employee that worked for 11 months just not to let them work for 12th. Is there some regulation there that significantly changes the cost structure and forces this behavior? Is the change of the cost structure so great that it actually exceeds the cost of constant retraining and the risk of a team completely disintegrating like we witness in the OP article? We're not talking about digging holes there, it takes significant time even for experienced programmer to get into the project and become productive, and the knowledge transfer is always flawed and incomplete even with best intentions, I can only imagine how flawed it is between two "I'm only here for 11 months" people...

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

#97

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:38 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #93

bmelton wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I edited the comment within a minute, I thought I'd caught it before it might have been seen. This being said, creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse. I've had to leave two jobs previously because the structure of the position meant it was impossible for me to turn out quality work. My initial pre-edit comment overstated this considerably, admittedly, but I do disagree that…

Ah, apologies. I must have just refreshed the page in time.

> creating an environment that makes people do subpar work is something of an abuse.

I mean, I suppose that's a fair concern, but the simple fact of the matter is that MOST companies, especially large, bureaucratic ones, exhibit those same symptoms. Very few environments are 'optimal' working conditions, and what might be optimal for you might be miserable for me, and vice versa. We might be used to more amenable environments than the one exhibited in this article, but that speaks more to the luxury of other positions than it does the misery of this one.

> By saying this you're effectively making the argument that as long as a job is legal, it's not abusive.

Well, I mean, that's what the government has set the bar at, so yeah. The government has determined that working conditions meeting their rigid regulatory standards are not in fact abusive, as a matter of law.

If an employer is paying at the very bottom of the wage scale though, they're going to get bottom-of-the-wage-scale employees, which disadvantages them in the marketplace, or affects their competitive agility. Is it great? No, but I don't personally see that it equates to abuse.

Of note, I did not suggest that we couldn't (or shouldn't) boycott them for it, but calling a spade a spade, abuse it isn't, at least not to me.

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

#98

Post by justin_vanw » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:39 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #16

mabbo wrote: post #5

Speaking as a developer at Amazon.com, what contractors? I've never met any, and I only have heard of one who left a while ago. Edit later: Developer contractors at least. I mean, sure, cleaning staff are contractors/temps.

I mean, sure, cleaning staff are contractors/temps. Obviously people like that don't deserve any kind of job security and should be fired annually. /sarcasm

Yea, I'm sure that's what he meant. /sarcasm

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

#99

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:43 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…

That of course assumes there's a price that is "fair" and you have a magic ability - personally or "as a society" - to figure it out while ignoring the markets (because the markets are "unfair"). I wonder how one does that and doesn't end somewhere in the vicinity of Detroit.

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

#100

Post by robryan » Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 11:43 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #80

wpietri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part and parcel of current corporate theory. The mantra of "increase shareholder value" really means "make the investors happy", which currently means "make the quarterly number look great". Combine that with a giant primate dominance hierarchy, where the only goal is to please the bigger monkeys, and idiocy like this is basically inevitable. This isn't the only way to run companies, but it's the only way mos…

> which currently means "make the quarterly number look great". Corporations with high P/E ratios are the counterexample to this, and Amazon in particular has a very high P/E.

At some point though the market expects this trend to reverse and the quarterly numbers to start looking very good. Which is what has been priced into the current share price.