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

Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 537 posts

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#301

Post by Forgeties79 »

andsoitis wrote: post #177
phoe-krk wrote: post #4

These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". They aren't unfortunate accidents of external origin that happened to them, they are conscious internal decisions to let people go.

> These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". While both terms mean someone no longer has a job, they differ in cause and implication. Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. Job loss is a broader term, simply means the person no longer has a job, for any reason, but typically layoffs, downsizing, restructuring, plant closure, or being f…

The only phrases they should be using are “Amazon lays off 14,000…” or (in the case of with cause) “Amazon fires 14,000…”

To me everything else is weasel words.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#302

Post by willsmith72 »

JCM9 wrote: post #185

To be clear, it’s worse. Read the press release carefully: 1. 14k was the net change in “corporate headcount” which is PR puffery speak saying they’re firing a lot more but when you net out folks let go slotting into open roles elsewhere the net change today would be a 14k reduction 2. It also says that “looking ahead” “we expect to… find additional places we can remove layers, increase ownership, and realize efficie…

Yeah that was my read too, I'm anticipating more rounds over the next few months

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#303

Post by pinnochio »

rco8786 wrote: post #283
bluGill wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more important thing it does though is remove culpability from the employee who doesn't have a job anymore. That person will be looking for a job (we assume, perhaps a few will just retire or something else). The companies they apply at will want to know why they no longer work at Amazon - there is a big difference between "I was sexually harassing my coworkers" (pick a crime, sexual harassment seems to be the bi…

That's why "layoff" is the right word to use. It makes it clear that it was Amazon's decision and not through any direct fault of the employee.

Yes. Job loss is what the employee experiences, not the employer.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#304

Post by JustExAWS »

malvim wrote: post #174
cool_dude85 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company Is your livelihood, housing, ability to put food on the table for your family etc. not a risk by your understanding? Or are you only willing to accept certain types of financial risk as "risk"? Here's an illustrative question: John Q. Billionaire owns shares in a passive index fund such that he practically has the same exposure to Amazon's stock price…

This drives me nuts. You move to another city, risk your livelihood on a new job that you don’t know if is gonna work out for you. Your kids go to a new school, your partner has to either move to find a new job, or make it work long distance for a while… Your whole life changes on what is essentially a bet, you have no security whatsoever. And people say the risk is not yours. Also - and I think this is the main thin…

Then don’t do that? In 2020, when I had the “opportunity” to work at Amazon in a role that would eventually require relocating after COVID, there was no way in hell I was going to uproot my life to work for Amazon and that was after my youngest had graduated. I instead interviewed for a “permanently remote role” [sic]. If that hadn’t been available, I would have kept working local jobs for less money.

Anyone with any familiarity about tech knew or should have known what kind of shitty company Amazon was. At 46, I went in with my eyes wide open. I made my money in stock and cash and severance and kept it moving when Amazon Amazoned me. It was just my 8th job out of now 10 in 30 years.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#305

Post by Forgeties79 »

acatnamedjoe wrote: post #261
rsanek wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very rare for someone that is fired to be "guilty of misconduct," unless you consider poor performance misconduct.

In Britain we have quite strong employment laws and a bit less of a ruthless corporate culture, so in many sectors it's fairly uncommon for people to be terminated for poor performance, so I suspect "misconduct" is a higher percentage of overall firings here.

Yeah for sure. Unfortunately in the US it’s not uncommon for companies to find “a pattern of behavior” or “less than stellar work” that is enough to justify not giving you your severance, but also not too severe that they can’t be blamed for never bringing it up and putting you on a PIP (performance improvement plan, not sure if that’s a term in other countries).

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#306

Post by SoftTalker »

rco8786 wrote: post #207
andsoitis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". While both terms mean someone no longer has a job, they differ in cause and implication. Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. Job loss is a broader term, simply means the person no longer has a job, for any reason, but typically layoffs, downsizing, restructuring, plant closure, or being f…

"job loss" is purposefully passive to remove culpability from the entity (Amazon) that is making the active choice to terminate these people's jobs. It's the same as language like "officer involved shooting" to avoid saying "an officer shot a person" or calling a "murder" a "loss of life".

"culpability" is also purposefully loaded. It's not wrong for a company to decide that certain jobs are no longer needed. How they handle that could be more or less considerate of the human impact, but there's really no way to do it that won't cause some some upset to the terminated employee.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#307

Post by thaumasiotes »

pjc50 wrote: post #189
chadash wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"job losses" is BBC editorializing. They do not use that term in their letter: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-workfor...

I think we may be hitting an issue in translation between English and American; in British English "fired" implies "for cause", while a "blameless" process of headcount reduction is known as "redundancy". "Job losses" is a perfectly reasonable neutral phrase here. Indeed, under UK law and job contracts you generally cannot just chuck someone out of their job without either notice or cause or, for large companies, a s…

> in British English "fired" implies "for cause", while a "blameless" process of headcount reduction is known as "redundancy"

OK. I was fired for no stated cause in a process that didn't involve headcount reduction, or the firing of anyone except me specifically. (The unstated cause seems to have been that I had been offered a perk by the manager who hired me that the new manager didn't want to honor after the original guy was promoted.)

How would you describe that, in British English?

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#308

Post by SoftTalker »

bluGill wrote: post #259
rco8786 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"job loss" is purposefully passive to remove culpability from the entity (Amazon) that is making the active choice to terminate these people's jobs. It's the same as language like "officer involved shooting" to avoid saying "an officer shot a person" or calling a "murder" a "loss of life".

The more important thing it does though is remove culpability from the employee who doesn't have a job anymore. That person will be looking for a job (we assume, perhaps a few will just retire or something else). The companies they apply at will want to know why they no longer work at Amazon - there is a big difference between "I was sexually harassing my coworkers" (pick a crime, sexual harassment seems to be the bi…

No employer is going to discuss reasons for a termination. Too much potential liability.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#309

Post by [deleted] »

playworker wrote: post #66
portaouflop wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the same language used when taking about “car accidents” They aren’t accidents, it’s an inherent part of how we designed cars and roads and we decided as society that we are ok with thousands of people killed by cars.

killed by drivers , cars are inanimate objects

[deleted]

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#310

Post by [deleted] »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #217
bell-cot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest "pretend" is where spokesmen, spin doctors, and sycophants for the plutocrat class have somehow convinced the 99% that stocks going up makes more jobs for the little people.

The most pernicious part of the con is that by systematically dismantling pensions and forcing everyone into 401(k)s, they've ensured that we all have to root for the plutocrats. We're forced to watch our retirement funds, which means we're incentivized to hope Amazon's stock does go up after firing 14k (or 30k according to other sources) people. It's a system of forced complicity. We have to root for the billionaire…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN