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

311–320 of 537 posts

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

#311

Post by bluGill »

LargeWu wrote: post #284
jvanderbot wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed how bad their devices dept was gutted? I can easily imagine a proper AI system backing alexa, rolled out to all existing customers, which would potentially boost the viability of that whole product line. right now I have no idea what Alexa is for anymore. It pings me when a package arrives but so does my phone. I can't order from it, because it makes me open the app. I can manage a shopping list I gu…

There is absolutely nothing in the world I would like less than an AI device listening to all of my conversations at home.

I have privacy concerns, but an AI that worked as a servant would be a great help. I can't afford servants (or slaves), but I want something that listens in and takes action when I want something. Interrupt me when I'm planning vacation to remind me that there is some other event at home when I'd be gone. When I run low on baking powder ensure I get more.

Again, the privacy concerns need to be addressed. However there is a lot of potential for an AI in my house if it works.

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

#312

Post by ghaff »

cjrp wrote: post #270
acatnamedjoe wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Firing" is becoming a bit more common in Britain, but still sounds like an Americanism to my British ears. I would use "sacking" for performance related termination, and "losing ones job" in all other cases. I suspect BBC would use the same.

"Made redundant" is another term for the latter.

Which, at least in American English, comes across like corporate jargon/weasel words. Lost their job is literally true and would probably take a bunch more words to describe the precise reasons.

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

#313

Post by thaumasiotes »

monooso wrote: post #240
dgs_sgd wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is downsizing and an employee’s role no longer being cost effective for the business not considered “cause” for firing?

IANAL, but I believe "cause" means "the employee gave the company cause to fire them". Poor performance, bad conduct, etc.

It's not so much that "cause" means anything as that "for cause" has a specific meaning.

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

#314

Post by ctxc »

jvanderbot wrote: post #228
blenderob wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there were huge misses on areas like AI Honest question. What could they have possibly gained from AI? What did they miss out on by not getting into AI?

Have you noticed how bad their devices dept was gutted? I can easily imagine a proper AI system backing alexa, rolled out to all existing customers, which would potentially boost the viability of that whole product line. right now I have no idea what Alexa is for anymore. It pings me when a package arrives but so does my phone. I can't order from it, because it makes me open the app. I can manage a shopping list I gu…

Hard agree. Same for Siri.

I don't get why they just don't do it. There are jailbreaks, making it talk trash and so on, but is that the majority of users? I doubt it.

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

#315

Post by mwt »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #282

From: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-workfor... > we want to operate like the world’s largest startup This is a phrase I hear repeated by leadership a lot, and it's usually code for "why doesn't everyone else just make the business grow faster?" It is almost always, as in this case, followed by statements that suggest they don't understand what is actually different about the way a start up func…

Much like the classic "our department in [big company] works a lot like a startup"

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

#316

Post by InsideOutSanta »

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"

You don't understand. Amazon lost 14,000 jobs in its couch cushions. It can happen to anyone; clearly, no one is at fault. Least of all Amazon, which, if you really think about it, is the real victim here.

/s

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

#317

Post by SoftTalker »

martin-t wrote: post #44
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.

It's wild that you can legally work for a company, spend your limited life's time to build a part of it while not owning even a tiny bit of it (getting paid for unit of time - a finite resource) and then just get fired once you are not longer useful and that's the end of your income from the thing you built for you. All the while people who own it don't have to perform any kind of work and keep getting paid in perpet…

"getting paid" is the operative word. Employees get paid, that is their compensation. If you want to be an owner, you need to either invest, or have that clearly included in your employment agreement.

Owners don't get paid as such. They have risk of loss, and only if the company is successful do they get a positive return on their investment.

Employees do have risk of losing their jobs, but don't really risk not getting paid for work performed.

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

#318

Post by taeric »

SoftTalker wrote: post #308
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…

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

Most all will answer whether or not it was "with cause" if someone calls them up, though? Specifically because they have to if the caller is about unemployment, no?

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

#319

Post by Temporary_31337 »

madamelic wrote: post #288
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".

It's also a total gut-punch to employees. "We had a great quarter!... not a good enough though, so GTFO" I can only imagine what this will do to morale. If even positive quarters means job cuts, why even try to have a positive quarter.

I dunno, I got used to the weekly beatings. You could arque that if you understand what brings the most business value and deliver that repeatedly, you're pretty safe from being fired and arguably you'd know how to run your own business if needed.

If someone, say did a great job of updating API documentation that can be fully automated now, that's not good enough nowadays. I realise that's not exactly fair because the capitalists / shareholders 'only' have to have to have money in order to receive compensation, and you as a labourer face increasing demands. If you don't like the balance of power you find a niche / leverage as a laborer or you switch to being a capitalist eventually.

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

#320

Post by SoftTalker »

taeric wrote: post #318
SoftTalker wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most all will answer whether or not it was "with cause" if someone calls them up, though? Specifically because they have to if the caller is about unemployment, no?

I'm not in HR but as I understand it most companies will not say anything other than confirming dates of employment.
Post reply on HN