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

Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#71

Post by rdevsrex »

commandlinefan wrote: post #67
jaqalopes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

> Unionization is the correct response here That makes sense on the face of it, but if you look back over the other professions that have unionized (steel workers, auto workers, truck drivers), the lives of the actual workers always seems to have suffered post-unionization.

Really, do you have some studies on that? I'm pretty sure it was unionization that got us the 40 hour work week.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#72

Post by robjan »

screwturner68 wrote: post #64
jaqalopes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

I'd love to see some apprentice programs in IT, it would at least give everyone a standard base of knowledge like what you are supposed to have in a union journeyman. Right now everybody with six months experience considers themselves senior, we have no standards and we all fight each other which isn't how a union works.

I used to work in a unionised engineering department. There were benefits, such as being hard to lay off large amounts of the workforce. There were also disadvantages, such as collective bargaining which meant high performers generally weren't rewarded and salaries were generally below market.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#73

Post by eganist »

commandlinefan wrote: post #67
jaqalopes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

> Unionization is the correct response here That makes sense on the face of it, but if you look back over the other professions that have unionized (steel workers, auto workers, truck drivers), the lives of the actual workers always seems to have suffered post-unionization.

I need a citation for this. IATSE has some of the best benefits (pension and healthcare) for their members in media/entertainment, as I understand it entirely funded by cuts from residuals.

And their take is, directly from their site, "$95.00 per quarter and 1% of gross earnings under the contract."

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#74

Post by Centigonal »

elforce002 wrote: post #51

Interesting. I cannot separate what the Feds said regarding inflation tbh. On one side, the government was gloating over the fact of low unemployment numbers, on the other side, you have the Feds saying with no shame whatsoever they need to low inflation numbers by raising interest rates and orquestrate moves to layoff people with the objective to lower the demand for goods and services. This looks like a coordinated…

Inflation hurts the common folk as well though (people who own assets have their assets stay the same in real value, people who don't have the spending power of their bank accounts eroded).

What you're theorizing might still be happening (inflation looks like it's been controlled for the last few months, but layoffs continue), but lowering inflation is more than PR.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#75

Post by robswc »

blululu wrote: post #59
nine_k wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary? I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there. The in-between time sucks, of course.

Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.

It is frustrating, to be sure... but I think 18k jobs for 2 years is a net-positive for society.

We wouldn't be here discussing this if the economy had not done so poorly.

What if on average, you hire 10 people a year. Each year, there's a 10% chance of having to lay off 10 people. Details of profit/loss aside, what is the optimal move? Never hire so you never have to lay anyone off? Hire only 5 people a year so the impact is not so large?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#76

Post by jackmott42 »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Is this actually bad? Would it be better for those 18k jobs to never have been available at all?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#77

Post by midlightdenight »

sairahul82 wrote: post #27
theRealMe wrote: post #4

Headline is confusing. It makes it sound like there will be 18k new layoffs, but this is information that has been public since November and the cuts happened two days ago. (Or at least the bulk of them did)

It’s not clear actually. I know some friends who are affected in Nov and some are affected yesterday.

It happened in two waves. 10k back in November and 8k this week.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#78

Post by LetsGetTechnicl »

notyourwork wrote: post #49
ljm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Amazon's point of view, this doesn't seem too far removed from their annual firing quotas which I think is already an onerous practice. From the hyper-scale startup point of view, it's blatantly unsustainable and frankly irresponsible to play fast-and-loose with people's careers by hiring them and then making the position redundant, sometimes within less than a year; even six months in some cases that I've known…

Irresponsible for who? Corporations are in the business of their own interests. Employees are a resource to furthering a businesses goals. They aren’t a charity that owes individuals anything. If you think that you’re being naive about what we call at-will employment.

But corporations can't exist without their employees. If they don't see the value in retaining and building good employees, what kind of business do they expect to build? It should be a more symbiotic relationship.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#79

Post by bluedino »

commandlinefan wrote: post #67
jaqalopes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

> Unionization is the correct response here That makes sense on the face of it, but if you look back over the other professions that have unionized (steel workers, auto workers, truck drivers), the lives of the actual workers always seems to have suffered post-unionization.

Amazon could start a 'jobs bank'!

The Jobs Bank was set up by mutual agreement between U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers union to protect workers from layoffs. Begun in the mid-1980s, the program is being tapped by thousands of workers. Many of those receiving checks do community service work or take courses. Others sit around, watching movies or doing crossword puzzles -- all while making $26 an hour or more.

The Big Three automakers agreed to the system to protect union workers from outsourcing and technology. But with Ford and General Motors losing money in North America -- and contract negotiations due in 2007 -- the future of the unique program is uncertain.

https://www.npr.org/2006/02/02/5185887/idled-auto-workers-ta...

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#80

Post by subradios »

Bilal_io wrote: post #60
jvanderbot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the money, I'm quite glad my job was cut, in hindsight, but only because Amazon handled it so well: They gave us time to sort out a new position. I'm already much more excited about my new gig, and for the right reason (not $). I'm not sure a union would have helped there, but I'm not opposed. Amazon tried to make hay while the sun was shining, and it didn't work out for all depts. It happens.

Looking at unions from a personal lense can make them seem unnecessary and maybe even negative to some people. However their purpose in my opinion is to benefit the collective of members as a whole. I have nothing to back up this claim, but it seems like selfishness is what caused reduction of unions in the US. And for the same selfishness it's tough to organize people and kickstart a new union.

You have to show they actually benefit the members as a whole. Union laws in the US are extremely strong, and anti union sentiment is largely a hangover from the 70s, where features of unions limited our manufacturing sectors ability to compete internationally with catastrophic consequences for the Rust Belt.
Post reply on HN