Bezos says Amazon needs to do better for employees in last letter as CEO(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Bezos says Amazon needs to do better for employees in last letter as CEO
https://www.reuters.com/business/bezos-says-amazon-needs-do-better-employees-2021-04-15/
86 comments
But he is really sorry, and didn't realised the seriousness of the situation. So he is a good guy now, ok? /s
I have no sympathy for him. If he really wanted to make up for his decisions (or at least for not addressing issues), he would have stayed as CEO and fix it all. It really looks like a childlish attempt to... I dunno what exactly are Bezos' intentions.
Is it a get out of jail free card? 'I wanted to change and improve workers situation, but my successor totally ignored it'.
I have no sympathy for him. If he really wanted to make up for his decisions (or at least for not addressing issues), he would have stayed as CEO and fix it all. It really looks like a childlish attempt to... I dunno what exactly are Bezos' intentions.
Is it a get out of jail free card? 'I wanted to change and improve workers situation, but my successor totally ignored it'.
He is still a shareholder. Let us see him put his vote where his mouth is. Will he push for amazon workers to be paid, to be given sick days and humane working conditions, or will he continue to care only about returns to fellow shareholders?
Shareholders have power - sure, but very little of it and very little power to actually affect change outside of board actions.
He already gave his answer by surrendering the power he could have used to change things. If it comes out that he was pushed out for trying to actually change things then more power to him, but I find that extremely unlikely.
He already gave his answer by surrendering the power he could have used to change things. If it comes out that he was pushed out for trying to actually change things then more power to him, but I find that extremely unlikely.
I don't know his exact ownership percentage, and how that correlates to voting power, but from what I've read and what I've heard from Amazon employees I would have a hard time believing that he couldn't have basically done whatever he wanted with the company at any point.
Until recently he owned about 40% of the stock. Lately he has sold most of that and only owns 10%. Either way, he was and is a major shareholder with more than enough power to shift any discussion re worker treatment.
His intentions are probably to not get eaten.
he just need to hold on long enough to get his rocket built
This made-for-TV change of heart might indicate he'll be joining the league of superwealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil behind to become a power for good. I mean, surely that is exactly what this means.
>Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short
Who has time for thinking when Marvel Megahero Show #34 has 3000 new episodes to binge? Besides, he's donating to or even directing all the Right Causes now! He's like a real life superhero.
>Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short
Who has time for thinking when Marvel Megahero Show #34 has 3000 new episodes to binge? Besides, he's donating to or even directing all the Right Causes now! He's like a real life superhero.
> Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil behind
Can you tell us more about the extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil of those two?
Do you really think that’s a reasonable way to describe Gates’s tenure at Microsoft? Some anticompetitive behaviour hardly seems unforgivably evil.
Do you subscribe to some weird right wing conspiracy theory about Soros?
Can you tell us more about the extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil of those two?
Do you really think that’s a reasonable way to describe Gates’s tenure at Microsoft? Some anticompetitive behaviour hardly seems unforgivably evil.
Do you subscribe to some weird right wing conspiracy theory about Soros?
Evil isn't really a word I'd use, but Bill has done some pretty damaging stuff. He, Allen, and Verhoeven helped create the patent regime that's now a huge bully tool in the hands of the megacorps. It's hard to put a nice face on Intellectual Ventures, a business whose model only works if independent rediscovery of a patent is common.
He was really nasty on a personal level too. Allen only saved his stake in the company because he happened to walk through the office late one night and heard Bill gloating with someone else about how they were going to screw him out of his shares.
I'm glad Bill has turned into the philanthropic leader he is now, but there was more ugly to his career than just some anticompetitive behavior.
He was really nasty on a personal level too. Allen only saved his stake in the company because he happened to walk through the office late one night and heard Bill gloating with someone else about how they were going to screw him out of his shares.
I'm glad Bill has turned into the philanthropic leader he is now, but there was more ugly to his career than just some anticompetitive behavior.
> Allen only saved his stake in the company because he happened to walk through the office late one night and heard Bill gloating with someone else about how they were going to screw him out of his shares.
Sounds like a fun story, do you know if it's online somewhere?
Sounds like a fun story, do you know if it's online somewhere?
> Evil isn't really a word I'd use, but Bill has done some pretty damaging stuff
The stuff you mention is so far from “evil” that it’s hardly worth mentioning in this context. Gates isn’t a saint, but calling him unforgivably evil is just ridiculous.
The stuff you mention is so far from “evil” that it’s hardly worth mentioning in this context. Gates isn’t a saint, but calling him unforgivably evil is just ridiculous.
Soros is famous for shorting the pound. Actively screwing a whole nation for profit is probably worth describing as “evil”. Gates’s anticompetitive behaviour is dickish but calling it evil is a step too far IMO
Blaming Soros for Black Wednesday is just silly, the blame rests entirely on the government.
And in any case, “screwing a whole nation”? Are you serious? Black Wednesday screwed the Tories, not the UK. Poor monetary policy cost the UK a few billion pounds, small money in the grand scheme of things.
And in any case, “screwing a whole nation”? Are you serious? Black Wednesday screwed the Tories, not the UK. Poor monetary policy cost the UK a few billion pounds, small money in the grand scheme of things.
It was convenient for the people who caused Black Wednesday to pin the blame on George Soros. That this would later lead to thinly-veiled anti-semetic conspiracy theories didn't matter.
Anti-semitism exists and is reprehensible. That having been said, using it hand-wave away what could be legitimate examination and discussion of a person whose behavior may be controversial is dangerous- and could encourage true anti-semitism. Over-use of accusations of anti-semitism in such a way that discourages discussion encourages bigots to say "All <insert a people> are <insert a pejorative>", particulary if the discussion topic is a figure whose actions may be controversial at times, such as Soros. I'm focused on Soros here because he came up in discussion; this is but one example of over-use of claims of racism, anti-semitism, etc. being used to stifle legitimate discussion.
I can remember 4 controversies surrounding Soros off the top of my head. There is (or there should be) room to discuss the statements below without redirecting off-topic by raising a curtain around the subject through claims of anti-semitism:
* In the late eighties Soros was convicted of insider trading by some French regulatory authority. If memory serves, his appeals of these convictions failed. Some people claim the conviction and fine was politically motivated, some claim the conviction was true as written.
* In 2009 a Hungarian agency fined Soros Fund Management LLC for manipulating values of Hungarian OTP bank stocks. The same arguments were made for/against the justice of the conviction.
* There are claims that Soros took advantage of the British screwing up when they pegged the Pound against the Deutschmark under the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and that he gamed a lot of value from the British economy as a result. I probably don't have the details right, I've heard people say that he sucker-punched the British, and others say that it actually helped the Brits in the long run.
* There are claims that in the 90's Soros manipulated the Maylaysion economy, society and currency for his profit, and that many suffered as a result. Some believe Soros had nothing to do with the Malaysion troubles and call this a conspiracy theory- it's still worth discussing.
My point is that the use of labels that identify real problems to distract from or avoid altogether a potentially controversial discussion has the potential to make [real] racism, [real] anti-semitism, etc. much worse, and should be avoided.
EDIT: spelling / grammar
I can remember 4 controversies surrounding Soros off the top of my head. There is (or there should be) room to discuss the statements below without redirecting off-topic by raising a curtain around the subject through claims of anti-semitism:
* In the late eighties Soros was convicted of insider trading by some French regulatory authority. If memory serves, his appeals of these convictions failed. Some people claim the conviction and fine was politically motivated, some claim the conviction was true as written.
* In 2009 a Hungarian agency fined Soros Fund Management LLC for manipulating values of Hungarian OTP bank stocks. The same arguments were made for/against the justice of the conviction.
* There are claims that Soros took advantage of the British screwing up when they pegged the Pound against the Deutschmark under the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and that he gamed a lot of value from the British economy as a result. I probably don't have the details right, I've heard people say that he sucker-punched the British, and others say that it actually helped the Brits in the long run.
* There are claims that in the 90's Soros manipulated the Maylaysion economy, society and currency for his profit, and that many suffered as a result. Some believe Soros had nothing to do with the Malaysion troubles and call this a conspiracy theory- it's still worth discussing.
My point is that the use of labels that identify real problems to distract from or avoid altogether a potentially controversial discussion has the potential to make [real] racism, [real] anti-semitism, etc. much worse, and should be avoided.
EDIT: spelling / grammar
I think it’s completely fair to bring up the possibility of [real] anti-semitism when someone calls the things you describe “unforgivably evil”.
I disagree.
You're conflating two posts- each is taking a different position.
The OP mentions "...the league of superwealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil...". He was referring to his belief that there is an evil group of wealthy people- and that this group includes Soros as well as Gates. My post gave examples of controversy surrounding Soros, with the admonition that these should be discussed instead of being labeled then memory-holed because of the man's ancestry.
In the OP's post, Soros was included as a member of a group- without mention or implication of any member's ancestry or race. The accusation of anti-semitism regarding the post, based only on Soros having been included in a list of "bad" superwealthy people, lacks any support other than Soros's inclusion in the list- which itself is not even "thinly veiled" evidence of anti-semitism.
The application of the label "anti-semitic" to either post is an over-reaching use of the term, and this over-reach very likely contributes to an increase in real anti-semitism.
You're conflating two posts- each is taking a different position.
The OP mentions "...the league of superwealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil...". He was referring to his belief that there is an evil group of wealthy people- and that this group includes Soros as well as Gates. My post gave examples of controversy surrounding Soros, with the admonition that these should be discussed instead of being labeled then memory-holed because of the man's ancestry.
In the OP's post, Soros was included as a member of a group- without mention or implication of any member's ancestry or race. The accusation of anti-semitism regarding the post, based only on Soros having been included in a list of "bad" superwealthy people, lacks any support other than Soros's inclusion in the list- which itself is not even "thinly veiled" evidence of anti-semitism.
The application of the label "anti-semitic" to either post is an over-reaching use of the term, and this over-reach very likely contributes to an increase in real anti-semitism.
I think you are ignoring the very real fact that there are very few people in the world who’d describe Soros in that manner and don’t subscribe in anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
The inclusion of Bill Gates further supports this view, most of the people who’d describe him that way believe in weird right wing conspiracy theories about microchips and 5G.
The inclusion of Bill Gates further supports this view, most of the people who’d describe him that way believe in weird right wing conspiracy theories about microchips and 5G.
None of the Soros stuff is a theory. It's all out in the open.
Just finished reading Soros' The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, and also listened to a Vox podcast episode on him https://podcasts.apple.com/al/podcast/who-is-the-real-george...
He seems like a pretty reasonable and interesting guy. The Vox episode sounded like a balanced take on his legacy: mixed but generally positive impact. The biggest argument against him that resonates with me is the same that applies to all the mega-wealthy: a handful of rich individuals should not have ultimate power to craft policy decisions, rather the world would benefit from a more balanced democratic process.
He seems like a pretty reasonable and interesting guy. The Vox episode sounded like a balanced take on his legacy: mixed but generally positive impact. The biggest argument against him that resonates with me is the same that applies to all the mega-wealthy: a handful of rich individuals should not have ultimate power to craft policy decisions, rather the world would benefit from a more balanced democratic process.
I guess, if you subscribe to the weird belief that shorting is evil. Or are you referring to something else entirely?
This isn’t an especially helpful comment considering some people believe he’s trying to use the vaccine to microchip all of us or something like that
> This strikes me as very similar to an abusive, narcissistic person miraculously having a change of heart and wanting to mend the path of destruction behind them after being diagnosed with a terminal illness.
Even calling it a change of heart seems to give him to much credit by implying this letter actually represents his real feelings as of right now.
Even calling it a change of heart seems to give him to much credit by implying this letter actually represents his real feelings as of right now.
> Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short to forget that he's been nothing but the encyclopedic example of greed...
...without whom access to goods during the pandemic would have been vastly more difficult and costly.
I am completely in agreement that Amazon is more destructive than it is good now, particular when it comes to the way it treats workers, but it doesn’t help to deny that it provides value.
...without whom access to goods during the pandemic would have been vastly more difficult and costly.
I am completely in agreement that Amazon is more destructive than it is good now, particular when it comes to the way it treats workers, but it doesn’t help to deny that it provides value.
It's also helpful for those with limited mobility even when there's no pandemic.
>Too little too late. Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short to forget that he's been nothing but the encyclopedic example of greed.
uhh... bill gates?
uhh... bill gates?
Interesting - I definitely consider Bill Gates a less harmful example of a billionaire. Mostly because I think of the people employed by microsoft during his tenure as well paid tech workers. That's somewhat different from the exploited amazon warehouse workers and sweatshop workers making the stuff they sell. I've not forgotten the FUD, the anti-linux and anti-apple maneuvering, etc. - but I don't have a strong example of the human cost of Bill Gates' billions - is there one I'm missing?
There are quite a few well-paid tech workers at Amazon, too. And proportionally, probably much better paid than the tech workers at Microsoft during Gates' tenure. Does the fact that Microsoft didn't employ warehouses make it better?
Amazon could exist - perhaps not quite to its current scale - without owning its warehouses. It would pay more, but the workers would not earn more. That profit would just be spread across different fulfillment companies and shipping enterprises. It's not as if with Amazon these workers are getting $10/hr but without Amazon they'd be making $25/hr. They'd still make $10/hr just with a different name on the paycheck.
Amazon could exist - perhaps not quite to its current scale - without owning its warehouses. It would pay more, but the workers would not earn more. That profit would just be spread across different fulfillment companies and shipping enterprises. It's not as if with Amazon these workers are getting $10/hr but without Amazon they'd be making $25/hr. They'd still make $10/hr just with a different name on the paycheck.
I'm looking at this from a labour and compensation perspective. If everyone you hire, and all the subcontractors you employ are making livable wages, you're less exploitative than if you directly or indirectly pay people non-livable wages.
You are correct, Amazon without warehouses only pushes the problem one step out to their fulfillment / shipping companies. The only way to rehabilitate Amazon (from evil to not evil... still far from good) would be for them to pay their employees (ALL of them - not just the tech workers) a livable wage, and for them to only sell things that have been made with non-exploitative labour practices.
The way I'm seeing it - the more you control the situation, the more guilty you are of the exploitation. Amazon controls who they work with pretty fully - but when I look at gates-era microsoft, I work my way out from their direct employees to the companies they work with, and I can't find the exploitative labour until I hit the PC manufacturers that were buying windows to put on their PCs. Maybe I'm missing something, but that feels pretty far out of their control - I'd place my blame at the feet of Dell or Compaq, not MSFT at that point.
You are correct, Amazon without warehouses only pushes the problem one step out to their fulfillment / shipping companies. The only way to rehabilitate Amazon (from evil to not evil... still far from good) would be for them to pay their employees (ALL of them - not just the tech workers) a livable wage, and for them to only sell things that have been made with non-exploitative labour practices.
The way I'm seeing it - the more you control the situation, the more guilty you are of the exploitation. Amazon controls who they work with pretty fully - but when I look at gates-era microsoft, I work my way out from their direct employees to the companies they work with, and I can't find the exploitative labour until I hit the PC manufacturers that were buying windows to put on their PCs. Maybe I'm missing something, but that feels pretty far out of their control - I'd place my blame at the feet of Dell or Compaq, not MSFT at that point.
another example is Apple. Their workers are paid well, but iPhones are assembled by Foxconn and if you ever bought iPhone/Mac, there is a chance that worker who assembled your iPhone has killed himself[1] due to low wages, stress, and exploitative labor conditions. Simply because Apple needs to maintain high margins and squeezes margins out of suppliers trying to maximize profits. That's why I dont buy apple products.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
Apple definitely profits, and bares responsibility, for using suppliers with abysmal labour practices - but before you rest easy, what phones and computers are you buying? Foxconn manufactures an estimated 40% of all consumer electronics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn) and the ones that aren't manufactured by foxconn are not necessarily made under better conditions.
The only workaround I've found for ethical consumption is buying second hand, which dilutes my contribution to these industries a little
The only workaround I've found for ethical consumption is buying second hand, which dilutes my contribution to these industries a little
Apple is the worst offender by wide margin, because their phones are the most expensive ones and have the biggest sales (=production target).
Add the fact that the deadlines on product announcement and shipping are very strict, so the pressure on workers assembling iPhones is the biggest. Stress with assembly of other manufacturers' phones is nowhere near than that of Apple's.
Samsung, I think, assembles phones in Vietnam, where labor conditions are better than in continental china.
Add the fact that the deadlines on product announcement and shipping are very strict, so the pressure on workers assembling iPhones is the biggest. Stress with assembly of other manufacturers' phones is nowhere near than that of Apple's.
Samsung, I think, assembles phones in Vietnam, where labor conditions are better than in continental china.
You don’t go around kicking people in the stomach just because if you wouldn’t, somebody else probably would.
When you are a company the scale of Amazon you have no excuse to not treat the people who make your services possible well. Of course there will be different levels for different jobs, but Amazon should have treated their employees with respect and been using their weight to lift the wage floor.
This of course is true for all companies but especially for the giants.
When you are a company the scale of Amazon you have no excuse to not treat the people who make your services possible well. Of course there will be different levels for different jobs, but Amazon should have treated their employees with respect and been using their weight to lift the wage floor.
This of course is true for all companies but especially for the giants.
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824485
Plenty of people are aware of Gates' overwhelming greed.
I would ignore all of it just to hear him talk for ten minutes about the overwhelming privilege he was born into and how that brought about his success.
I would ignore all of it just to hear him talk for ten minutes about the overwhelming privilege he was born into and how that brought about his success.
The people only care about convenience.
Amazon has made my life better with cheap and convenient products. Amazon has given a lot of relatively high paying jobs to people without a postsecondary education -- they've provided a living wage to middle America. I "get" that there's a big mound of hipster cred available if you pretend to be ashamed or disgusted by this, but I have no interest in that. Maybe it's because I'm from middle America and have friends in those sorts of jobs.
The problem with this sort of rant is that no amount of equity would ever be enough to satisfy you, and you don't care about the cost to their customers. America and American psuedocapitalism has still made countless lives across the world better in spite of that.
If this opinion hurts your feelings, you should probably spend less time on what is principally a venture capitalism forum.
I think Bezos will have an excellent legacy.
The problem with this sort of rant is that no amount of equity would ever be enough to satisfy you, and you don't care about the cost to their customers. America and American psuedocapitalism has still made countless lives across the world better in spite of that.
If this opinion hurts your feelings, you should probably spend less time on what is principally a venture capitalism forum.
I think Bezos will have an excellent legacy.
Yes Amazon created $15/hour jobs in areas where that's an above-average wage. But you've got to leave your dignity at the door to earn that. Most warehouses where I'm at pay $15/hour. Amazon is not paying above the going rate for warehouse work. They are, however, running their workers into the ground even moreso than the average warehouse, which typically runs people into the ground. I thought I had a shitty warehouse job with no hope of advancement until a few coworkers of mine went to work for Amazon and then promptly got the hell out of there. They have below-average working conditions for average pay. I'm not sure how they are supposed to be the saviors of the uneducated workforce. I hear better things about the local meat packing plants than I hear about the Amazon warehouse. At least the meat packing plants don't blow smoke up your ass and then try to tell you they're doing you a favor paying the average market rate for your work.
Amazon has committed the sin of success, so they're the ones made an example of. Criticizing the myriad businesses that lumber along in Amazon's shadow—whose business practices are worse on average—would be pointless, because they're not the ones who so brilliantly and visibly succeeded.
Based on that, I don't discount criticisms of Amazon, but rather take them as criticism of the incentive structures in which all businesses operate. The cult of criticism around Bezos is silly, but ignorable. People need something easy to fixate on, and it's hard to do that for something so abstract and complicated as an economic incentive structures.
Based on that, I don't discount criticisms of Amazon, but rather take them as criticism of the incentive structures in which all businesses operate. The cult of criticism around Bezos is silly, but ignorable. People need something easy to fixate on, and it's hard to do that for something so abstract and complicated as an economic incentive structures.
> The problem with this sort of rant is that no amount of equity would ever be enough to satisfy you ... if this opinion hurts your feelings, you should probably spend less time on what is principally a venture capitalism forum.
I find it amusing that sharing a negative opinion about Bezos has apparently affected you so deeply that you've immediately marked me down as an irrational idiot who needs to be shown the door.
Usually these situations occur when people accidentally project their own wounded feelings. Frankly I'm just here for stimulating discussion and stay here because HN has changed my mind before, and generally makes me less dumb.
Your comment has not made me less dumb. It's just boring gatekeeping. Continue posting like this if you'd like; I have zero interest in it.
I find it amusing that sharing a negative opinion about Bezos has apparently affected you so deeply that you've immediately marked me down as an irrational idiot who needs to be shown the door.
Usually these situations occur when people accidentally project their own wounded feelings. Frankly I'm just here for stimulating discussion and stay here because HN has changed my mind before, and generally makes me less dumb.
Your comment has not made me less dumb. It's just boring gatekeeping. Continue posting like this if you'd like; I have zero interest in it.
cheap products and tech jobs at cost of USPS's losses and backbreaking and piss-keeping warehouse workers.
It is important to know where the created value comes from
It is important to know where the created value comes from
Amazon generated $1.6 billion in profit for the USPS.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/17/21443933/amazon-post-offi...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/17/21443933/amazon-post-offi...
"it's clear to me that we need a better vision for how we create value for employees"
It's statements like this that drive me deep into despair. That bland, banal platitude of "value". That non-statement of inaction phrased as "we need a better vision".
And, increasingly off-topic and misanthropic: Why has "ask" replaced "request" as a noun? "The ask is that we improve database response times by 25%". Why is that any clearer?
My apologies for the grumpiness. A security team has decided to throttle all AWS modification requests and it's breaking all our pipelines through timeouts.
It's statements like this that drive me deep into despair. That bland, banal platitude of "value". That non-statement of inaction phrased as "we need a better vision".
And, increasingly off-topic and misanthropic: Why has "ask" replaced "request" as a noun? "The ask is that we improve database response times by 25%". Why is that any clearer?
My apologies for the grumpiness. A security team has decided to throttle all AWS modification requests and it's breaking all our pipelines through timeouts.
>It's statements like this that drive me deep into despair. That bland, banal platitude of "value". That non-statement of inaction phrased as "we need a better vision".
The sad thing is, it isn't even that hard to do; creating value for workers, I mean; at the risk of intensifying your despair.
Keep workloads reasonable. Establish humane feedback loops so that your labor force can actually attempt to actualize themselves. At the end of the day, every human being in a workplace creates value, and the more you can make life simpler and more straightforward for those who work for you without hemming them in or pidgeonholing them, the safer they'll feel taking reasonable risks that may just pay off, and most importantly coming to you first for input, advice, and a courtesy heads up.
One of the biggest challenges I've had to face since getting actual reports, is de-programming the tyranny-of-the-manager in the whole lot of them. I need people questioning things, correcting misunderstandings, making me aware of things. It is my job to do what needs to be done to enable my team to succeed. My team's inexplicable or unanticipated sudden failure is my failure. I am the one ultimately responsible for ensuring the reliability and stability of the processes that effect those I am tasked with managing for.
As a nuts and bolts person, it's totally new to me. However, I had someone volunteer to take a paycut to stay on with me. I'm... Not sure whether that's ultimately a positive, or what. I wonder sometimes if I'm falling down into the abyss of narcisstic management/business tendencies I've fought against my entire career because the descent is more insidious than I ever imagined... Then I look at all the stuff I have to balance, and re-evaluate what I could do different, and well... It is what it is.
Management was never something you should do to others, rather you do it for them to in the end make the entire working unit more productive. It's all work and overhead that has to occur for any task to get done; somebody has to do it. I just try to do for them what I always wished mine would do for me. I have a hunch they may have productivity gains in their personal lives. (At least I hope so.) I figure that's for someone else to judge though.
I just don't understand treating people like machines.
The sad thing is, it isn't even that hard to do; creating value for workers, I mean; at the risk of intensifying your despair.
Keep workloads reasonable. Establish humane feedback loops so that your labor force can actually attempt to actualize themselves. At the end of the day, every human being in a workplace creates value, and the more you can make life simpler and more straightforward for those who work for you without hemming them in or pidgeonholing them, the safer they'll feel taking reasonable risks that may just pay off, and most importantly coming to you first for input, advice, and a courtesy heads up.
One of the biggest challenges I've had to face since getting actual reports, is de-programming the tyranny-of-the-manager in the whole lot of them. I need people questioning things, correcting misunderstandings, making me aware of things. It is my job to do what needs to be done to enable my team to succeed. My team's inexplicable or unanticipated sudden failure is my failure. I am the one ultimately responsible for ensuring the reliability and stability of the processes that effect those I am tasked with managing for.
As a nuts and bolts person, it's totally new to me. However, I had someone volunteer to take a paycut to stay on with me. I'm... Not sure whether that's ultimately a positive, or what. I wonder sometimes if I'm falling down into the abyss of narcisstic management/business tendencies I've fought against my entire career because the descent is more insidious than I ever imagined... Then I look at all the stuff I have to balance, and re-evaluate what I could do different, and well... It is what it is.
Management was never something you should do to others, rather you do it for them to in the end make the entire working unit more productive. It's all work and overhead that has to occur for any task to get done; somebody has to do it. I just try to do for them what I always wished mine would do for me. I have a hunch they may have productivity gains in their personal lives. (At least I hope so.) I figure that's for someone else to judge though.
I just don't understand treating people like machines.
>It's statements like this that drive me deep into despair. That bland, banal platitude of "value". That non-statement of inaction phrased as "we need a better vision".
Value has a very specific economic meaning. It means a product or service with a price. Providing employees with more value is a way of stating they plan is to give them more XYZ, but not necessarily pay them more.
There are lots of non-pay increase propositions that employers can do that add a ton of value for employees. On site, at-cost daycare. On site medical/dental visits (e.g. staff Direct Primary Care). At cost cafeteria services. Amazon's scale & logistics prowess enable them to provide these things at much lower cost than an individual can purchase them for. At some point, these things add up and Amazon becomes a company town. But for many Americans, a company town run by Amazon would be welcome if it ads value to their lives. My guess is this is exactly what Amazon will do.
Value has a very specific economic meaning. It means a product or service with a price. Providing employees with more value is a way of stating they plan is to give them more XYZ, but not necessarily pay them more.
There are lots of non-pay increase propositions that employers can do that add a ton of value for employees. On site, at-cost daycare. On site medical/dental visits (e.g. staff Direct Primary Care). At cost cafeteria services. Amazon's scale & logistics prowess enable them to provide these things at much lower cost than an individual can purchase them for. At some point, these things add up and Amazon becomes a company town. But for many Americans, a company town run by Amazon would be welcome if it ads value to their lives. My guess is this is exactly what Amazon will do.
This usage of "ask" is quite old, and as is often the case, everything old becomes new again: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/111597/the-ask-i...
Request is a hugely overloaded term in computing systems. HTTP requests, Customer or Service Requests (which are an object in ERP systems).
So corporate speech has moved to using "ask" to model an actual request.
So corporate speech has moved to using "ask" to model an actual request.
Surely executives aren't confusing their administrative requests with computing system concepts. The correct answer is simply that it's become a passive way of telling someone to do something. Instead of "Can you provide us a 25% growth this year" it is now "The ask is 25% growth this year."
You think a lot of people mistake "I'm asking you to improve database response times by 25%" with an HTTP request?
"We, as in not me, should do something that I didn't do. Good luck with that."
These kinds of letters always fall flat with me. This is not something that just happend in the last couple of weeks while the existing CEO was already out the door. This is something that has been festering for a long time under the watch of the exiting CEO. This always feels be bit like Pontius Pilate washing his hands type of move.
These kinds of letters always fall flat with me. This is not something that just happend in the last couple of weeks while the existing CEO was already out the door. This is something that has been festering for a long time under the watch of the exiting CEO. This always feels be bit like Pontius Pilate washing his hands type of move.
Talk is cheap, especially when you're no longer in charge. He's had 27 years to do better.
I respect him for building a company this huge. Luck and privilege played a part for sure, but without laser-focused willpower and endurance, it won't have been possible to get Amazon to what it is today.
At the same time, this is almost comical.Amazing, indeed, that he doesn't get called out by major news reporters.
At the same time, this is almost comical.Amazing, indeed, that he doesn't get called out by major news reporters.
I mean, Amazon has traditionally been a pretty great place to work, even in fulfillment centers the pay is above industry averages and FT employees have perks they wouldn't get anywhere else.
They're having some issues scaling that while maintaining good conditions (esp. when contractors are involved), but we're talking about a company that has nearly doubled its workforce in the last two years. I doubt very much that any company in that size range could do the same without big problems; clients I've worked with and talked to see similar problems scaling from 50 to 100 employees, but no one cares because the company isn't a household name.
They're having some issues scaling that while maintaining good conditions (esp. when contractors are involved), but we're talking about a company that has nearly doubled its workforce in the last two years. I doubt very much that any company in that size range could do the same without big problems; clients I've worked with and talked to see similar problems scaling from 50 to 100 employees, but no one cares because the company isn't a household name.
While you shouldn't be downvoted,
> even in fulfillment centers the pay is above industry averages
This was debunked, many warehouses pay $18-22+ (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-w... or I guess just Google it).
> but no one cares because the company isn't a household name.
While I understand you might mean journalists don't care, small businesses with fewer than 500 employees employ 47.3% of US workers (see https://smallbiztrends.com/small-business-statistics). So it's really the worst kind of generalization you've made. Half of US workers will care about businesses that operate at small scales because they are employed by one.
> even in fulfillment centers the pay is above industry averages
This was debunked, many warehouses pay $18-22+ (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/economy/amazon-w... or I guess just Google it).
> but no one cares because the company isn't a household name.
While I understand you might mean journalists don't care, small businesses with fewer than 500 employees employ 47.3% of US workers (see https://smallbiztrends.com/small-business-statistics). So it's really the worst kind of generalization you've made. Half of US workers will care about businesses that operate at small scales because they are employed by one.
That "debunking" is comical. They compared the median wage of a giant metropolitan area to that of a subset of it which is ridiculously impoverished. What's more is the comparison of wages says nothing about other benefits or bonuses. Who else pays for your medical insurance in a no-skill job from day one? Basically no one, especially not in that area.
Why do you think the employees voted 2-1 against a union? Because they're idiots and not enlightened like you? Do you think they have 0 ability to reason about their situations and the available opportunities around them?
I'm not even morally/ethically/aesthetically/whateverily opposed to unions, but everyone who sits in their comfy armchairs in front of their monitors at their WFH job posting about the need for a union to represent these people when the people who would actually be represented by the theoretical union reject that need have no self awareness of their privilege nor the lack thereof of these workers. The workers know their situations a hell of a lot better than you do, and they didn't want a union! Overwhelmingly! At best you can argue that they were bombarded by anti-union propaganda but do you really think they're too dumb to realize that? Were they not also bombarded by pro-union propaganda??
Why do you think the employees voted 2-1 against a union? Because they're idiots and not enlightened like you? Do you think they have 0 ability to reason about their situations and the available opportunities around them?
I'm not even morally/ethically/aesthetically/whateverily opposed to unions, but everyone who sits in their comfy armchairs in front of their monitors at their WFH job posting about the need for a union to represent these people when the people who would actually be represented by the theoretical union reject that need have no self awareness of their privilege nor the lack thereof of these workers. The workers know their situations a hell of a lot better than you do, and they didn't want a union! Overwhelmingly! At best you can argue that they were bombarded by anti-union propaganda but do you really think they're too dumb to realize that? Were they not also bombarded by pro-union propaganda??
Thank you, reminds me a little too much of Bernie supporters calling black voters "low-information voters" because they didn't vote for Bernie
Yes, but of course it's downvoted because Hacker News users hate the idea that they aren't superior to these working class folks or that they should have the autonomy/capability of self determination. No matter the implicit classism in this case nor the implicit racism in the Bernie case.
I think there are other arguments to be made: most likely scenarios include an absolute terror of retribution and a lack of faith in the state to protect them from it.
This is a climate where companies lay off entire staffs for daring to unionise. If you’re working for a company that already makes you piss in a bottle and are concerned about keeping your job, what are you going to do when they order you as plainly as can be to vote no?
It says absolutely nothing good about Amazon that the workers voted against unionization. You certainly can’t conclude the workers didn’t want to be unionised.
This is a climate where companies lay off entire staffs for daring to unionise. If you’re working for a company that already makes you piss in a bottle and are concerned about keeping your job, what are you going to do when they order you as plainly as can be to vote no?
It says absolutely nothing good about Amazon that the workers voted against unionization. You certainly can’t conclude the workers didn’t want to be unionised.
> It says absolutely nothing good about Amazon that the workers voted against unionization. You certainly can’t conclude the workers didn’t want to be unionised.
Astounding.
Astounding.
I've known several Amazon employees over the years, both developers (going way back) and warehouse workers (more recently). The developers have consistently described it as extremely taxing, but worth the pay. The warehouse workers described it as extremely taxing, but better than going hungry.
The funny thing about Amazon is they don't just profit from shill reviews, but they also encourage shilling by their employees to boost their reputation. For that reason, I strongly weight first-hand accounts by people I know over everything else I've read online.
The funny thing about Amazon is they don't just profit from shill reviews, but they also encourage shilling by their employees to boost their reputation. For that reason, I strongly weight first-hand accounts by people I know over everything else I've read online.
Maybe you are right, but for me as an ex-Googler the fact that he used a door as his table turned me off when they wanted to interview me. Ergonomics is really important for my back. In Google I could adjust the desk position with a button.
Did your clients have their employees pee in bottles as a de-facto company policy? Is that the sort of thing that just tends to happen as companies scale?
"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
"0 Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?"
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
I honestly think if we lewis carroll as required reading in school we wouldn't be so quick to forget hard learned lessons about greed.
These days it feels like society has shifted more towards an ayn rand paradigm.
These days it feels like society has shifted more towards an ayn rand paradigm.
I am more worried about Time Clock Fraud[0] being treated as an actual issue. (It's just a byproduct of any business).
Amazon simply increasing the wages[1] is not enough. Wages also need to be adjusted for inflation.
[0] https://www.nettimesolutions.com/blog/time-clock-fraud-steal...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/amazon-extends-unpaid-time-o...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/amazon-to-end-wage-increases...
Amazon simply increasing the wages[1] is not enough. Wages also need to be adjusted for inflation.
[0] https://www.nettimesolutions.com/blog/time-clock-fraud-steal...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/amazon-extends-unpaid-time-o...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/amazon-to-end-wage-increases...
The media spin machines are in action. Pick the worst parts of the letter, ignore the good parts, and use it to reinforce the chosen narrative.
People think totally differently when primed. Compare how the comments here are totally different compared to the comments in the original thread, where people can read what Jeff Bezos actually said and form their own opinions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26819523
People think totally differently when primed. Compare how the comments here are totally different compared to the comments in the original thread, where people can read what Jeff Bezos actually said and form their own opinions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26819523
Alternately don't let a company that forces people to pee in bottles, and astroturfs social media off the hook when issuing a press release?
I encourage you to read the original source. A letter to shareholders is not a press release. This was legally filed with the SEC.
I mean, as far as I can tell letters to investors are optional unless you're doing something to their stock. They published it to their company news site[1], and told the world about it.
Could we meet in the middle and say it was a press release they filed with the SEC? :)
[1] - https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2020-letter-to...
Could we meet in the middle and say it was a press release they filed with the SEC? :)
[1] - https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2020-letter-to...
The apologists are in action. Focus on the part of the story where the murderer is nice to his mom.
Yeah, right... Why isn't he the guy that made things better for his employees? This is basically the equivalent of "k thx bye".
I've seen comments online say he worked hard for it. So what? I don't care how hard he has worked. A lot of us work hard too, but we never had the opportunities that he had back then and even less so today. People like him (greedy beyond measure) and corporations of that magnitude wielding so much control over our lives will bring nothing good.
I've seen comments online say he worked hard for it. So what? I don't care how hard he has worked. A lot of us work hard too, but we never had the opportunities that he had back then and even less so today. People like him (greedy beyond measure) and corporations of that magnitude wielding so much control over our lives will bring nothing good.
how about Bezos hops on one of amazon's delivery trucks for a week and brings a bottle to store his bodily fluids during extended work shifts?
after that experiment, if he works another week or two in a warehouse, and only then he can do a little bit of self-reflection and write a letter how Amazon needs to do better.
if he didn't talk to drivers, warehouse workers, didn't work with them side by side, how can say anything about the subject?
after that experiment, if he works another week or two in a warehouse, and only then he can do a little bit of self-reflection and write a letter how Amazon needs to do better.
if he didn't talk to drivers, warehouse workers, didn't work with them side by side, how can say anything about the subject?
How about voting for politicians who will enact stricter employment laws instead of complaining about someone who exploits their weakness?
Clinical Narcissism. There is no cure for this condition. I have some in my own family, and been working on it for 40 years now without seeing any real change.
He could 'do better for his staff' - with a single sentence email he could transform the company, even to this day.
Edit: for my disparagers - Bezos is among the most powerful people in the world, and has direct influence and leverage over his former company. A one sentence email to the current CEO detailing in broad strokes the policies that should be in place to 'do better for his staff' is literally all it would take. They'd be implemented immediately.
Edit: for my disparagers - Bezos is among the most powerful people in the world, and has direct influence and leverage over his former company. A one sentence email to the current CEO detailing in broad strokes the policies that should be in place to 'do better for his staff' is literally all it would take. They'd be implemented immediately.
they need to do a lot more than that.
I cancelled my long-time Prime membership this year because of their anti-union behavior, their workplace conditions, and the shit-show that their marketplace has turned into.
I'm also trying to patronize other stores for all of my just-grab-it-from-Amazon purposes.
I cancelled my long-time Prime membership this year because of their anti-union behavior, their workplace conditions, and the shit-show that their marketplace has turned into.
I'm also trying to patronize other stores for all of my just-grab-it-from-Amazon purposes.
Easy to write on the way out unfortunately.
Here we see Bezos hurriedly trying to patch up his horrendous legacy with an empty letter. Too little too late. Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short to forget that he's been nothing but the encyclopedic example of greed.