Wal-zon

Take your pick.

I don't care whether you are "online" or off. Treat your workers like shit -- yes, your workers, you wankers; I don't care what shell employment manoeuvring you use -- and run a business model that takes advantage of, if it's not outright predicated upon, the public dole, and I will be disinclined to send my business your way.

Other readers here: If you don't like it, vote with your dollars (or whatever currency). It's the only way, in today's world.

And name them for what they are. They hate the bad publicity.

HN relevance: Being a "tech" company does not absolve you of being a good citizen. Some "tech" advocates are sounding far too much like Wall Street bankers, these days.

----

P.S. Good grief -- a bit of upvote. Karma negating though it may prove to be (feh), I'll add that while authoring my original comment I was thinking more of the now much reported warehouse staffing situation than of the OP's situation. ALTHOUGH... I, too, have experienced the "blessed" "management" employee phenomenon -- more than once, when I stop to think about it.

Once even personally, where a VP's... "pet" was moved into a role that I was in line for. They received some months of half-day or more one-on-one training from a senior supervisor. They never really got the hand of the role, especially the technical details; nonetheless, it was enough of a resume builder for them to shortly thereupon move on to "bigger and better" "management" things.

Whereupon, they belatedly put me into the role. Which I then did from day one, with effectively zero additional training. Oh, and while holding down my old job -- and at times, repeatedly, also portions of the job I'd left before that, which they continued to underhire for and so continued to fail to fill successfully.

"Management". The best management I've seen worked up to the role. "Formal" credentials are to me not outright anathema, but definitely a caution.

I replied further down the page, but there are a lot of employees who amazon treats pretty well. They are just much, much closer to the tech core of the business. Engineers especially get a pretty good deal; a friend of mine went out of undergrad to work at amazon for a six-figure starting salary plus additional dosh for moving expenses.

I hate to break it to you, but Amazon is a really, really fucking huge enormous gigantic company. And maybe you should talk to people who work there rather than just judging the company based on a few negative internet articles.

Obviously they pay tech workers well, they have to in order to get them to work there. They would have a very difficult time contracting tech employees, because there are so many alternative places to work. A perfect contrast of how they're taking advantage of those they can take advantage of.

I never supported the 'Occupy' protests mainly because you can't influence a corporation by yelling at it. Sitting in front of those banks in NYC or wherever didn't actually change shit. You know why? Because businesses are not in the business of making people happy. Shocking, but true. Businesses are in the business of business, which is to say they make money. Some day I'll write down something that I hope will illustrate in simple terms how huge corporations operate, but today is not that day.

My point is that successful corporations, a group to which Amazon.com obviously belongs, are motivated first, foremost, and entirely by the almighty dollar. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that should be the case, but you are an idiot if you don't believe that that is the case. So if you want to alter the way that big corporations work, you need to either change the rules to make it more profitable to support what you feel are moral hiring practices, or you make it actually profitable to retain these sorts of temporary workers for the long term.

But shakin' your fists ain't gonna work.

> If you don't like it, vote with your dollars (or whatever currency).

But, do you really believe that successful corporations "are motivated first, foremost, and entirely by the almighty dollar?" I know only a handful of people running successful corporations (much smaller than Amazon!), but I believe this to be true of none of them.

the practices that made them a hundred-billion dollar company

Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Amazon got to be big by avoiding long-term relationships with low-level employees, although it may have helped them to get bigger, faster (depending on the actual costs of contractors vs. full-time employees). My understanding of how Amazon got to be a huge company was by building large warehouses and powerful cataloging systems, and then have first a copy of any book, and later a copy of just about any thing for sale. Pricing is part of that and historically the firm has been competitive but not that great. To me the major plus has been convenience, quality of selection, good return policy etc. I can often do better if I shop around, but that has to be offset against the cost of dealing with multiple suppliers, time spent searching out better prices etc. - if Amazon is only 5% more than competitors it might not be worth my while chasing that 5% for most items.

Having said that, I'm more motivated to deal with other suppliers now because I don't want to support such zero-sum hiring policies with my trade $.

I don't think a single Occupy protester on Wall Street believed that they would get one of these too-big-to-fail financial institutions to change voluntarily by them "yelling at it." They were trying to shine the spotlight on what they felt the real problem was, and change the national discourse, probably with the long term political goal of changing the laws to change the incentive structures of those businesses.

My initial impression of this description is that it should easier to correct bad behavior in the tech world. For two reasons. If the tech leader becomes convinced they are doing the wrong thing they will want to change to doing the right thing. Also since they are being transparent it is easier for the public to know and understand their policies and apply pressure if they are disliked.

On the other hand it seems like it would be very hard to change bad behavior in the banking world from your description since they are already convinced their actions are non-optimal for society, it is difficult to apply social pressure since they are not transparent and are incentivized to be deceptive or lie.

He was paid fairly, and presumably commensurately to either his skills, experience, or what he was willing to accept. He entered into the contract freely, was not abused by the employer in any way, and knew full well going in that his employment term would be most likely limited to 12 months. Yet still, he would like to return to Amazon for gainful employment.

How exactly was anyone taken advantage of?

Regardless of whether or not he liked it, I'm wondering why the OP can call it "taking advantage of". I just don't see that here, and thought maybe I was missing something, versus my bar just being set at a different height.

These days any given new graduate who didn't attend an ivy league is in a situation where it is extremely difficult to get a job.

The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. This is the situation these contractors are in. When the alternative is being in extreme debt / homeless, a choice cannot be made freely. This is the situation that Amazon and Walmart are taking advantage of, employee these people as hourly, no benefits contractors.

Obviously there's the argument that Amazon and Walmart are being 'good' providing them with hourly pay when they would otherwise be paid nothing. This, however, doesn't mean they're not taking advantage of the people they hire as contractors. I would also not argue, but hold as a belief that it is extremely immoral to not pay the people who are struggling to help the company succeed, in order to pay people who are already wealthy more.

Before you explode with economic principles of how they are being paid what they're worth due to the harsh job market conditions, save your breath, I already know. The thinking is right from a market philosophy perspective, but these principles also weaken the company, and I would say are actually wrong from a perspective of building and growing a successful business.

Yes, I do, and I'd appreciate you not starting off posts being invective in the future. I'd downvote you for that if I could, even though I acknowledge you make an otherwise neutral point.

I'm not suggesting that Amazon is being good or evil, but I don't see any advantage having been taken. As Nostromo stated in a higher-voted thread, the unemployment rate in Seattle is currently at 4%, which is pretty good.

> The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all.

I don't see that having been suggested in the article at all. Regardless, some temporary work on a real product right after college seems like exactly the kind of thing I wish had been around when I was younger.

What I'm not seeing is that there was anything exploitative going on. Amazon paid a fair market wage, or at least I didn't see anything in the article to suggest he was making Walmart level wages. I don't see that the working conditions were harsh, or otherwise problematic beyond the normal level of office politics.

If these principles weaken the company, then I again don't see how that is taking advantage of the article's author.

I'm not suggesting that these are amazing working conditions, or that it's doing Amazon any favors, but at the same time, I don't see that anybody was taken advantage of either.

I'm not saying that people here are using that term in it's technical way, but people have different opinions on what 'exploited' means, and it can cause friction.

You've asked for more context, so here's what I have that is not talked about in the article.

Leading up to 2006-2007 and the financial crisis, these entry level jobs were salaried positions with standard benefits. Obviously this sounds expensive for a company, and there's plenty of arguing around whether this is worthwhile, but arguing won't help build the context.

During the financial crisis, as companies scrambled to cut costs as much as possible, a trend began to emerge. Companies realized that rather than give salaries and benefits for these entry level jobs, they could hire new grads and anyone else unable to find a job to be unpaid interns, doing the some level of work -- sometimes more depending on the person and position. I hope you would agree that not paying people for work is taking advantage of them. This is obviously more extreme than the contract practice talked about in the article. After it became clear companies were taken advantage of the job market to get free work out of desperate people, states began making legislation to make unpaid internships illegal. Here in California, it is illegal to not pay an intern if their work contributes to the business in any way.

Now that businesses can no longer get free work, they have reacted by filling these positions with hourly contractors who get no benefits whatsoever, no PTO, no sick days, nothing. Salaries for these contractors are often very low. 25-35k a year based on the hourly work. Salaries aren't being dictated by the value of the work the employee provides the company, but by the difficulty in getting (and really going through the process of finding a new job, possibly relocating, etc.) employment elsewhere.

The contrast between these positions 6-7 years ago and these positions now is why people say (feel) they are exploitative.

False. I do not know why you seem intent on being invective and assuming bad faith. I have never once proclaimed any superior understanding of economics, and in fact, have specifically stated the contrary on more than one occasion here at HN.

I simply don't see anything exploitative in hiring people for a fixed amount of time, for a certain amount of money, so long as the terms of both are freely negotiated up front and do not violate the terms of the law, and are not broken through deceit.

Thank you for the background on the rest. The point you made about California law though, is actually federal. The US Department of Labor sets the terms on what constitutes a valid internship, and the last I checked, California has no specific provisions above or beyond that. If you're referring to the recently decided Searchlight case, that was decided that the specific behavior was exploitative, not that internships are in general, where they abide the terms of the Department of Labor.

So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty position, and we should try to do better, as a society.

As for my 'personal' judgement on what is fair, I always defer to those entering the terms of the contract, so long as those contracts abide by law. If you offer me $10 an hour to do something I might ordinarily charge $100 for, and I accept that $10 an hour, and the $10 an hour does not break any law, then to me, that is fair. I am by no means authoritative on the subject though, so I appreciate any insight you may have.

1) The general (non-Marxist) idea is not that 'the market price is unfair, so we should set different prices ourselves', but rather that the market isn't magic, and does not appear ex nihilo, but is impacted by many things. Some of those things (such as law about hiring, firing, welfare, safety, and so on) can materially affect the negotiation in a way that is patently not fair. For example, if unions had the kinds of powers some ascribe to them (ability to set wages however high they wanted with all staff being unfirable no matter what they did, with employers being powerless slaves) that would be obviously unfair. The power dynamic in many countries (including the US) is roughly that slanted at the moment, but in favour of employers rather than employees - in the US, for example, this is the effect of things like no cause firing, binding arbitration agreements, 'temp' positions and 'internships' being allowed to be offered in place of actual jobs, no real socialised healthcare, limited unemployment insurance in most states, low minimum wages, no 'union shops' in most states, anti union laws, limited occupational health and safetly laws in many states, and so on. So, to make things 'fair', these things have to be fixed - then the market will be 'fair'.

2) The general (Marxist) idea is not that 'the market price is unfair, so we should set different prices ourselves', but rather that capitalist-worker relationships are always unfair and exploitative due to the worker always having to sell their labour for wages, rather than capital, where the capitalist simply gains more money through the actions of capital - neatly setting up a coercive power structure. The (tl;dr version of the) Marxist response is not that this means that we have to set 'better' or 'fairer' levels for wages, but that we have to destroy capitalism and abolish wage slavery.

Here you have to define what "fair" means. One of the definitions would be using extra-market coercion to influence the price - see unions example - is not fair, since it uses forceful coercion to benefit one side. However, unions often claim they need the coercion to reach "fair" prices since otherwise it is "unfair". So what is "fair" here? How you find out if voluntary agreement of two people is "fair" or not?

>>>> we have to destroy capitalism and abolish wage slavery.

Since the only other alternative that we've seen so far is non-wage slavery (at least until we find enough people that agree to work for free that we can create non-scarcity economy) this makes this definition of "fair" rather unappealing. The problem here is that voluntary structures tend to become markets, and calling non-voluntary arrangements "fair" has to rely on notion of fairness of those who apply coercion to support the non-voluntary nature, which very soon devolves into very peculiar understanding of "fairness".

Like I said though, if that's the case, it's either outside the scope of this article, or I just missed it. Is that indeed the case, that Amazon is paying exploitative wages for these positions?

The entire concept in which Amazon use temporary contract workers is seen as an exploitative abuse of the power by the employer the majority of societies outside the US.

The use of the term "wankers" leads me to believe that pasbesoin is not American, which means there's a pretty big chances he's used to different employer - employee relations and probably stricter laws limiting this kind of thing.

Personally, I don't consider this kind of thing to be "employment". It offers neither the security of being an employee, nor the freedom of being fully self-employed.

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.

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.

The majority of the quality assurance/editorial people I know (that's the position this guy was in) at Amazon started out as contractors and were then promoted to full-time employment because of their performance.

While I think employing a contractor for 11 months to purposely avoid paying benefits is a dick move, its also the case that a lot of these positions don't exist for an entire year because the teams either a) automate them out of existence or b) send them out to Mechanical Turk.

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.

Agreed, though I think this is less a case of "this is an injustice to the workers" and more a case of "this is a dumb idea that leads to bad things all around".

Just because it's not "unusual" doesn't make it acceptable.

Then one day an edict came down from on high that resulted in the sudden termination of several relatively effective temps partway through their programmed stint.

The excuse? "Development is slowing down for a while, we don't need as many."

I literally said "What the fuck?! We're spinning UP!". A couple weeks later they were scrambling to fill the positions again.

Again though, I just don't see anything odd or unusual in this setup. It's pretty much the exact same setup that companies like Manpower and Adecco have used for decades. I don't know anything about the wages at Amazon, but I'm far more laissez faire on that than I suspect much of the rest of HN, and that's fine, but clearly Amazon isn't breaking the law here.

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, but that doesn't mean he hated it, or that he was abused.

I don't see how I've attempted to 'reframe' it in any way, but we each took dramatically different things away from that article.

> You could say exactly the same thing about illegal jobs paying under minimum wage.

Except those jobs would be... illegal? This one is, from what I read, not illegal in any way. I don't see how you can make a legitimate comparison between something perfectly legal and something expressly not.

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.

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)

> 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.

For some reason all the people making those observations never seem to start those businesses to show the "bad" guys up.

"Hey Mr. VC, do I got a pitch for you! We're going to compete directly with Amazon, but pay our people more! Are you in?"

I've yet to see a hypothesis of why all these companies are sitting there, can't see this, and to spite themselves decide to behave like "wankers" and somehow decide not to get richer!

In the real world things are complex. With higher value products there is definitely a benefit in management and pay increases, because your customers expect that. For example Costco does it. The value of shipping at Amazon is $0 because that is what lots of people pay. I wouldn't be surprised if the people packing Prime orders are paid more because those are more valuable customers.

If you see shitty management as abuse, I hope you're ready to boycott 90% of everything else in addition to the 90% of manufactured goods you must already be boycotting.

Seattle's unemployment rate is 4%, which is basically optimal and near what it was before the recession.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+unemployment+rate

Seattle real-estate has almost completely rebounded.

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/WA-Seattle-home-value/r_160...

People may not realize it yet, but the recession is over. If Amazon values the work these people do, they shouldn't assume that there is an unending supply of people waiting to fill these positions.

- Median wages are still down from 2009[1]

- Compared to 2000, national unemployment is still up significantly. [2]

The reason so many people may not realize it yet is for them, the recession is still a very real thing.

[1]http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Job_Creation/NELP-Fact-Sheet-Ineq...

[2] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_...

Nationally, that measure is still quite a bit worse than it was in 2007, and is twice as bad as 2001: http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Nobody wants to "realize" it. It makes for a better narrative if we're still in the throes of depression. "In this tough economy..."

It's easier to rationalize negative things in your life if you can attribute them to things outside your control, like the economy.

Your grasp on the theoretical situation is quite firm, as is your apparent ability to ignore reality.

"Profit" is either "money you haven't spent yet" or "money you need to return to investors". Modern corporations have been telling investors to eat a bag of salted peanuts lately, so they really don't care about returning profits to investors. So if "profit" is just "money you haven't spent yet", you're better off spending it before you pay taxes, because then you get to spend X% more.

The individuals running the company are presumably compensating themselves lavishly to run a company with no profits.

If the companies have no profits, and investors get no return.

..why would you want to invest?

Historically, business ventures like Amazon have had two phases: a fast growth phase, and a long, stable, profitable phase. You don't expect profits while the business is still growing. You expect them to plow the profits back in to make it grow more. As long as companies can maintain absurd year-over-year growth, investors are willing to pretend that the company needs its giant cash piles to grow more faster. This is actually the rational reason why the stock market shoots a brick whenever one of these tech companies only increases its profits by 23% instead of the projected 27%.

Hypothetically, what Amazon's share price means is that investors believe that it will return more than that many dollars per share to its investors once it switches from its fast growth to its slow-and-steady phase.

Hypothetically; stock also has value because the expectation that it will go up or down creates a class of investor who buys or sells it based on its expected price regardless of its fundamentals, which can affect the price in either direction.

There's no reason for a company to pay tax on money it does not need. If they need some money for some current expenses, they can obtain it any time and spend it as an operating expense, which gets them no tax liability. Think of Apple, which has a basically untaxed huge wad of cash outside of the US -- they will keep it there for as long as they don't need more money in the US, to avoid the tax liability. They only keep in the US the money they need, hoping that future changes in tax law will let them save on bringing that pile of cash home.

Growth first, money later.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/04/amazon-brit...

A focus on cost instead of value is a core element at Amazon. I ultimately left because what could be described as a failure to recognize value over the actual cost. 5 years of controlling high-value but high-cost things left my department with a shredded staff. By the time the economy was improving in the 2006-8 timeframe, nearly all my colleagues left.

And these were people at the TOP of the foodchain - senior full time software engineers.

Unfortunately Bezos is more lucky than a skilled manager. He has some useful values, mostly around being frugal, that has served the company well. But in a competitive hiring market, one would be making a mistake joining up with Amazon if you had an alternative.

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 don't have the same drive that contractors do (i.e., contractors feel they have more to prove and are thus more productive). Also, contractors can be fired without any consequences, which is not to be said about employees. But I don't think cost is the main driver here.

Not directly anyways.

At the time (circa 2009-10) upper management was freaking out about the economic downturn. Hiring caps were put in place, and every team was watched like a hawk for "unnecessary" headcount. Bringing in a full-timer was basically impossible, especially for a position that was "second class" (read: not a PM/TPM/SDE).

Turns out though, you can hire contractors just fine so long as you could prove need - and this conveniently let you hire someone without exposing yourself in upper-managerial whack-a-mole.

All in all, I learned a lot at Amazon, but it is a terribly managed company as a whole. There are good parts, there are bad parts, but much of the upper management is more interested in politics than the product/customer/company. This sort of systemic dysfunction was just one of many "quirks" of working there.

Funnily enough, that same hiring cap was what eventually got me to leave. During this whole time the team had a need for more software engineering hands, but we were always turned down by management since other teams had more acute needs and needed to fit under the hiring cap. We built up a massive tech debt in the meantime as our maintenance and workload increased at breakneck pace.

Eventually, a couple of years later, the hiring restrictions were relaxed and my team of 3 engineers opened up seven positions in the same month. I spent the next 3-4 months basically interviewing and sitting in meetings full-time. Then I decided I enjoyed coding more than interviewing people and explaining why interviewing people for 5 hours a day was causing nothing to get done.

Some of Bezos's urges and reactions are good, some are bad. It's not too much unlike Microsoft.

As a species we can do a better job at running companies!

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 salary) and flexibility of temp workers seems like a win-win, especially emotionally.

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.

For example, FTE cost more than contractors. This is a corporate "fact". The long term cost, which is often semi-monetary and the accounting systems don't have a process to calculate this.

I fail to see how it would be worse to make a commitment and provide some employees with benefits and some sort of job security. This HR policy is pathologically dysfunctional, and seemingly widespread, not just in the tech sector. I really wonder how long CEOs and management people in general think this party can go on.

The trouble is, many tech-based industries today have little effective competition in the short term. No-one is going to disrupt Amazon and take over "We own on-line sales for the entire universe" because someone made a dumb hiring decision. No-one is going to beat Google out of the online advertising space because they have terrible customer service.

Sure, they might succeed despite these obvious failings rather than because of them, and they might have succeeded more if they'd been smarter, but in a very real economic sense, success is relative. Until these kinds of screw-ups make a dent in the bottom line that is both significant and clearly visible, there's nothing to drive a change unless something catches the eye of a few people who are very powerful but even more busy.

http://pandodaily.com/2012/08/30/unleashing-the-crocodile-wh...

That is part of the problem. You will often find that the skills it takes to climb the corporate ladder are not the same as the skills it takes to be a good manager. Management in bigger companies tends to be littered with well connected but incompetent people who are really good at bullshitting and 'looking the part'. This doesn't apply to every manager, but it is common enough that you are almost guaranteed to work with plenty of them throughout your career.

So as a result, most managers practice schmoozing the management hierarchy, and not at all about making more effective teams. And then guess which one they get better at? (hint: the one they do more of)

And then which one do they do MORE of?

And the cascading spiral ruins modern corporations.

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 most people have even heard of, so alternatives are literally inconceivable. From what I can tell, the infection vector for this meme is MBA programs.

Happily, there are signs that this is starting to change. E.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/09/ft-urges...

Or the rise of the various Lean-derived methods, which have a fundamentally different theory of business.

Corporations with high P/E ratios are the counterexample to this, and Amazon in particular has a very high P/E.

Amazon is an outlier in American corporate culture. Its founder and very active CEO is somebody who double-majored in CS and EE. My explanation of them is that Bezos never was indoctrinated with MBA dogma, and instead runs his company like an engineer. He's been lucky enough (and skillful enough) that Amazon has always done well enough that his investors have never pushed for a "real" CEO.

So for me, Amazon is proof twice over for my theory that MBA dogma isn't even very good for business. Not only are they doing well in the long term by not giving a crap about quarterly numbers, but they don't have serious competitors because typical execs don't even get how they're being run over.

Any sufficiently large organisation becomes an ecosystem.

To succeed inside that ecosystem might damage the ecosystem itself in the wider world, but that doesn't matter in the short term to those inside it. At a certain size the ecosystem seems invulnerable and everlasting, and eclipses the wider world for those inside it.

This happens not just in corporations, but in any other social grouping I've seen, including governments, politics, and academia. It's very hard to avoid when any significant number of people are involved.

It's unfortunate. It sets up a nasty little caste system, but my understanding is that it's done not because it produces better work but rather because as a public company it allows to you constantly "right-size" your headcount without firing actual employees, which you'd have to report to your shareholders.

I'm sure at the location I worked at temps out-numbered full time employees by a factor of at least 4-to-1. After being passed up for a couple of full time positions (it was a joke or legal loophole that we were even allowed to apply) the best employees would jump ship and the workforce would maintain a consistent average/below-average pool of pretty apathetic clock-punchers. I don't think that was misunderstood by anyone in a position to control things though.

Let's look at the merit's of the authors argument, stated mostly in the second paragraph. Allegedly contract workers produce low quality or inconsistent work, and that training costs are wasted. All of the supporting evidence is anecdotal, and most of the anecdotes contain heaps of information that is completely irrelevant to the argument. What does the author's bad manager have to do with any of these arguments? Whether Amazon has poor management hiring procedures is another issue altogether.

If a CEO made any decision based on this article alone, he should be fired. At least it may raise enough awareness to get someone looking into it and gathering facts and options for action.

I suspect the point was to put enough personal context into the complaint to provoke sympathy, provoke noise, get it widely read and even hopefully get it across the CEO's desk at some point where the author's thesis will at least fleetingly get considered.

At that point, gathering information to test whether the temp system is a net loss or a net gain could begin.

Sympathy can lead to action, but provoking sympathy on an irrelevant point can lead to action you never expected. It might simply lead to finding the manager in question and dealing with that one problem. Whether thoughtful or emotional, focusing on the process itself would be more likely to inspire the prescribed changes.

I didn't get 'emotional', I thought the OA was actually quite measured and well written. The audience isn't Mr Bezos of course.

What I did get was annoyance at the lack of quality in the process. I agree that the author has not established that the lack of quality arose from the hiring policy. If the first manager had not been reassigned, would things have been better?

If this is indeed the case, it would not make sense to hire a full-time team.

Either way, if he's good at what he does, it would make sense for the company to keep him on even if they move him to another project.

The clarion call about the dangers of bad management (and not even "bad" in the Dilbert sense, but "bad" in the "these people are not qualified to do what they need to do" sense) is extremely well-taken. This is why documentation at MegaCorps is so incredibly important, especially with high turnover: if your institutional knowledge is confined to a person, not a wiki or a sharepoint doc, then you're unnecessarily exposing yourself to risk and ruin.

If that is the case, I would guess it's a low-skills technician-like job, and frankly, I'm surprised it isn't automated with image recognition software.

On the one hand, I could understand how a company would want a group of temp workers to do this one-time essentially data-entry type work. On the other hand, if they make it temporary to avoid paying benefits, that's a loop-hole that needs legislation to close.

But I'm also sympathetic to what the OP is saying: event entry-level workers get better at their job with time and experience, they think of better ways to do their job, they learn the corporate culture and can even contribute outside of their job. I think it is a shame companies have practices like this.

People hired to make decisions don't like to make decisions. But it's not a real decision if the metrics told you to do it. Blame the spreadsheet.

So institutional knowledge gets discarded like yesterday's dirty laundry because no one in a position to do anything recognizes it as valuable. Or even if they do recognize it as valuable it's certainly not more valuable than the cost of some employee compensation. Health insurance costs are quantifiable, institutional knowledge is not. And in the land of cover-your-ass with metrics qualitative values are useless to decision makers.

I worked at one place that was 70% contract workers. Every year, they would have to leave. No fooling around -- nobody worked a day more than a year.

With people staggered throughout the project, all coming on at different times, it was like productivity roulette. One month a team might lose somebody who wasn't such a great worker. Whew! Dodged a bullet! The next month they might lose a third of the team within 2 weeks.

I know what you're thinking; just make a chart and keep track of when folks are leaving. But replacements weren't available until there was a documented need, which couldn't happen until the vacancies appeared. Sometimes then it would take a month or two to get one.

All of this organizational cruft was created at the highest levels, where everything is always peachy. I don't think the people creating this mess were trying to do anything bad. They just couldn't see the impact of what they were doing. By the time status reports moved up through several levels of management, things were looking good. Always.

So don't feel bad. You're not alone.

It's a disgusting practice that's bad for employees and good for lining corporate profits.

You should feel extremely bad, and make lots of noise about it.

And in case you missed it, this is terrible for productivity.

If you want to make a stink about it, call your representative. Most companies would love to keep great folks on forever, but tax and immigration law won't allow it. There are reasons for these activities that don't involve evil profit-mongering corporate overlords.

"One day that all changed. Our experienced team leader was transferred to a different department"

It looks like the main problem was not Amazon's practices, just poor performance of the manager. However, we cannot blame Amazon for not giving managerial position to one of the contractors, when they have experienced internal candidate for this position. People get bored and like to change roles, and it's important to give them the chance to try something new within organisation or they will leave.

I agree though, that having a 11-month max policy for contractors seems stupid, but it may be caused by legal issues. At least in Europe it would be illegal to have someone work as a temp for extended period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp - scroll down to the Vizcaino v. Microsoft section.

Companies are going to spend the smallest amount of money possible on every employee. If they are paying someone more, it's because that employee would go somewhere else if they paid less.

If you don't like the policy of firing contractors, don't blame Amazon. If you were running a company that was barely breaking even, and there were a law that would make your company spend way more money on employees after they stayed more than a year, you would make the exact same call. Or would you let the company go out of business, and put thousands of people out of work, and screw over your investors, to make some impotent moral stand?

And congrats on directing your letter to Jeff, but if you were there for 11 months, you probably learned that someone else is in charge of these smaller matters.

> 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 — the revolving door of new hires encourages low quality work, inconsistent productivity and wastes useful resources on training.

I find it very hard to believe that an Amazon contract worker, based on his experience, is more qualified than Amazon management to judge whether this practice is financially good for Amazon.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/668688/is_amazo...

http://www.thenation.com/article/164823/cyber-monday-click-a...

Yes, there are laws that prevent you from employing a temp for an extended period of time. It's somewhere around a year; I forget exactly, but it's a law that attempts to protect temps from indefinite temp status. It's supposed to compel the company to hire that temp if they really want them.

There are also laws that prevent you from hiring a temp back within some period of time, so the company doesn't just skirt the issue by firing-then-hiring the temp with a one week break in the middle.

The reason a good temp isn't hired has nothing to do with benefits. Benefits aren't really that expensive relative to a knowledge worker salary.

The reason is because FT headcount is one kind of expense and contractors are another. The budget for FT head is very difficult to drop (it's called layoffs) and actually grows every year because of raises. Contractors are part of slosh money (e.g., "program spend").

So departments are told: "You can have a head budget of $XX and a program budget of $YY." The implicit understanding is that $XX will hold or grow across budget planning (i.e., "We won't make you drop your head budget unless we're actually doing layoffs or moving teams out of your department") and that the $YY can fluctuate.

Departments can generally spend the $YY any way they see fit, and often times, they need workers, so... temps. And if the company is financially stable (which I assume Amazon is), $YY doesn't drop that much so you end up with a long time with enough $YY to keep temps on for a long time, but there isn't enough faith in needing the department at that larger size to increase $XX enough.

I've also seen a lot of temps hang around for a year then get let go because there were just mediocre. Good enough to be productive, not bad enough to go recruiting again, and definitely not good enough to go use a bullet on fighting for increasing $XX. I'm not saying the OP is that case, but I'm sure we've all seen the mediocre temp (or FT) worker hang on.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not at a large company any more. Co-founded a second startup. Woohoo!

I can't figure out what's going on here. Who is "her" and who is "him"?

him is the temp who trained her

It would be interesting to hear Amazon's side of the story.

Of course, this isn't a limit on length of employment, just a limit on the length of someone's employment as a contractor. Plenty of companies use more of a "contract to hire" approach, and make a decision whether or not to convert employees to full time at the end of the contract.

Edit later: Developer contractors at least. 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

As an ex-engineer at Amazon, unless they drastically changed things, their compensation did not seem to be anything special, compared to what one can get at other companies. Their "benefits" were laughable.

Around how much does an SDEII make at this time there?

Amazon has less then stellar hiring practices even for full time employees. From personal experience in no particular order (a) low balling new hires in salary and position (b) bar raiser ego trips and (c) if it isn't my answer it isn't the right answer.

I have also seen an engineer promoted to Principal for having accomplished nothing during the entire year (imo), and another principal say to me, why would anyone who has an offer from Google ever pick Amazon.

I saw the same thing. Low quality / skilled developers were hired on in droves. Only to "train" other new contractors. (e.g. copy all these files from my machine and do these 30 steps, and then the local environment should work)

They were hiring guys right out of India. Which made team communication difficult. It was a mess, and code quality really suffered.

I immediately started looking for a new job after started.

I mean, it's not going to get better until HR people and CFOs are called on the carpet for poor decision-making in a situation like that.

Once an officer gets around 18 years of active-duty time the law requires that they be permitted to serve 20 years if they wish (to qualify for retirement).

So one of the things the Navy looks at when deciding whether to mobilize an Reserve officer is whether they would possibly hit that 18-year point "by accident" as then they'd have to keep them on the active-duty list for even longer than they thought.

This is poor practice no matter who you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp

I have seen this before where people expected to be presented full time jobs, when all they needed was a little prodding to go through the hoop jumping and formally apply.

Or perhaps we should start to think of it as a "caste" system. Once you are "labelled" at an institution, depending on for whom you're working, your only way out may be to move to a different institution. These days in the U.S., that's not necessarily an easy proposition.

It used to be that many business would hire temporary workers as essentially a "trial" period. If they liked you, you might well be offered a permanent position.

These days, temporary employment has indeed turned for many into a shell game limiting liability and obligation to the employee.

Truly fungible employment.

It can be hard to be rid of that "fungible" label.

"There are people who count, and people who don't."

One way to keep the contractors separate is to only have them employed for a limited time, usually in stints of less than a year.

Non competes are hard to enforce especially for low level staff) and in fact almost impossible in CA.

Relevant last name.