Jeff Bezos Says Amazon Won’t Tolerate ‘Callous’ Management Practices(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Jeff Bezos Says Amazon Won’t Tolerate ‘Callous’ Management Practices
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/technology/amazon-bezos-workplace-management-practices.html
215 comments
There is book a called Corporate Confidential [1], written by a former HR person. One of most significant ideas there is that HR is (from the perspective of an employee) not your friend, but rather an enemy. They exist to protect the company, not you. Basically, going to HR is a quick way to get fired (for legal reasons, mind you) or kill your career.
Whole book is highly depressing, but very useful if you want to try to climb up the ladder.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Confidential-Secrets-Company...
Whole book is highly depressing, but very useful if you want to try to climb up the ladder.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Confidential-Secrets-Company...
Totally agree- the primary purpose of HR is to protect a company from lawsuits brought by its own employees.
By establishing that they have policies against sexual harassment, discrimination, etc. etc. the company can say that there's no "systemic problem", and any particular incidents therefore must be the fault of the individual employees concerned and not the company itself.
They need HR to exist in so far as it allows them to tell this story to a judge if it ever does turn into a lawsuit.
It's simply not worth approaching HR. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to HR. You would only want to talk to HR if you were willing to sue your employer, which itself is only worthwhile doing if the amount of money you could win is sufficient that you won't need to work again (because in any public case, other employers are also going to avoid employing someone who has a history of suing their employer... as much as they legally can).
For anything more trivial than that, the best defense against an abusive employer is to be employable elsewhere. If you are willing and able to walk away and into another job, you'll be treated much better, regardless of any specific HR policies.
P.S. it made me laugh to see that the book hyper link is to amazon.com - how's that for irony!
By establishing that they have policies against sexual harassment, discrimination, etc. etc. the company can say that there's no "systemic problem", and any particular incidents therefore must be the fault of the individual employees concerned and not the company itself.
They need HR to exist in so far as it allows them to tell this story to a judge if it ever does turn into a lawsuit.
It's simply not worth approaching HR. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to HR. You would only want to talk to HR if you were willing to sue your employer, which itself is only worthwhile doing if the amount of money you could win is sufficient that you won't need to work again (because in any public case, other employers are also going to avoid employing someone who has a history of suing their employer... as much as they legally can).
For anything more trivial than that, the best defense against an abusive employer is to be employable elsewhere. If you are willing and able to walk away and into another job, you'll be treated much better, regardless of any specific HR policies.
P.S. it made me laugh to see that the book hyper link is to amazon.com - how's that for irony!
I worked in HR a few times and this is right.
Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever. But they just can't.
Often the leadership of HR is the problem.
In civil service, the HR bosses were all about getting their friends and family a job. In the free marked, they wanted to minimize costs and legal obligations to the employees. The rest of the HR-workforce just has to suck it up and they often don't like it...
Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever. But they just can't.
Often the leadership of HR is the problem.
In civil service, the HR bosses were all about getting their friends and family a job. In the free marked, they wanted to minimize costs and legal obligations to the employees. The rest of the HR-workforce just has to suck it up and they often don't like it...
> Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever.
Some. Maybe. But there is also something to be said for being really cut out for a particular line of work. Those types definitely exist as well.
Some. Maybe. But there is also something to be said for being really cut out for a particular line of work. Those types definitely exist as well.
They exist in every profession, HR is no better or worse.
Witness the number of startups which end up in PR disasters, etc.
I always thought HR was there to manage the resources the humans need, e.g. teabags. That and justifying their existence by making more resources for the humans. It really does strike me a non-job that requires a lot of work to keep in existence
That's about the only dealings I have with them. I guess that's a benefit of working at a small company :)
On a serious note though, you're right, HR is not your friend, it's there for the companies sack, not yours. I personally have more faith in my immediate manager that HR, at least you have contact with them, vs the nameless/faceless myth that is HR
That's about the only dealings I have with them. I guess that's a benefit of working at a small company :)
On a serious note though, you're right, HR is not your friend, it's there for the companies sack, not yours. I personally have more faith in my immediate manager that HR, at least you have contact with them, vs the nameless/faceless myth that is HR
There are other things as well that are pretty important: Recruiting, performance reviews, and visa sponsorships.
I personally would hate to setup interview loops, having to manage calendars and book rooms, and the amount of paperwork required to hire a candidate that is not a US Resident, boy that would suck too.
I personally would hate to setup interview loops, having to manage calendars and book rooms, and the amount of paperwork required to hire a candidate that is not a US Resident, boy that would suck too.
...and training, succession planning, workforce planning, onboarding, offboarding, retention and attrition, re-locations, HRIS management, coaching, etc.
Not sure most people really understand what HR does, just as HR arguably doesn't understand what a developer does.
Not sure most people really understand what HR does, just as HR arguably doesn't understand what a developer does.
I think a lot people have had very different experience as to what HR does. It can range from the above, to "very little." Its this nebulousness that really accounts for the variety of opinions.
at my employer, many of these are done by our team and we tell HR what we want.
There's another book that's good book called Secrets to Winning at Office Politics[1], it basically says that no one likes a complainer so keep it to a minimum. It also saids that perception is what matters.
The book, like the one you mention, is a little depressing but if you're stuck in a corporate environment and want to avoid being depressed it pays off to pay attention to what the book says.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Winning-Office-Politics-Influe...
The book, like the one you mention, is a little depressing but if you're stuck in a corporate environment and want to avoid being depressed it pays off to pay attention to what the book says.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Winning-Office-Politics-Influe...
I find it Amazing that we managed to get Amazon product links into a story badmouthing Amazon :) Here are some alternate links pulled from a quick google search.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/corporate-confidential-cynth...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/secrets-to-winning-at-office...
Back on topic, I too well understand these things, having had a few painful incidents with HR myself. I ended up coming out on top, more or less, in the end, but you have to know that if you have a complaint about someone, you probably will have to confront that person and prove it. I managed to do that, but I would probably have had to leave the company if I hadn't, honestly.
HR was mostly worried about lawsuit potential. My immediate boss was, at least, humane. He even made a point of sitting on 'my side' during the meeting so that I wasn't alone there.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/corporate-confidential-cynth...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/secrets-to-winning-at-office...
Back on topic, I too well understand these things, having had a few painful incidents with HR myself. I ended up coming out on top, more or less, in the end, but you have to know that if you have a complaint about someone, you probably will have to confront that person and prove it. I managed to do that, but I would probably have had to leave the company if I hadn't, honestly.
HR was mostly worried about lawsuit potential. My immediate boss was, at least, humane. He even made a point of sitting on 'my side' during the meeting so that I wasn't alone there.
They exist to protect the company, not you.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they can't be on your side. If you report that your boss is doing something which is against company policy and hurts the company, it's quite possible for HR to be simultaneously on your side and on the company's side.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they can't be on your side. If you report that your boss is doing something which is against company policy and hurts the company, it's quite possible for HR to be simultaneously on your side and on the company's side.
They can that's was my second point when their interests can temporarily align with yours.
Or actually the actions that stem from their interests also end up benefiting you as a side-effect. Say going public with the story. Well now they are forced to protect the PR image so they will actually do something to fix the problem (move the manager to a different location), give you more money to keep quiet, etc. But they are not doing this for your they are doing it for the company's sake.
Or actually the actions that stem from their interests also end up benefiting you as a side-effect. Say going public with the story. Well now they are forced to protect the PR image so they will actually do something to fix the problem (move the manager to a different location), give you more money to keep quiet, etc. But they are not doing this for your they are doing it for the company's sake.
Yes - but be careful about the equation, it's something like this:
(Your value + cost of incident - squeaky wheel cost) vs (manager's value)
The incident has to be fairly egregious to tip the scales in your favor, and the squeaky wheel cost can follow you.
(Your value + cost of incident - squeaky wheel cost) vs (manager's value)
The incident has to be fairly egregious to tip the scales in your favor, and the squeaky wheel cost can follow you.
That is why a last alternative is to suggest you might go public, it forces their hand because now "cost of incident" can be rather high. As it is PR damage all across the board for the company. Of course, it might fix things in the short term but it won't be forgotten in the long term.
I don't think that an unknown Amazon employee going public could add much to the damage that the current media coverage has already inflicted. HR would probably just shrug it off. Also, taking a dispute with your employer public might cause other companies to think twice about hiring you in the future (your publicity will show up if they Google you). If you're down to your last alternative, it's probably time to find a new job.
It is hard to say. HN makes the development world pretty small. It is like a smaller provincial town where everyone kind of can find out stuff even if they don't know you personally. Damaging the image of a tech company on HN could be serious, it could impact ability to hire in the future.
But you are right, it is the nuclear option. After that even if problem is solved immediately, a stab in the back in the future is expected.
As for future employability, you are right as well. However, I can see a small start-up actually seeking out self-reliant people who have a sense of justice doing what is right. So the quality could also be appealing.
But you are right, it is the nuclear option. After that even if problem is solved immediately, a stab in the back in the future is expected.
As for future employability, you are right as well. However, I can see a small start-up actually seeking out self-reliant people who have a sense of justice doing what is right. So the quality could also be appealing.
That book is golden - it explains clearly the incentives of the players in the corporate world with concise examples. It should be compulsory reading for every corporate employee, not just ones in pathological environments, so everyone would understand what the true rules of the game are.
That the link is for Amazon is hilariously ironic.
Going to HR is indeed the end. I had one boss suggest that some incredibly minor conflict be solved by HR. Immediately, I knew it was time to change jobs. A few weeks later, when I handed in my resignation, my boss was surprised and tried to get me to stay. I offered them about a 15% increase in pay, but left as they weren't interested. I still don't understand why he'd be surprised. I suppose some people, even after many years in the corporate world, have no idea how it works. So I've come up with something to help me remember:
"Going to HR" === "End of job"
"Going to HR" === "End of job"
It sounds like your complaint was solved and then you decided to bail. That isn't exactly a damning critique of HR.
I guess that this is just applicable to Corporate America context and the outlook is not as dire as you portray it for other corporate cultures around the world.
Always take it to your union rep first. Your union is your advocate, and is there to help you.
They can advise you on the most appropriate next step for your particular workplace.
They can take it to HR, anonymously (depending on context), for you.
They can ask their members if anyone else has similar issues, in order to add weight to your complaint and ensure that HR take corrective action to fix the source of the problem, rather than sweeping individual complaints under the carpet.
They can advise you on presenting appropriate evidence so that HR see your complaint as valid, rather than as a whinge.
They can advise you on the most appropriate next step for your particular workplace.
They can take it to HR, anonymously (depending on context), for you.
They can ask their members if anyone else has similar issues, in order to add weight to your complaint and ensure that HR take corrective action to fix the source of the problem, rather than sweeping individual complaints under the carpet.
They can advise you on presenting appropriate evidence so that HR see your complaint as valid, rather than as a whinge.
Are you American? White collar unions are basically non-existent in the US private sector.
Its amazing how Dilbert has a comic strip about almost every corporate quirkiness.
What he didn't learn first hand at Crocker National Bank and Pacific Bell was forwarded to him by others. As Wikipedia puts it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Office_worker): "Adams attributes his success to his idea of including his e-mail address in the panels, thus facilitating feedback from readers."
Notice how the devs weren't mentioned ;)
They are the only technical department. They do dev.
+1. The few times I've seen HR involved in a workplace kerfuffle, it's never been an improvement. More like the Spanish Inquisition, where they don't care if you're guilty and they're just arguing over what tools to use.
Never piss off a co-worker who happens to be the girlfriend of someone in the management chain above you. That . . . did not go well.
Never piss off a co-worker who happens to be the girlfriend of someone in the management chain above you. That . . . did not go well.
When I worked at a multinational with hundreds of locations, HR turning up at site was sign that somebody was going to get it in the neck - HR didn't bother with small stuff so if they were about you knew it was serious for someone.
[Edit: Made me think about how ghastly it must be to work in HR for a large company]
[Edit: Made me think about how ghastly it must be to work in HR for a large company]
When your immediate managers have canceled all meetings and have been unreachable for three days ...
... when there is a mandatory "all hands" meeting called with two hour's notice ...
... and when you show up, there is HR present, plus people from the management stratosphere (who you've really only ever seen in TV) ...
Well, you know things are not going to go very well.
... when there is a mandatory "all hands" meeting called with two hour's notice ...
... and when you show up, there is HR present, plus people from the management stratosphere (who you've really only ever seen in TV) ...
Well, you know things are not going to go very well.
This whole notion of "HR isn't your friend" is nonsensical. No department at the company is your friend. You stop performing at your job, you will probably be fired--or promoted.
Even your real friends won't be your friends for very long if their own self-interests are always in contention against your own.
HR is fulfills a specific sets of roles for the company and they exist to look out for the best interest of the company, the same way pretty much any other department operates.
Even executives have to operate in such a manner or be in breach of their fiduciary duties.
If your work environment is toxic, find a better environment---if you have that luxury as some do not. If you think the problem isn't pervasive, try to change it with the help of HR--clearly it's in the companies best interest not to have toxic work environments.
Even your real friends won't be your friends for very long if their own self-interests are always in contention against your own.
HR is fulfills a specific sets of roles for the company and they exist to look out for the best interest of the company, the same way pretty much any other department operates.
Even executives have to operate in such a manner or be in breach of their fiduciary duties.
If your work environment is toxic, find a better environment---if you have that luxury as some do not. If you think the problem isn't pervasive, try to change it with the help of HR--clearly it's in the companies best interest not to have toxic work environments.
> No department at the company is your friend.
Of course not, except not many disguise themselves as your friend, that was the point.
Nobody thinks the finance department is there to make your life easy as a developer or to somehow take your side vis-a-vis an argument with the higher-ups.
But somehow the image of "HR" working for the employees and advocating for them persists.
Just read Jeff's email as an example. "Take it up with HR". In other words, don't worry, we'll fix it for ya.
Of course not, except not many disguise themselves as your friend, that was the point.
Nobody thinks the finance department is there to make your life easy as a developer or to somehow take your side vis-a-vis an argument with the higher-ups.
But somehow the image of "HR" working for the employees and advocating for them persists.
Just read Jeff's email as an example. "Take it up with HR". In other words, don't worry, we'll fix it for ya.
> But somehow the image of "HR" working for the employees and advocating for them persists.
One of the most important techniques HR departments have in maximizing the extracted value to extraction cost ratio for the company's "human resources" is to convince those resources that the HR department is their advocate within the company rather than the company's office responsible for the aforementioned cost/benefit optimization.
(OTOH, there are good reasons for a well-run HR department to be an employee advocate within the company on issues in many cases, since often the cost effective way to keep employees productive is to address their needs and desires; but its important to understand why that may sometimes be the case, and why it is not universally the case.)
One of the most important techniques HR departments have in maximizing the extracted value to extraction cost ratio for the company's "human resources" is to convince those resources that the HR department is their advocate within the company rather than the company's office responsible for the aforementioned cost/benefit optimization.
(OTOH, there are good reasons for a well-run HR department to be an employee advocate within the company on issues in many cases, since often the cost effective way to keep employees productive is to address their needs and desires; but its important to understand why that may sometimes be the case, and why it is not universally the case.)
If only there was a structure to represent workers where we could take such issues...
Maybe workers could come together to build such a structure...somewhere they could come together to negotiate their conditions of employment...
What a revolutionary idea!
Seriously though, I wonder why humans tolerate the hierarchical structures so much. I am proponent of direct democracy and worker cooperatives but curiously enough, to many people the idea seems wrong.
Seriously though, I wonder why humans tolerate the hierarchical structures so much. I am proponent of direct democracy and worker cooperatives but curiously enough, to many people the idea seems wrong.
Flat structures work great for smaller organizations, but don't scale up with size.
That said, a bigger organization could still be structured like a federation of relatively independent businesses/departments, with clearly defined interactions (interfaces) between them, rather than a monolith.
Modular design benefits business as much as it does software architecture.
That said, a bigger organization could still be structured like a federation of relatively independent businesses/departments, with clearly defined interactions (interfaces) between them, rather than a monolith.
Modular design benefits business as much as it does software architecture.
Perhaps better would be if I said "authoritarian" rather than "hierarchical". I don't think democracy requires lack of hierarchy. Or take the development of Linux kernel - although hierarchical, everybody has the same power.
And it can scale quite well. Switzerland and Mondragon are good examples.
And it can scale quite well. Switzerland and Mondragon are good examples.
Just about every human endeavor out there tends toward hierarchal structures - ones that do not are statistical outliers, and even then it's questioned whether all that's happened is that the hierarchy is implicit rather than explicit.
> Just about every human endeavor out there tends toward hierarchal structures
I agree, but why? It doesn't make much sense to me. Although I should have said "authoritarian" rather than "hierarchical".
> it's questioned whether all that's happened is that the hierarchy is implicit rather than explicit
In democracy, you can have hierarchy but it's not a big deal, because you have a formal rule that everybody has the same power (one vote). It is certainly different (although for some reason many people do not feel that way) than when there is no such rule.
I agree, but why? It doesn't make much sense to me. Although I should have said "authoritarian" rather than "hierarchical".
> it's questioned whether all that's happened is that the hierarchy is implicit rather than explicit
In democracy, you can have hierarchy but it's not a big deal, because you have a formal rule that everybody has the same power (one vote). It is certainly different (although for some reason many people do not feel that way) than when there is no such rule.
Not that crazy some movie and animation studio developers in Hollywood are in a union.
Who other than Dreamworks?
Never trust HR in big companies. They are there to do human resource management easy for directors. Their task is to do everything for the company.
Agree with all the other folks on the importance not to seek help from HR. Am working in an MNC in Singapore. HR's chief objective is to protect the company. The only time it helps the employees is when something will hinder productivity or/and morale. Period. Whether you are happy, achieving work-life balance, fulfilled, etc. It doesn't give a fuck on all those. If an Amazonian approaches HR now to report an issue covered by NYT, that person very likely will be grilled and interrogated to see if he/she spoke to NYT.
So Jeff is right. If you are not happy, dust off books and study on your own on skills needed for interviews, shut up and move out.
So Jeff is right. If you are not happy, dust off books and study on your own on skills needed for interviews, shut up and move out.
All the HR people I've met in large companies are nice people who care, but when push comes to shove they side with the company/CEO as HR is a CEO support function - sadly.
Yeah, the moment he said that, everyone with a brain realized he was being disingenuous.
He would need to make public clear, explicit instructions stating HR would take a zero tolerance for a lack of empathy and that confidentiality would be guaranteed as well as providing a copy of a memo to the entire HR department to that effect.
A single line in a PR puff piece isn't a shield you can rely on.
He would need to make public clear, explicit instructions stating HR would take a zero tolerance for a lack of empathy and that confidentiality would be guaranteed as well as providing a copy of a memo to the entire HR department to that effect.
A single line in a PR puff piece isn't a shield you can rely on.
From all that's come out over the weekend, it sounds like former Amazon employees are quite welcome over at Facebook. Plus, like Bezos says in his all-hands e-mail, these people are recruited every day. If they are in a situation like that, escalating to HR won't make it better, changing jobs will.
Only if you work in a very poor workplace. If your workplace HR has this attitude you should have not joined the company in the first place. You should escalate to the next higher up if the manager in question is not being correctly handled by HR.
> Only if you work in a very poor workplace.
Or a standard workplace with shit legal protection of employees (which applies to pretty much every non-union US shop). The purpose of HR is to minimise company liability, when the best and simplest way to minimise company liability is to fire employees making waves stat, that's what they do, because that what they're employed to do.
Or a standard workplace with shit legal protection of employees (which applies to pretty much every non-union US shop). The purpose of HR is to minimise company liability, when the best and simplest way to minimise company liability is to fire employees making waves stat, that's what they do, because that what they're employed to do.
I want to realign HR under a "Chief Productivity Officer" who is also responsible for IT. The CPO's goal and metric is maximization of workforce productivity by getting employees working smart, working hard, retaining good people and getting rid of the bad, improving management skills, and leveraging technology.
You want to increase productivity by adding layers of complexity.
OK.
OK.
Here is what I've learned in my time on earth:
> you can't change the system but you can change the system you are in
Just leave.
> you can't change the system but you can change the system you are in
Just leave.
I've heard it put: "If you can't change your company, then change your company."
[deleted]
HR is never your friend. Aside from the job they're required to do, HR usually attracts people with despicable morals and class. They wont hesitate on lying to you, set you up on to something, threaten you, whatever it takes to get what they (personally) want. Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs.
Aren't people with "despicable morals and class" in every profession? Some of us are actually in HR because we like thinking critically & creatively behind the scenes to make others successful. I totally get why that might not describe the HR teams you've encountered, but I don't think we can all be characterized with such a broad brush.
You're the 1%, then.
Honestly, I haven't met one decent guy in HR in a loooong time. Quite the contrary, I have plenty of bad experiences with HR that made me believe those things. I'll give you my favorite examples:
I once got fired because I told some bitch (she was really a bitch, and that's not just my opinion, the whole workplace thought of that) to mind her own business. I was on a break and reading a magazine when she came in and started lecturing me on to "why I'm not doing other stuff? why do I read those kinds of magazines? (It was a gossip magazine, but who cares it was what it was nearby) I'm a little old for that." Politely but firmly told her something like "This is my break. Fuck off, you can't tell me what to do on my break and I read whatever I want to". She left. Three months later got called to get fired, turns out she was secretly raising reports about me that were small stuff (and completely fake) like "... was asked to do X and refused", "... yelled at a client", "... reads magazines while at work (of course)". When I had like 10 or so of them she fired me because of a "bad overall attitude" and those were her (fake) proofs. That's the kind of shit HR LOVES to do man.
Another one. I once knew (but not as in "a friend told me", I saw it) of a place where all the candidates that got hired were because they were laying down with the girl that ran the interviews. Later when they got the job, they started to get fired when that girl found them not sexually appealing anymore. Yup.
I think there has to be something psychological behind that, because other while other teammates may be assholes your job does not depend direclty on them or you are pretty much at the same level. Since HR is above you and can fire you at will there is a lot of power bestowed to only one side of the parts involved. I think it may be some kind of Stanford Prison stuff right there. Sorry to call it mate but your field is a rotten one.
Honestly, I haven't met one decent guy in HR in a loooong time. Quite the contrary, I have plenty of bad experiences with HR that made me believe those things. I'll give you my favorite examples:
I once got fired because I told some bitch (she was really a bitch, and that's not just my opinion, the whole workplace thought of that) to mind her own business. I was on a break and reading a magazine when she came in and started lecturing me on to "why I'm not doing other stuff? why do I read those kinds of magazines? (It was a gossip magazine, but who cares it was what it was nearby) I'm a little old for that." Politely but firmly told her something like "This is my break. Fuck off, you can't tell me what to do on my break and I read whatever I want to". She left. Three months later got called to get fired, turns out she was secretly raising reports about me that were small stuff (and completely fake) like "... was asked to do X and refused", "... yelled at a client", "... reads magazines while at work (of course)". When I had like 10 or so of them she fired me because of a "bad overall attitude" and those were her (fake) proofs. That's the kind of shit HR LOVES to do man.
Another one. I once knew (but not as in "a friend told me", I saw it) of a place where all the candidates that got hired were because they were laying down with the girl that ran the interviews. Later when they got the job, they started to get fired when that girl found them not sexually appealing anymore. Yup.
I think there has to be something psychological behind that, because other while other teammates may be assholes your job does not depend direclty on them or you are pretty much at the same level. Since HR is above you and can fire you at will there is a lot of power bestowed to only one side of the parts involved. I think it may be some kind of Stanford Prison stuff right there. Sorry to call it mate but your field is a rotten one.
What's frustrating is that it, of course, doesn't have to be rotten. We can take one baby step by abolishing terms like "human resources" and "human capital" because labels do matter.
I also wonder if part of the problem is that HR leaders have (broadly speaking) traditionally been 'town planners' when you really need a mix of 'pioneers' and 'settlers' in there too. E.g. don't put a town planner in charge of culture & retention, and don't put a settler in charge of healthcare & benefits compliance.
(Ref: http://blog.gardeviance.org/2012/06/pioneers-settlers-and-to...)
I also wonder if part of the problem is that HR leaders have (broadly speaking) traditionally been 'town planners' when you really need a mix of 'pioneers' and 'settlers' in there too. E.g. don't put a town planner in charge of culture & retention, and don't put a settler in charge of healthcare & benefits compliance.
(Ref: http://blog.gardeviance.org/2012/06/pioneers-settlers-and-to...)
I agree with you. Things need to be solved with a different structure.
> I once got fired because I told some bitch...
In that one line I think there's two issues you might want to think about.
First of all, you're passing judgement apparently without empathising with where she's coming from. If you try to empathise with people rather than letting your amygdala control your response then you'll find life gets much easier.
Secondly, that language crosses the line of acceptability, both in the workplace and on HN. It's fine in a bar or wherever, but in the workplace it makes your audience percieve immaturity and poorly-controlled anger (whether it's there or not), and will make people in your workplace uncomfortable.
Both of those issues raise flags in my mind as things an HR person should pay serious attention to. Ideally they'd be looking to solve the problem first, but getting people to change is hard and company cultures can be fragile.
Just my two cents.
In that one line I think there's two issues you might want to think about.
First of all, you're passing judgement apparently without empathising with where she's coming from. If you try to empathise with people rather than letting your amygdala control your response then you'll find life gets much easier.
Secondly, that language crosses the line of acceptability, both in the workplace and on HN. It's fine in a bar or wherever, but in the workplace it makes your audience percieve immaturity and poorly-controlled anger (whether it's there or not), and will make people in your workplace uncomfortable.
Both of those issues raise flags in my mind as things an HR person should pay serious attention to. Ideally they'd be looking to solve the problem first, but getting people to change is hard and company cultures can be fragile.
Just my two cents.
Rich, you know what dignity is? Dignity is being the same person disregarding the situation where you're currently involved.
I see you standing here as a person who is always polite and correct, with a perfect vocabulary and behavior for even the most adverse situations in life. I really, really hope your life crosses path with a woman like that one and you end up in a situation like mine. I would like to see you handle the same situation with the morals you claim to have. Until that moment you will know, for yourself, if you really are the person you claim to be on real life or if the intention behind your comment was just to impress a bunch of people in an anonymous forum.
Best luck.
I see you standing here as a person who is always polite and correct, with a perfect vocabulary and behavior for even the most adverse situations in life. I really, really hope your life crosses path with a woman like that one and you end up in a situation like mine. I would like to see you handle the same situation with the morals you claim to have. Until that moment you will know, for yourself, if you really are the person you claim to be on real life or if the intention behind your comment was just to impress a bunch of people in an anonymous forum.
Best luck.
> Politely but firmly told her ... Fuck off
Your story makes you sound abrasive and unpleasant. If the story played out the way you tell it, she obviously was a bad actor and did something terrible. (And yes, there are definitely some people who will play control games with any little bit of power they gain.) It's difficult to sympathize with you, though, when even your telling of the story makes you sound difficult to work with.
If you're presenting yourself this way in a work environment (or anywhere, really), you will create negative interactions.
Your story makes you sound abrasive and unpleasant. If the story played out the way you tell it, she obviously was a bad actor and did something terrible. (And yes, there are definitely some people who will play control games with any little bit of power they gain.) It's difficult to sympathize with you, though, when even your telling of the story makes you sound difficult to work with.
If you're presenting yourself this way in a work environment (or anywhere, really), you will create negative interactions.
You missed one word - "politely".
One can be polite and still convey the intended message :-) She obviously got it, hence the revenge.
I didn't miss the word. I just don't believe it's accurate. If the intended message was "fuck off", there's no polite way to deliver that. You might deliver it without literally saying the words, but if the meaning is intact, you're not being polite.
I also don't believe a politely delivered message can result in a 3-month plot filled with false reports, culminating in job termination. How does that play out? "Wow, he's so polite all the time! I'll fuck him over anyway because I'm pure evil! And I've got nothing better to do, so I'll keep at it for months!"
I also don't believe a politely delivered message can result in a 3-month plot filled with false reports, culminating in job termination. How does that play out? "Wow, he's so polite all the time! I'll fuck him over anyway because I'm pure evil! And I've got nothing better to do, so I'll keep at it for months!"
My developer friend had to work with a program/product manager from hell. They hated each other's guts from the minute they met. He was tasked by the CTO with implementing new software and kept asking her for definitive requirements. She never came up with them and told him to propose something based on some loose, very high-level requirements.
When he did, she critiqued the solutions in a meeting attended by many people. He never said it, but made it clear (not in the meeting) that she was incompetent/lazy, which she was, in many co-worker's eyes. She tried to get him fired several times (unsuccessfully, my friend was really good and the CTO would not do it).
Not one impolite word was ever spoken (I know for sure, I was there in most meetings).
Sometimes it is just "bad chemistry".
Not one impolite word was ever spoken (I know for sure, I was there in most meetings).
Sometimes it is just "bad chemistry".
Sure. Bad chemistry happens. And in that instance, it sounds like bad chemistry with a bad person. But if your friend had been "politely" telling this woman to fuck off, then I'd have to say that he was at least contributing to the bad relationship.
I feel like anotherangrydev is more likely than not "contributing to the bad relationship" in his (or her) work environments. When someone has multiple bad interactions with HR, at multiple companies, it starts to look like they're the problem and not HR. Why are they having so many interactions with HR at all? Or was there just one bad experience that they're extrapolating to "99%" of HR employees?
I feel like anotherangrydev is more likely than not "contributing to the bad relationship" in his (or her) work environments. When someone has multiple bad interactions with HR, at multiple companies, it starts to look like they're the problem and not HR. Why are they having so many interactions with HR at all? Or was there just one bad experience that they're extrapolating to "99%" of HR employees?
Sure - it takes two to tango.
My friend from the story above definitely does not suffer fools gladly :-)
But there is quite a bit of politics/plain stupidity in (bigger) corporations. Should reasonable people just keep quiet and suffer abuse? [my friend WAS reasonable wrt work- he tried his best to get the job done]
But there is quite a bit of politics/plain stupidity in (bigger) corporations. Should reasonable people just keep quiet and suffer abuse? [my friend WAS reasonable wrt work- he tried his best to get the job done]
OMG, the level of bad faith in your comments is astounding. Do you know 'anotherangrydev' personally? Or do you have a link to some resource which is objective and makes his "contributing to the bad relationship" more probable?
> I just don't believe it's accurate.
I have no idea why would you accuse GP of lying. You don't know him. Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then. Back when it happened, he didn't know of a 3 months long plot against him. Now he does know. He was shown the (obscenity censored because it would apparently alter the meaning of my post) documents, he read it black on white. Just before getting fired, too. It's nothing strange that his wording now is emotional and blunt, it says nothing about how he was back then.
Lastly, of course, there are polite ways of telling people to censored, you know why off politely. It's what assertiveness is all about. There are people, however, who don't really care about the form: they just can't stand others disagreeing with them. I don't think it's that rare a trait. How about that line of thinking:
"He's too polite, he's trying to hide something. And he dared to disagree with me, his superior. More than once! I don't have the time to deal with a time-bomb like him, which can blow up behind my back at any time. I need an army of easily controlled people to help me further my career. Yeah, it would be safer to spend a few minutes more and slip a couple of lies when working on his evaluations."
Preparing reports which are not true, yet are not outright lies, and which make some person look really bad doesn't really take much time. Especially if one does it for a living.
I have no idea why would you accuse GP of lying. You don't know him. Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then. Back when it happened, he didn't know of a 3 months long plot against him. Now he does know. He was shown the (obscenity censored because it would apparently alter the meaning of my post) documents, he read it black on white. Just before getting fired, too. It's nothing strange that his wording now is emotional and blunt, it says nothing about how he was back then.
Lastly, of course, there are polite ways of telling people to censored, you know why off politely. It's what assertiveness is all about. There are people, however, who don't really care about the form: they just can't stand others disagreeing with them. I don't think it's that rare a trait. How about that line of thinking:
"He's too polite, he's trying to hide something. And he dared to disagree with me, his superior. More than once! I don't have the time to deal with a time-bomb like him, which can blow up behind my back at any time. I need an army of easily controlled people to help me further my career. Yeah, it would be safer to spend a few minutes more and slip a couple of lies when working on his evaluations."
Preparing reports which are not true, yet are not outright lies, and which make some person look really bad doesn't really take much time. Especially if one does it for a living.
> I have no idea why would you accuse GP of lying.
He claims that he "politely" told someone to "fuck off". It's not really a question of lying, but a question of possibility. You can't politely tell someone to fuck off. Either you didn't tell them to fuck off or you didn't do it politely. "Fuck off" is not polite. It's not supposed to be polite. If you politely ask someone to leave you alone, you're not telling them to fuck off.
> Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Not that it's really relevant, but yes. How else would you judge a person's truthfulness except through the words they use? Your words matching the facts is basically the definition of truth.
Do you routinely assume that everything anyone claims is accurate?
> Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then.
No, I'm reading his description of what happened. He gives two versions, one of which (fuck off) is intrinsically unpolite. The other (mind your own business) is pretty rude, too. Given his descriptions in general, it's hard to imagine that this was actually a polite exchange.
It's also difficult to believe that his politeness was rewarded by months of revenge plotting and spite. It would be easier to believe this if he presented this as an isolated story. Instead he presents this as an example of how terrible "99%" of HR employees are. So either 99% of HR employees are actually pointlessly spiteful and terrible, or he's intentionally lying, or he has had so many bad interactions that he believes it to be true. If it's the last case, I've got to wonder if the problem is really all of HR or if it's the one guy who keeps having problems with HR.
He claims that he "politely" told someone to "fuck off". It's not really a question of lying, but a question of possibility. You can't politely tell someone to fuck off. Either you didn't tell them to fuck off or you didn't do it politely. "Fuck off" is not polite. It's not supposed to be polite. If you politely ask someone to leave you alone, you're not telling them to fuck off.
> Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Not that it's really relevant, but yes. How else would you judge a person's truthfulness except through the words they use? Your words matching the facts is basically the definition of truth.
Do you routinely assume that everything anyone claims is accurate?
> Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then.
No, I'm reading his description of what happened. He gives two versions, one of which (fuck off) is intrinsically unpolite. The other (mind your own business) is pretty rude, too. Given his descriptions in general, it's hard to imagine that this was actually a polite exchange.
It's also difficult to believe that his politeness was rewarded by months of revenge plotting and spite. It would be easier to believe this if he presented this as an isolated story. Instead he presents this as an example of how terrible "99%" of HR employees are. So either 99% of HR employees are actually pointlessly spiteful and terrible, or he's intentionally lying, or he has had so many bad interactions that he believes it to be true. If it's the last case, I've got to wonder if the problem is really all of HR or if it's the one guy who keeps having problems with HR.
What a time to be alive. Telling someone to mind her own business is considered rude.
Normally I would steer clear of interjecting in something like this, however, you know that's basically the opposite of what dignity means, right? Dignity is recognizing the formality of a situation and acting respectfully to yourself and others in it.
> I see you standing here as a person who is always polite and correct...
Nope. I've had more than my fair share of disagreements, personal failures, and shameful moments. I've lost friends. I massively fumbled my first management position.
When something happens and your professionalism slips, either you can brush yourself off, accept your mistakes, and try to learn from them, or you can blame others, make excuses, and learn nothing.
So far, your analysis of the situation has loudly blamed the "bitch" and the entire profession of HR, and not once has your critical gaze fallen onto yourself. Apparently they're all wrong, and you are right.
You can try to goad me about my motives for replying and wish me misfortune, but it doesn't change anything.
Nope. I've had more than my fair share of disagreements, personal failures, and shameful moments. I've lost friends. I massively fumbled my first management position.
When something happens and your professionalism slips, either you can brush yourself off, accept your mistakes, and try to learn from them, or you can blame others, make excuses, and learn nothing.
So far, your analysis of the situation has loudly blamed the "bitch" and the entire profession of HR, and not once has your critical gaze fallen onto yourself. Apparently they're all wrong, and you are right.
You can try to goad me about my motives for replying and wish me misfortune, but it doesn't change anything.
No, dignity is not being the same person regardless of the situation. An asshole who is always an asshole doesn't have dignity, he's just an asshole.
"Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs."
Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this. I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this. I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
Ok, let's play pedantic DannyBee.
>I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
>The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
We're gonna need a source for that too! Or wait, were you discrediting one opinion with another one?
>"Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs."
>Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this.
Ever knew of what the '%' sign means? I can get you 50+ people that are in jail and that were later proved to be innocent. Does that mean we should set all of them free?
Waiting for your downvote or a reasonable argument :^)
>I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
>The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
We're gonna need a source for that too! Or wait, were you discrediting one opinion with another one?
>"Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs."
>Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this.
Ever knew of what the '%' sign means? I can get you 50+ people that are in jail and that were later proved to be innocent. Does that mean we should set all of them free?
Waiting for your downvote or a reasonable argument :^)
"We're gonna need a source for that too! Or wait, were you discrediting one opinion with another one?"
I said "i've met". I never claimed it was anything else? Unlike you, who flat out stated 99% of HR ....
You know what, it's not worth having this discussion with you. Given your responses here and elsewhere, you come off as very abrasive and not a person i'd want to work with.
But please, keep going on through life believing it's everyone else.
I said "i've met". I never claimed it was anything else? Unlike you, who flat out stated 99% of HR ....
You know what, it's not worth having this discussion with you. Given your responses here and elsewhere, you come off as very abrasive and not a person i'd want to work with.
But please, keep going on through life believing it's everyone else.
thrillgore(1)
HR functions like the lowest level of police forces within a polity, they're there just to snitch on you to their superiors (next level up law enforcement within the corporation) or deal with you directly whether in fines, suspension or exile.
So, yeah I wouldn't trust HR with these matters and it seems to me that Bezos is only interested in cover-ups when he recommended this course of action out of fear that employees may seek friends in the press to expose those practices from now on undermining his plans of non stop exploitation at his sweatshop.
So, yeah I wouldn't trust HR with these matters and it seems to me that Bezos is only interested in cover-ups when he recommended this course of action out of fear that employees may seek friends in the press to expose those practices from now on undermining his plans of non stop exploitation at his sweatshop.
seems like people in the US mistake the Human Resources department with Workers Councils.
in Europe, you go to the Council, never to HR. the Council is job protected, guaranteed pay - hence no way to apply pressure from the company.
HR is not a bad department, they are very important, but they serve the CEO, their role is to keep the whole thing going, avoid waves of any kind and keep a good hiring pipeline.
surprised no union is trying this to break into amazon.
in Europe, you go to the Council, never to HR. the Council is job protected, guaranteed pay - hence no way to apply pressure from the company.
HR is not a bad department, they are very important, but they serve the CEO, their role is to keep the whole thing going, avoid waves of any kind and keep a good hiring pipeline.
surprised no union is trying this to break into amazon.
You speak about "Europe" like it's a country with a single set of regulations. It's not-- it's a continent. Even for the European Union, the rules are actually extremely varied:
http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat...
And even those countries with councils have (as the link also mentions) very varying rules on exactly what the councils do. Please don't say "Europe" when you mean "some European country".
http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat...
And even those countries with councils have (as the link also mentions) very varying rules on exactly what the councils do. Please don't say "Europe" when you mean "some European country".
so Germany has not taken over all of Europia? color me surprised.
oder aber du checker überlegst mal, für wen die simplifizierung 'Europa' gedacht war.
oder aber du checker überlegst mal, für wen die simplifizierung 'Europa' gedacht war.
[deleted]
Let's not delude ourselves: in the US, in public non-union orgs, everyone is there to serve the CEO.
Some people in this thread make it sound like every department is actively thwarting senior management and working counter to the company's business—except HR, who are in on the game or something. So, fuck HR, right? They couldn't possibly be one cog, along with every other cog, in a larger machine designed to extract value from workers for owners/shareholders.
Some people in this thread make it sound like every department is actively thwarting senior management and working counter to the company's business—except HR, who are in on the game or something. So, fuck HR, right? They couldn't possibly be one cog, along with every other cog, in a larger machine designed to extract value from workers for owners/shareholders.
I've been reading various comments about this around the internet and many people are saying they will stop ordering from Amazon because of it.
These white collar workers are highly paid, and not forced to be there. Most of them could easily find another job someplace else (and it sounds like many do). I just can't feel bad for them. If you don't want to work throughout your vacation, go find another job that won't make you work through your vacation. This isn't North Korea, Bezos isn't going to throw you in a reeducation camp.
I will keep ordering from Amazon because they provide the best service. Simple as that.
These white collar workers are highly paid, and not forced to be there. Most of them could easily find another job someplace else (and it sounds like many do). I just can't feel bad for them. If you don't want to work throughout your vacation, go find another job that won't make you work through your vacation. This isn't North Korea, Bezos isn't going to throw you in a reeducation camp.
I will keep ordering from Amazon because they provide the best service. Simple as that.
I'm not advocating or rejecting the Amazon boycott, simply here to challenge the way you think: while everything you said is logical you can't simply treat people like trash, it doesn't matter if they are white collar, gold collar or can't-afford-a-collar.
A situation that shares many similarities is: "it is that woman's fault that she does not leave her abusive husband." That is laying blame on the person who was abused (not matter their background) instead of the person dealing out the injustice.
Imagine that Bezos had not disowned this behavior: more and more would follow suit and eventually you'd be hard-pressed to find a place where this isn't the norm. For example: stack ranking had to start somewhere. Now you'll find it at many places and it's no longer as simple as "just go work somewhere else." If you've acquired a lifestyle where you depend on a corporate job with a cushy salary, what are you going to do?
Don't forget that people can (and do) undervalue themselves. Maybe they don't believe that they could find another job: possibly because their manager has completely destroyed their self-worth.
Finally, it's just fucking stupid. It's actually counter-productive. It's been shown over and over again (one example[1]) that the way you get better results out of humans is to treat them humanely and, unbelievably, make them want to work for you instead of work for you out of fear. Practices like this, stack ranking, etc. all originate out of the industrial age when machines were the primary concern - you can't manage humans like machines: they will revolt (consciously or subconsciously).
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
A situation that shares many similarities is: "it is that woman's fault that she does not leave her abusive husband." That is laying blame on the person who was abused (not matter their background) instead of the person dealing out the injustice.
Imagine that Bezos had not disowned this behavior: more and more would follow suit and eventually you'd be hard-pressed to find a place where this isn't the norm. For example: stack ranking had to start somewhere. Now you'll find it at many places and it's no longer as simple as "just go work somewhere else." If you've acquired a lifestyle where you depend on a corporate job with a cushy salary, what are you going to do?
Don't forget that people can (and do) undervalue themselves. Maybe they don't believe that they could find another job: possibly because their manager has completely destroyed their self-worth.
Finally, it's just fucking stupid. It's actually counter-productive. It's been shown over and over again (one example[1]) that the way you get better results out of humans is to treat them humanely and, unbelievably, make them want to work for you instead of work for you out of fear. Practices like this, stack ranking, etc. all originate out of the industrial age when machines were the primary concern - you can't manage humans like machines: they will revolt (consciously or subconsciously).
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Even if you haven't acquired a lifestyle. It's not like things get better when management adopts some new terrible practice for non-salaried employees. By and large they live day to day stack-ranking all sorts of far more abusive BS.
beachstartup(2)
Some people signed the contract thinking it's a decent place to work but found out later it's not. They received relocation bonus (which they have to return if they leave within 2 years), left their previous job, are now in a country where there visa depends on being employed by Amazon so things are not as black and white as you would like to represent them and they just can't leave as easily as some. It's not slavery, but it's not far from indentured servitude.
P.S. I'm not in that situation but have a few colleagues who are, and going back to Ukraine for them is not an option.
P.S. I'm not in that situation but have a few colleagues who are, and going back to Ukraine for them is not an option.
I really do not think that someone being well-paid is justification for treating them poorly. Surely an employee should just be treated well, period. I actually think your line of thinking here is incredibly dangerous -- you seem to think that if someone is well-paid it's okay to treat them like dirt, as if you have to balance things out somehow.
And regardless of how well-paid any of them may or may not be (keep in mind these are not just the developers), they all might have made real sacrifices in their lives to work for Amazon without realizing what they were getting into. Quitting a beloved former job for what appeared to be a much needed pay raise, moving cross country with your family, etc...
I'm not boycotting anything but everyone has a right to be upset when they're mistreated.
And regardless of how well-paid any of them may or may not be (keep in mind these are not just the developers), they all might have made real sacrifices in their lives to work for Amazon without realizing what they were getting into. Quitting a beloved former job for what appeared to be a much needed pay raise, moving cross country with your family, etc...
I'm not boycotting anything but everyone has a right to be upset when they're mistreated.
Workers, white-collar or not, are seldom sold a job with full information: working through vacation isn't the kind of thing mentioned in job postings.
I don't think anyone should be forced to work through their vacation: that's why it is called vacation. If you don't want people to take vacation then don't offer it, but offering vacation "in name only" is the worst of all possible worlds.
I want to live in a world where companies treat their workers well and therefore I don't want to patronize companies that willfully and systemically dehumanize them.
I don't think anyone should be forced to work through their vacation: that's why it is called vacation. If you don't want people to take vacation then don't offer it, but offering vacation "in name only" is the worst of all possible worlds.
I want to live in a world where companies treat their workers well and therefore I don't want to patronize companies that willfully and systemically dehumanize them.
Implied in your comment is that employees (assuming they are employable white collar employees) are empowered economic actors. They keep choosing to work there.
I think the reality of the employee-employer relationship is that employees don't have the sort of power, as one would have as a customer, for example. Part of the reasons are probably explainable economically. It's a fairly illiquid market for employees because the cost of getting to an agreement, negotiating terms (never-mind sampling) is very high. A lot of other reasons are probably best explained psychologically or anthropologically, roles we assume in certain situations. I suspect these are the bigger ones. Either way, barriers are there and bad treatment of employees often results in badly treated employees, not empty just resignations.
In a lot of ways, "if you don't like it, get another job" like "if you don't like it, get another country."
The free exchange economistic-ey forces are there, but they are not the only things there. Other things that make employers behave better is standards set by society. These are laws, but also just norms and practices. These are impacted by things like articles or consumer responses.
It's complicated.
I'm fairly sympathetic to a lot of libertarian positions. But, I don't buy into the strong economic rationalist arguments.
Economic forces dictate how some things play out. other times, other cultural forces take effect. When it comes to employee treatment, I think societal norms are a massive influence. The reaction you are observing is part a mechanism for this. Society's scolding amazon for treating its employees badly, defining and enforcing the nom..
I think the reality of the employee-employer relationship is that employees don't have the sort of power, as one would have as a customer, for example. Part of the reasons are probably explainable economically. It's a fairly illiquid market for employees because the cost of getting to an agreement, negotiating terms (never-mind sampling) is very high. A lot of other reasons are probably best explained psychologically or anthropologically, roles we assume in certain situations. I suspect these are the bigger ones. Either way, barriers are there and bad treatment of employees often results in badly treated employees, not empty just resignations.
In a lot of ways, "if you don't like it, get another job" like "if you don't like it, get another country."
The free exchange economistic-ey forces are there, but they are not the only things there. Other things that make employers behave better is standards set by society. These are laws, but also just norms and practices. These are impacted by things like articles or consumer responses.
It's complicated.
I'm fairly sympathetic to a lot of libertarian positions. But, I don't buy into the strong economic rationalist arguments.
Economic forces dictate how some things play out. other times, other cultural forces take effect. When it comes to employee treatment, I think societal norms are a massive influence. The reaction you are observing is part a mechanism for this. Society's scolding amazon for treating its employees badly, defining and enforcing the nom..
> In a lot of ways, "if you don't like it, get another job" like "if you don't like it, get another country."
There are big differences between the two unless you live in a state that borders Canada. In most cases, getting a new job does not require you to relocate far away or significantly change your lifestyle.
> It's a fairly illiquid market for employees because the cost of getting to an agreement, negotiating terms (never-mind sampling) is very high.
Is this cost higher than staying miserable? About the only thing I can think of for being forced to stay employed with Amazon is to complete the "two year tour of duty" for your resume.
I'd agree with you more if we were discussing uneducated and unskilled workers. However unless I missed something I feel that we were talking about skilled and educated workers that are in demand by many companies.
That said I'm not condoning any company that has bad practices and I'm still sympathetic to anyone that gets poorly treated at any company, while at the same time I feel that staying with a company that makes you unhappy as an highly in demand worker is a conscious choice you make as an adult. I don't feel that most people have work contracts. Employment is at will for both the employer and employee.
There are big differences between the two unless you live in a state that borders Canada. In most cases, getting a new job does not require you to relocate far away or significantly change your lifestyle.
> It's a fairly illiquid market for employees because the cost of getting to an agreement, negotiating terms (never-mind sampling) is very high.
Is this cost higher than staying miserable? About the only thing I can think of for being forced to stay employed with Amazon is to complete the "two year tour of duty" for your resume.
I'd agree with you more if we were discussing uneducated and unskilled workers. However unless I missed something I feel that we were talking about skilled and educated workers that are in demand by many companies.
That said I'm not condoning any company that has bad practices and I'm still sympathetic to anyone that gets poorly treated at any company, while at the same time I feel that staying with a company that makes you unhappy as an highly in demand worker is a conscious choice you make as an adult. I don't feel that most people have work contracts. Employment is at will for both the employer and employee.
That reasoning could also be applied to anyone who's suffering in an abusive relationship (whether emotional or physical). It would be inappropriate then, just as it's inappropriate here.
In addition, not everything has to be decided solely by where one spends their money. It's entirely possible to put pressure on an organisation through other means.
In addition, not everything has to be decided solely by where one spends their money. It's entirely possible to put pressure on an organisation through other means.
This isn't a man who is beating his wife. The employee doesn't have the social pressure to stay with someone they married rather than face the shame of divorce. The employee doesn't have a part of them that is literally in love with the abuser (a company).
It's a stretch to use the 'abused spouse' argument with highly educated knowledge workers making 6 figure salaries. Find a new job.
It's a stretch to use the 'abused spouse' argument with highly educated knowledge workers making 6 figure salaries. Find a new job.
> The employee doesn't have the social pressure to stay with someone they married rather than face the shame of divorce.
Actually, workplaces like this tend to thrive on social pressure and psychological manipulation. The NYT article paints a picture in which people begin undergoing brainwashing on day one. A workplace can most definitely create a very powerful culture of internal shaming.
That said, leaving an abusive relationship is still likely to be harder, for a few reasons. First, there's true love involved -- no employee was ever truly in love with Amazon. Second, there are logistical reasons -- it's probably easier to quit Amazon and find another job than it is for many people to leave an abusive relationship and get back on their own independent feet.
But I think it's still dangerous to underestimate the social pressures that a large corporation can create.
Actually, workplaces like this tend to thrive on social pressure and psychological manipulation. The NYT article paints a picture in which people begin undergoing brainwashing on day one. A workplace can most definitely create a very powerful culture of internal shaming.
That said, leaving an abusive relationship is still likely to be harder, for a few reasons. First, there's true love involved -- no employee was ever truly in love with Amazon. Second, there are logistical reasons -- it's probably easier to quit Amazon and find another job than it is for many people to leave an abusive relationship and get back on their own independent feet.
But I think it's still dangerous to underestimate the social pressures that a large corporation can create.
>Most of them could easily find another job someplace else
Not too long ago we laughed at open offices and tiny cubes with half or quarter height walls as just desserts for low wage workers like call center operators. After all, if they wanted better conditions they should make themselves more marketable. Now coders are having to deal with these punishing layouts due to them being a current executive fad.
Now every executive at every company is buying into this "treat them like shit" philosophy. Between this and H1B visa abuse, where exactly do domestic workers flee to? You can work for company X with a crappy culture or company Y with a crappy culture. Illusion of choice isn't choice.
Not too long ago we laughed at open offices and tiny cubes with half or quarter height walls as just desserts for low wage workers like call center operators. After all, if they wanted better conditions they should make themselves more marketable. Now coders are having to deal with these punishing layouts due to them being a current executive fad.
Now every executive at every company is buying into this "treat them like shit" philosophy. Between this and H1B visa abuse, where exactly do domestic workers flee to? You can work for company X with a crappy culture or company Y with a crappy culture. Illusion of choice isn't choice.
Terrible working conditions have been the norm for many coders for as long as there has been coding. In the late 90s, Joel Spolsky rose by being a contrarian and advocating good work conditions. Microsoft was always held as an extreme outlier with its good conditions. Everyone was agape about the .com bubble because companies were giving employees nice chairs (which in retrospect seems absurd...something so minor as a signal of excess).
The point, I suppose, is that our own information funnels often mislead us into trends and "averages", when it's just cycles.
The point, I suppose, is that our own information funnels often mislead us into trends and "averages", when it's just cycles.
Maybe, but I'm probably a lot older than your average HN'er and I remember my first few jobs. Everyone had an office. The sysadmin had one, the developers each had one, the manager did, etc. Or at the very least had a proper full size cube with proper size walls. There was an emphasis of privacy and quiet time because everyone needed to concentrate to get shit done. Walking into IT was like walking into a library.
10+ years ago was the last time I saw IT staff in offices outside of management or even a proper full sized, full walled cube.
10+ years ago was the last time I saw IT staff in offices outside of management or even a proper full sized, full walled cube.
Indeed, I myself started working in 1980 and it sure seems like it was better then, but I can't isolate that from working in the Boston area until its high tech scene finished dying a hard death in the early '90s (the web created a new one a little later) and I moved to the D.C. area which you might say didn't have as high standards.
It's not just a matter of whether it looks like North Korea or not, it's a matter of what kind of companies you want to see out there. You may approve it or not, and you can respond to it. One way to respond is to stop ordering from Amazon.
I will keep ordering from McDonalds because their food is the cheapest while still tasting good.
I will keep buying gasoline from Alberta Tar Sands and fracking because it is the cheapest at powering my motor vehicle.
I will keep getting my marijuana from a mexican drug cartel because it is more potent and cheaper than from other sources.
... way to be the rational economic actor who gives zero shits about externalities and hard-to-measure but obviously occurring consequences. Good job, dude.
I will keep buying gasoline from Alberta Tar Sands and fracking because it is the cheapest at powering my motor vehicle.
I will keep getting my marijuana from a mexican drug cartel because it is more potent and cheaper than from other sources.
... way to be the rational economic actor who gives zero shits about externalities and hard-to-measure but obviously occurring consequences. Good job, dude.
Honestly, I would need to see white collar women shackled to computers in dilapidated warehouses on 60 minutes before I had to give up 2 Day Shipping, and even then I'd probably convince myself that the exposure means change is happening and start using again
To those who have down voted this comment, you down vote this comment for being distasteful without recognizing the reality and honesty its perspective provides.
Unless you're on a visa and having a job is a requirement of keeping said visa.
I don't plan to boycott either, but I can see why others do. Whether Amazon's employees are white collar or not, and whether or not they freely choose to work there, I still find it morally objectionable for Amazon to treat their employees the way that they apparently do.
Of course this is not as bad as taking advantage of desperate, low-skill workers, or taking advantage of lax labor standards abroad. But white-collar Amazon workers are still people and the managers at Amazon still owe them at least some duty to not willfully make their lives miserable.
(And, by the way, there are also stories out there about Amazon's treatment of lower-skilled, less "free" warehouse employees, etc. which would, I think, be better cause for boycott if true. But that's really a different subject.)
Of course this is not as bad as taking advantage of desperate, low-skill workers, or taking advantage of lax labor standards abroad. But white-collar Amazon workers are still people and the managers at Amazon still owe them at least some duty to not willfully make their lives miserable.
(And, by the way, there are also stories out there about Amazon's treatment of lower-skilled, less "free" warehouse employees, etc. which would, I think, be better cause for boycott if true. But that's really a different subject.)
I just think they shouldn't act like such jerks and treat employees like human beings who are on your team. Sure they have the ability to leave, I'm just trying to support better behavior though.
> I've been reading various comments about this around the internet and many people are saying they will stop ordering from Amazon because of it.
Well it's because the people who are Amazon customers can relate these white collars being "harassed" at Amazon. It's because of a lot of these customers might have lived the same situation and know how horrible this is.
Well it's because the people who are Amazon customers can relate these white collars being "harassed" at Amazon. It's because of a lot of these customers might have lived the same situation and know how horrible this is.
You know, what makes you think people have such mobility? It's not easy to just "go find another job".
You married, got kids, you can't afford to go find another job. At least not quickly. And quietly. Cause if your manager finds out your interviewing (and it's a small world) you're dead.
I don't suppose you live outside the bubble? It's a different world in say, Kansas.
You married, got kids, you can't afford to go find another job. At least not quickly. And quietly. Cause if your manager finds out your interviewing (and it's a small world) you're dead.
I don't suppose you live outside the bubble? It's a different world in say, Kansas.
>I will keep ordering from Amazon because they provide the best service. Simple as that.
I will keep buying from clothes from Primark because they provide the cheapest. Simple as that.
...
I will keep buying from clothes from Primark because they provide the cheapest. Simple as that.
...
Jeff Bezos encourages employees a "careful read" of the NYT article and the read of "a very different take by a current Amazonian" on LinkedIn.
What I see is a company with a big PR department who hasn't succeeded to spin positive stories about their HR in newspapers. We'll see in the next months whether they prop up their game.
Besides, if you face a difficulty with your work environment, don't talk to HR™. They are paid to exclude any PR hazard from the company.
NB: Moderator/dang, please merge with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10072753
What I see is a company with a big PR department who hasn't succeeded to spin positive stories about their HR in newspapers. We'll see in the next months whether they prop up their game.
Besides, if you face a difficulty with your work environment, don't talk to HR™. They are paid to exclude any PR hazard from the company.
NB: Moderator/dang, please merge with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10072753
Sounds like Bezos is just doing damage control. The original article is somewhat interesting but hardly novel. I've never talked to a single person who worked at Amazon who had anything positive to say. You have recruiters recruiting for Amazon who are basically saying, "Do not work there." They are being paid on commission to get you to work there and they're telling you what a horrible place to work it is, killing any chance of moving forward. I find that quite telling of what kind of place Amazon is.
Right?
For someone many folks refer to as "a very smart man" it's obvious this is just damage control. It was probably prepared as soon as they found out NYT was going to run the piece.
180,000 employees. He'll only ever interact with a tiny portion of those people, and even then it's mostly going to be the sycophants and a few alpha-crony confidants. Shocking he has a radically different experience.
His company sued (and won) to prevent warehouse workers from collecting money for the time they stand in-line being frisked.
Not only do we shuffle them through our fascist security machine with little trust, or dignity. We also refuse to give them just a bit more, so that King Bezos can continue to drink their babies tears lest the sheen on his bald head dim just a bit.
I mean they're already near the bottom of the totem pole. Surely one more kick to the stomach shall barely be noticed.
Such empathy.
For someone many folks refer to as "a very smart man" it's obvious this is just damage control. It was probably prepared as soon as they found out NYT was going to run the piece.
180,000 employees. He'll only ever interact with a tiny portion of those people, and even then it's mostly going to be the sycophants and a few alpha-crony confidants. Shocking he has a radically different experience.
His company sued (and won) to prevent warehouse workers from collecting money for the time they stand in-line being frisked.
Not only do we shuffle them through our fascist security machine with little trust, or dignity. We also refuse to give them just a bit more, so that King Bezos can continue to drink their babies tears lest the sheen on his bald head dim just a bit.
I mean they're already near the bottom of the totem pole. Surely one more kick to the stomach shall barely be noticed.
Such empathy.
And yet Amazon (3.4) rates comparable on Glassdoor to many other important technology companies, including: Oracle (3.3), Yahoo (3.5), HP (3.3), IBM (3.1), eBay (3.5), Tesla (3.4), Dell (3.4), Cisco (3.7).
That's with 5,800+ reviews. Something doesn't add up.
That's with 5,800+ reviews. Something doesn't add up.
Yeah, one thing is, negative reviews on Glassdoor seem to get killed.
I reviewed Amazon negatively, and of course it's no longer there.
I don't know if Glassdoor is doing like Yelp is alleged to be doing, but I've seen this with other companies as well, where the negative reviews get spiked.
I reviewed Amazon negatively, and of course it's no longer there.
I don't know if Glassdoor is doing like Yelp is alleged to be doing, but I've seen this with other companies as well, where the negative reviews get spiked.
How reliable is glassdoor as a metric? Personally, I would never, ever post anything negative there due to the fear of retaliation. I suspect truly bad companies never get their comeuppance because at the end of the day, you need some kind of reference and positive job history from your previous employer. It may not be that hard to trace a review to a specific employee due to timing, title, salary, etc information.
According to the dozen seasoned job-hunters and recruiters that I know, Glassdoor is absolutely rotten in my industry (biotech). The selection bias is heavy-handed at best. Even Amazon's 5,000+ reviews represent a very small fraction of it's employees globally. These are futher selected as the kind who would review a job online pseudoanomyously.
Furthermore, one doesn't know the age of a review -- is this a current employee, a previous one who left last week or a review of a the job from 10 years ago? It's entirely possible that every problem addressed in a negative review has been since addressed. You just don't know.
Furthermore, one doesn't know the age of a review -- is this a current employee, a previous one who left last week or a review of a the job from 10 years ago? It's entirely possible that every problem addressed in a negative review has been since addressed. You just don't know.
I've seen plenty of instances where the Glassdor listings were really a red flag. In these cases, there are several negative reviews focusing on similar cons, then several other glowing (and obviously planted) reviews to combat it.
It depends on the team and department in every company.
You can always find one or two terrible anecdotes.
You can always find one or two terrible anecdotes.
Does 300 people count as more than "one or two" terrible anecdotes? Cause thats how many were in the group that were having a miserable time when I was at Amazon... it was a significant proportion of the engineers at HQ at that time, possibly %60.
That's quite worrying. I wonder why they haven't made a bigger hit in the glassdoor rating.
For years I've had an academic interest in alternative religions. (As an atheist, I find them endlessly fascinating, as it lets you see more of how the dominant religions came to be.) One of those most interesting things I've come across related to that was the ABCDEF:
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
It was put together decades ago by a pagan who wanted to help people see the difference between people who were up to something new and actually dangerous cults.
The NYT article made me haul it out again and do some scoring, and then run through and score a number of the tech companies I'm familiar with. It was a very interesting exercise.
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
It was put together decades ago by a pagan who wanted to help people see the difference between people who were up to something new and actually dangerous cults.
The NYT article made me haul it out again and do some scoring, and then run through and score a number of the tech companies I'm familiar with. It was a very interesting exercise.
When I worked at Amazon I felt it was very cultish. "Today is day one!" and the BS like door desks (which cost more than actual desks but give the "we're a startup!" mentality boost.)
Looking on your list a surprising number of factors are much higher for amazon than for other, better jobs I've seen.
It is very much a cult. Microsoft had a bit of cultism in the 1990s (Billg was infallible, etc.) and another company I've worked for since tried to be a cult...
Looking on your list a surprising number of factors are much higher for amazon than for other, better jobs I've seen.
It is very much a cult. Microsoft had a bit of cultism in the 1990s (Billg was infallible, etc.) and another company I've worked for since tried to be a cult...
How did you rate HN?
This kind of thing reminded me of when Eric Schmidt justified Google's reputationally low pay by saying "people don't work at Google for the money, they do it to change the world!"
Of course, Google's stock made him a billionaire.
To me this problem seems to root itself in the absurdity of equity percentages. How is it one who comes to the company a year after founding can work the same 10-12 hour days as a founder and yet see maybe 1% in options they have to pay for while founders expect 15% and up for being there at the beginning? Seems all right when the company is young and the risk is high, but what ends up happening is that the fresh blood 10,20 years on has to fight for scraps while the now-wealthy founders can enjoy their work knowing they could quit tomorrow and never have to lift a finger again.
White collar Walmart could pay its employees squarely to compensate for their mental health and social lives, but they act almost allergic to profits as long as they can continue stock offerings to keep prices at a minimum.
Of course, Google's stock made him a billionaire.
To me this problem seems to root itself in the absurdity of equity percentages. How is it one who comes to the company a year after founding can work the same 10-12 hour days as a founder and yet see maybe 1% in options they have to pay for while founders expect 15% and up for being there at the beginning? Seems all right when the company is young and the risk is high, but what ends up happening is that the fresh blood 10,20 years on has to fight for scraps while the now-wealthy founders can enjoy their work knowing they could quit tomorrow and never have to lift a finger again.
White collar Walmart could pay its employees squarely to compensate for their mental health and social lives, but they act almost allergic to profits as long as they can continue stock offerings to keep prices at a minimum.
And like clockwork, there is the PR reaction. Whatever you do, don't write to HR or Jeff - that is amateur hour stuff to smoke out the problem people.
I'm in the process of joining Amazon as a software engineer manager. I don't know how to respond to this article and if to continue the process with them.
I have decided to stop the interview process with Amazon as a result of this article. Life is too short to have to deal with working in such a poisonous culture as described. I've had a few people mention how much Amazon sucks, at least in the Bay Area, but I thought maybe it was just a coincidence, but based on the article, it seems like it's their culture.
Both interviews I did with Amazon were pretty poor. I am a little upset by their advocacy and use of visa workers, as though there are no American engineers capable of doing the work. Facebook and other tech giants are guilty of this too.
I passed the interview process and was offered a position at Amazon. I was lucky enough to be offered another position the same week. I went for the latter, for many reasons, but a big one was the documented lack of work-life balance at Amazon. I love what I do, but life is short, life is precious, and I'm not going to give up the limited time I have with those I love for the sake of a job if I'm so lucky as to have the choice.
Keep this in mind: It's easier to find a job when you already have one. It takes the stress off the process and you automatically become more desirable for some reason.
If I were you I wouldn't cut off the opportunity immediately, but I would continue looking for another job at the same time. The world has changed in the last few decades in terms of job loyalty so there won't be any kind of stigma against you if you only stay for a short while and you can say "I was offered a better job" as the reason for leaving.
If I were you I wouldn't cut off the opportunity immediately, but I would continue looking for another job at the same time. The world has changed in the last few decades in terms of job loyalty so there won't be any kind of stigma against you if you only stay for a short while and you can say "I was offered a better job" as the reason for leaving.
Counterpoint: Amazon's use and enforcement of noncompetes.
This is true I guess. I haven't seen their contract. I've never had an issue with any noncompetes in my contracts though. I can see why you wouldn't want to employ and train people in your business only for them to go to a direct competitor. I think that's fair, you just need to look for a good job in an unrelated business.
If a company wants me to not work in my field after I leave them, they can pay me for the condition. At a multiple of going market rates.
The reason people can work for the competition is that they're not slaves. There are few businesses Amazon doesn't compete with (all of retail, books, publishing, tech).
If they want their workers to stay, make the prospect attractive.
The reason people can work for the competition is that they're not slaves. There are few businesses Amazon doesn't compete with (all of retail, books, publishing, tech).
If they want their workers to stay, make the prospect attractive.
I'd skip it. I worked there for 5 years and hitting that mark was a big deal. A vp used to give bronzed Nike shoes for the 5 year anniversary. Also he stopped before I got one.
The article picks some of the most egregious stories but look beyond the horror stories and try to see the culture there. I've heard they've been trying to fix it, but I'm pretty sure that wilke or bezos still yell in the weekly business review meetings on a regular basis. Do you want to work in a 5% margin environment that is a retailer and you get yelled at?
The article picks some of the most egregious stories but look beyond the horror stories and try to see the culture there. I've heard they've been trying to fix it, but I'm pretty sure that wilke or bezos still yell in the weekly business review meetings on a regular basis. Do you want to work in a 5% margin environment that is a retailer and you get yelled at?
It's purely anecdotal, but it's been a well known "fact" within my circle of developers that working for Amazon is a death march and not something you should consider unless you are desperate or intend to make it a short stint where they are offering a title and pay increase worth the 1-2 years of hell that working there would be.
True or not, perception is reality and Amazon has attained a rather poor reputation in the circles I travel. I have considered positions with them in the past but because of my perception of what working for them would mean, I've rejected several for not being worth it (pay increase not big enough), and one due to simple logistics (they wanted me in a city I wouldn't move to).
True or not, perception is reality and Amazon has attained a rather poor reputation in the circles I travel. I have considered positions with them in the past but because of my perception of what working for them would mean, I've rejected several for not being worth it (pay increase not big enough), and one due to simple logistics (they wanted me in a city I wouldn't move to).
The perception I've gotten is somewhat different, though based on much of the same stories. I don't think Amazon is a horrible place to work, but it seems like a horrible place to stay for too long.
I had a roommate who was a nurse who and worked in a couple of area hospitals. When I asked her why she drove 90 minutes to one hospital rather than working all her hours at closer area hospitals, her response was, "That hospital is in a poorer area of town and gets all sorts of bizarre and desperate medical issues. It would take me 5 years at the other hospital to get the experience I'll get in six months a that hospital."
I think Amazon is like that hospital. It's an amazing place to grow and learn things you basically can't learn otherwise. And employers elsewhere know it. When I get an Amazon candidate who spent more than a year there, I can basically know ahead of time that that candidate will pass the technical part of the interview process. But once you've got that 1-2 years of experience, it's a place to leave, go elsewhere and get treated/paid better.
But again, this is based on anecdotal evidence from past Amazon employees...I've never worked there.
I had a roommate who was a nurse who and worked in a couple of area hospitals. When I asked her why she drove 90 minutes to one hospital rather than working all her hours at closer area hospitals, her response was, "That hospital is in a poorer area of town and gets all sorts of bizarre and desperate medical issues. It would take me 5 years at the other hospital to get the experience I'll get in six months a that hospital."
I think Amazon is like that hospital. It's an amazing place to grow and learn things you basically can't learn otherwise. And employers elsewhere know it. When I get an Amazon candidate who spent more than a year there, I can basically know ahead of time that that candidate will pass the technical part of the interview process. But once you've got that 1-2 years of experience, it's a place to leave, go elsewhere and get treated/paid better.
But again, this is based on anecdotal evidence from past Amazon employees...I've never worked there.
I think we're saying the same thing, but with different slants. The perception of Amazon right now (again, I don't know first hand) is that the work there is extremely intense to the point of maddening, and that can make it very attractive for certain people, and very unattractive for others. If you want to gain good experiences quickly and build your resume with a big name, it's a very viable option for you so long as you are willing to make the trade-off in work/life balance and stress. If you're no longer at that point in your career, it's not going to be for you.
I have stopped responding to Amazon recruiters because of workplace issues I keep reading about through the years. There wasn't a lot in the article that I found shocking.
I'm not saying that every department would be bad, so you could opt to continue to join them and see if you can run one of the more humane ones. Be careful though - you might not realize it if/when you slip into the ones described in the article.
I'm not saying that every department would be bad, so you could opt to continue to join them and see if you can run one of the more humane ones. Be careful though - you might not realize it if/when you slip into the ones described in the article.
I had interview opportunities with Amazon twice over the last few years and I've turned both down because of the reports of how badly they treat their workers. I made sure to tell the recruiter why and he said that they get that a lot now.
[deleted]
The article is nothing new. The work environment at Amazon has been a discussion for years at this point.
Don't bail out. Take the driver's seat and force them to meet your terms. Ask for a personal meeting with Jeff to pitch you and the company and respond personally to the article. Get multiple offers and see if they are really unable to give you a competitive offer. After you've done a thorough evaluation you can decide whether to move ahead; and they can't be upset if you pass given the publicity. But your opponent is on the ropes right now and it's truly the best time to try to score a sweetened offer.
A great point, which I haven't heard anywhere else in this discussion. We the job hunters have the ability to bend the job to our expectation before we start. It's a negotiation, it's an uncomfortable conversation, sure, but it will absolutely pay off no matter what happens in the end. As a bonus, I believe that one gains respect when one speaks up at a job interview and demands what they need to be successful.
Also, this works for every job, everywhere. Very wise advice.
Also, this works for every job, everywhere. Very wise advice.
As long as you're not under contract, you might as well find out for yourself if you like it or not.
It's getting to the point where having Amazon on your resume is a negative, though.
Not true - I'd say 9/10 Seattle area companies would LOVE to have an ex-Amazon employee join the team. It has a major reputation locally for "put in your 2 years then work wherever you want in Seattle"
I mean, Amazon is not, say, RealNetworks. Real has that reputation for me if you've been there longer than a year. If you've been at Amazon for years, I'm going to dig in but I'm not going to automatically assume it's a negative like I will with Real. It's on the cusp, but not an automatic thing.
How so? Technical reasons, or because people assume you've been steeped in a toxic culture long enough that you're radioactive yourself?
It is not at all getting to that point.
There are good teams and bad teams: if you feel like spending the time, you could roll the dice and see if you land on a good one. Else quit. My few Amazon friends are on good teams.
All of this discussion brings me to the Stanford Prison Experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
In such hierarchical systems, the issue goes beyond abuse itself, bringing deinvidualization and loss of personal identity.
That partially explains why some workers won't leave the company even for a similar/higher salary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
In such hierarchical systems, the issue goes beyond abuse itself, bringing deinvidualization and loss of personal identity.
That partially explains why some workers won't leave the company even for a similar/higher salary.
My thoughts exactly: which one is true? A) Amazon is a kind of narcissistic codependency/Stockholm syndrome environment; B) the "horror" stories are exaggerated; C) the job is so cool that people are willing to take some abuse; D) there is other reason as to why Amazon succeeds.
https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
"Ha, ha! You 150-odd ex-Amazon folks here will of course realize immediately that #7 was a little joke I threw in, because Bezos most definitely does not give a shit about your day."
"We're talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people "who runs the company" when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular... well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don't get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies."
"At this point they don't even do it out of fear of being fired. I mean, they're still afraid of that; it's pretty much part of daily life there, working for the Dread Pirate Bezos and all."
"Ha, ha! You 150-odd ex-Amazon folks here will of course realize immediately that #7 was a little joke I threw in, because Bezos most definitely does not give a shit about your day."
"We're talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people "who runs the company" when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular... well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don't get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies."
"At this point they don't even do it out of fear of being fired. I mean, they're still afraid of that; it's pretty much part of daily life there, working for the Dread Pirate Bezos and all."
As an exAmazonian I think Amazon treated me decently. I ultimately left for some place that treat me even better (with free food and better pay); but I did not believe that I am entitled to those perks. Judging by life of the few Amazonians I know personally, most of them agree with me. I only know one person who complained heavily about Amazon and it is more about his team and having a crappy boss than about the company.
but I did not believe that I am entitled to those perks
As if Jeff is reading [email protected] - would be the first enterprise CEO I know who reads his mail instead of a web of (personal) assistants.
From what I can gather, he reads anything sent from another internal (@amazon.com) address personally. Stuff from outside probably goes to assistants.
Cool, thx.
I think the point is being missed. As long as Amazon has "interesting" problems to solve they will get good people (look at what PhD candidates will suffer). If they don't then only those who can't leave will be left behind. I know this is cynical but it is also why I love this field so much. I look for interesting problems to solve...not huge benefits. Money just doesn't get me up in the morning. Will I die poor...maybe...its not a big concern because I love what I do.
Keeping it "interesting" is the problem that needs to be solved at Amazon. So far they have been very successful at that.
Keeping it "interesting" is the problem that needs to be solved at Amazon. So far they have been very successful at that.
The problem with this is, with some marginal effort you could get vastly more money and interesting problems. Accepting a low salary out of some misguided notion that money isn't important to you is silly. Money gives you options you would not otherwise have - a great salary combined with thrift can facilitate an unusual amount of career flexibility. At the very least, you can donate the money you don't need to GiveWell and save a few lives.
It has been my experience that certain problem sets are only addressed by a couple of companies at a time. Sometimes you have to see beyond the culture and pick the problem.
It has also been my experience that a low salary is indicative of a very boring company and set of problems. A very high salary is also indicative of a very boring company and a set of problems that may stem from culture...i.e. poor testing, etc.
...somewhere in the mid to upper end of salary lies very interesting problems. I just don't make my decision based solely on salary.
It has also been my experience that a low salary is indicative of a very boring company and set of problems. A very high salary is also indicative of a very boring company and a set of problems that may stem from culture...i.e. poor testing, etc.
...somewhere in the mid to upper end of salary lies very interesting problems. I just don't make my decision based solely on salary.
Honest question: do you think that only Amazon has interesting problems to solve? I do not know much about the company internally, but there exist other companies that compensate and treat employees better, such as Google or Facebook.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe I didn't phrase my thoughts well. Amazon's problem is providing "interesting" problems. Interesting problems also are usually very niche. The problems that Google and Facebook are trying to solve don't necessarily overlap with those being solved by Amazon. My comment was more aimed at the viability of Amazon finding the most capable people it could. It seems to have removed "culture" as a positive and the only thing that it has going for it is "interesting" problems. Without them Amazon will rot. So far they continue to allow people to work on cool things.
I'm always blown away when I read things like this:
"Even many Amazonians who have worked on Wall Street and at start-ups say the workloads at the new South Lake Union campus can be extreme: marathon conference calls on Easter Sunday and Thanksgiving, criticism from bosses for spotty Internet access on vacation, and hours spent working at home most nights or weekends."
Is this something people are proud of? You're working for a shipping company, how do you get that brainwashed that you sign your life away like that? I understand as you move up the ranks in seniority more is expected of you, but I'm always surprised by the lack of self respect and boundaries people have for themselves in professional environments.
"Even many Amazonians who have worked on Wall Street and at start-ups say the workloads at the new South Lake Union campus can be extreme: marathon conference calls on Easter Sunday and Thanksgiving, criticism from bosses for spotty Internet access on vacation, and hours spent working at home most nights or weekends."
Is this something people are proud of? You're working for a shipping company, how do you get that brainwashed that you sign your life away like that? I understand as you move up the ranks in seniority more is expected of you, but I'm always surprised by the lack of self respect and boundaries people have for themselves in professional environments.
Most folks know that Amazon warehouses are abusive.
Why did it take Mr. Bezos so long to figure this out?
He deserves the benefit of the doubt, but its hard to believe he didn't already know.
He deserves the benefit of the doubt, but its hard to believe he didn't already know.
To the people that say an employee should just quit- it isn't that easy.
1. While it may be good for your resume to show you got selected by AMZN, the reverse is it hurts your resume to show you only lasted a few months which may imply it was a hiring mistake and you couldn't cut it.
2. If you took a big relocation package or sign-on bonus, you may feel inclined to stick it out even if it not healthy to not have to pay back and to deflect #1.
I'm actually pleased with Mr. Bezos' response. He doesn't deny any of the stories in the article, and he doesn't try to explain any of them away. His attitude strikes me as one of a problem-solver and one who cares about his company's reputation. I can't recall the last time I heard the CEO of a large company say publicly, "if you've been treated this way, reach out to me personally."
Sending people to HR in the US is not a way to solve a problem, unless you define "the problem" as "employees complaining to HR".
It's a lie. I knew him well enough when I worked there that I could have reached out to him personally and he would have known who I was. This is all by design.
He couldn't care less about employees. He does care about the reputation of the company, of course, because it's important for his net worth.
He couldn't care less about employees. He does care about the reputation of the company, of course, because it's important for his net worth.
His personal email address is 100% guaranteed staffed by a team of secretaries. It might've been respectable if it had been an email specifically for such complaints and no other user, and instructions on how to send things to it anonymously. But as things stand it's just an attempt to get people like you, who haven't been burned badly enough yet, to think he's actually being "nice" there.
He probably really sees all emails sent to him internally from an amazon email address.
...except for Jeff's own habits. Now I don't actually have a bad view of Amazon on the whole, but Bezos and his personality is well known for many years as demanding to the point of monomaniacal, and often cowing of others. That isn't just taking a pot shot, that's a repeated observation from many people over many years. It's like saying Larry Ellison likes boats or Scott McNealy hates dentists.
The second last paragraph there, is really strange! It almost sounds like as if, he'd rather people leave if they don't like it.
Bezos needs to buy some Robert Anton Wilson from himself.
Celine's Second Law: Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine%27s_laws
Celine's Second Law: Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine%27s_laws
This just reaffirms my prognostication that Bezos and Clarkson will end in fisticuffs.
A particularly fitting past discussion in HN about among other things Amazon:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4195136
Jeff needs to read the cluetrain manifesto (again), http://cluetrain.com/index.html
Escalate to HR? That's exactly what I did.
Jeff is spinning his typical BS. My boss was abusive, drove off %70 of the team and was dealing drugs to other employees in the PacMed garage. He lied to me many times, and I started documenting it.
I went to HR about it, trying to get support so I could transfer out to a team at AWS, where I knew the manager and he had offered me a job.
The HR person assured me that everything that I told her would be kept confidential. She insisted I tell her what was going on with my boss, and thus why I wanted to leave. I did tell her, and she then turned around and told my boss all of it. (I didn't tell her he was dealing drugs, I actually felt physically vulnerable to him because he had a violent temper-- his training was to be a prison guard and that's what he wanted to be before somehow he was hired at Amazon to manage programmers despite having difficulty even with simple things like spreadsheets and Excel.)
The HR at Amazon is an organization that is a big part of the problem. After she told my boss they started coming up with sudden complaint about my performance and scheduled a meeting with the HR person.. who then talked bout the things I had told her in confidence, in front of my boss (though I knew he already knew) as if there had never been any reason for me to expect confidence.
Also, I worked with Jeff Bezos on enough occasions that he knew who I was, and would say hello by name in the hallway. The idea that i could have gone to him directly with a complaint about my boss is asinine in the extreme. He would have passed it on to HR and it would have been the same thing.
He might have cared about the drug dealing thing ,but only because it put the company at risk.
The lack of empathy, and the rest of the employee hostile corporate culture ORIGINATES with Jeff Bezos. HE is the source and the cause and to him -- and this is a libertarian speaking-- everyone's existence is the sum total of the money they make him.
In fact, I think Jeff Bezos is a pathological liar and a psychopath. He's very charming, heartless and able to fake warmth. Clearly he has had PR training too. But he's the evil at the core of Amazon.
I've had extensive dealings with Microsoft and Apple and other big companies-- none were any where close to as toxic and heartless as Amazon. Jeff really sees people as resources to be exploited and could not care less about employee development, or retention.
In fact, the back stabbing, competitive nature that makes it such a toxic environment is designed in some sort of "survival of the fittest" delusion-- the product is regularly sacrificed (and amazon.com is pretty much a joke how broken it is-- still is, in fact) as a result.
You win at Amazon by playing politics, not by being good at your job.
PS-- why was I stupid enough to go to HR? I've worked mostly for startups, and it was the job previous to this that was my first real experience with an HR "department" which was one person, who was damn good, and exceptional at mediation and conflict resolution, full of integrity and trustworthy. I didn't have experience at large companies to know that HR was mostly filled with drama addicted flunkies.
Jeff is spinning his typical BS. My boss was abusive, drove off %70 of the team and was dealing drugs to other employees in the PacMed garage. He lied to me many times, and I started documenting it.
I went to HR about it, trying to get support so I could transfer out to a team at AWS, where I knew the manager and he had offered me a job.
The HR person assured me that everything that I told her would be kept confidential. She insisted I tell her what was going on with my boss, and thus why I wanted to leave. I did tell her, and she then turned around and told my boss all of it. (I didn't tell her he was dealing drugs, I actually felt physically vulnerable to him because he had a violent temper-- his training was to be a prison guard and that's what he wanted to be before somehow he was hired at Amazon to manage programmers despite having difficulty even with simple things like spreadsheets and Excel.)
The HR at Amazon is an organization that is a big part of the problem. After she told my boss they started coming up with sudden complaint about my performance and scheduled a meeting with the HR person.. who then talked bout the things I had told her in confidence, in front of my boss (though I knew he already knew) as if there had never been any reason for me to expect confidence.
Also, I worked with Jeff Bezos on enough occasions that he knew who I was, and would say hello by name in the hallway. The idea that i could have gone to him directly with a complaint about my boss is asinine in the extreme. He would have passed it on to HR and it would have been the same thing.
He might have cared about the drug dealing thing ,but only because it put the company at risk.
The lack of empathy, and the rest of the employee hostile corporate culture ORIGINATES with Jeff Bezos. HE is the source and the cause and to him -- and this is a libertarian speaking-- everyone's existence is the sum total of the money they make him.
In fact, I think Jeff Bezos is a pathological liar and a psychopath. He's very charming, heartless and able to fake warmth. Clearly he has had PR training too. But he's the evil at the core of Amazon.
I've had extensive dealings with Microsoft and Apple and other big companies-- none were any where close to as toxic and heartless as Amazon. Jeff really sees people as resources to be exploited and could not care less about employee development, or retention.
In fact, the back stabbing, competitive nature that makes it such a toxic environment is designed in some sort of "survival of the fittest" delusion-- the product is regularly sacrificed (and amazon.com is pretty much a joke how broken it is-- still is, in fact) as a result.
You win at Amazon by playing politics, not by being good at your job.
PS-- why was I stupid enough to go to HR? I've worked mostly for startups, and it was the job previous to this that was my first real experience with an HR "department" which was one person, who was damn good, and exceptional at mediation and conflict resolution, full of integrity and trustworthy. I didn't have experience at large companies to know that HR was mostly filled with drama addicted flunkies.
the PacMed garage.
After reading all these threads it's becoming more apprarent that AWS is a different animal than the rest of Amazon, especially the marketing and sales arms where the real pressure is.
But, this being HN, we see a disproportionate amount of AWS engineers chiming in going "hmm. everything's cool here."
But, this being HN, we see a disproportionate amount of AWS engineers chiming in going "hmm. everything's cool here."
I strongly believe that anyone working in a company that really is like the one described in the NYT would be crazy to stay. I know I would leave such a company.
The cynic in me would interpret this as a tacit invitation by the Bezo-man himself to unhappy employees to beat it and don't let the door hit them on their rears on their way out if they don't like working here but I could be wrong but with the likes of Bezos and Ellison, you shouldn't set the bar really high when it comes to human empathy.
The cynic in me would interpret this as a tacit invitation by the Bezo-man himself to unhappy employees to beat it and don't let the door hit them on their rears on their way out if they don't like working here but I could be wrong but with the likes of Bezos and Ellison, you shouldn't set the bar really high when it comes to human empathy.
Jeff Bezos is definitely the new Steve Jobs.
Jobs was a good guy who, under it all, had engineering skill and design chops. He was compassionate and intelligent. Jobs built a great company that makes real profits by selling real products.
Bezos is a psychopath, a hack who only cares about manipulating the situation in his favor. He has built a shell of a retailer whos only profitable product is its own stock.
Bezos is a psychopath, a hack who only cares about manipulating the situation in his favor. He has built a shell of a retailer whos only profitable product is its own stock.
Jobs was a good guy. Wasn't he known for being outright cruel to employees? Didn't he foster a culture of infighting and ridiculous hours? Wasn't he a deadbeat dad for a couple decades?
Did he have engineering skill? He had vision and a level of genius, but I'm not sure it applies to Engineering skill. Odd that you give that to him but not to Bezos.
Did he have engineering skill? He had vision and a level of genius, but I'm not sure it applies to Engineering skill. Odd that you give that to him but not to Bezos.
"BREAKING: Hugely successful big co has ex employees not fully satisfied, willing to criticize it. It also has current employees who appreciate it, willing to defend it. Will keep you posted."
....and thus it all cancels out? Show your work.
It's just all so anecdotal. Finding five frustrated employees of a company with things would not be hard to do, and the response pointed out how many of the major complaints were severely taken out of context. It just reeks if someone trying to make a story when there is none.
This is how most "journalism" works these days. Write your report as if the sky is falling, something extremely negative and spin it as if it's a major global trend. Then read the article and it's just some quotes from maybe three people, with very little data to back up the claim that it's a major trend. I see this type of work constantly. Especially articles about America or about "shortages." People get hyped up by a negative headline but don't think critically about the content.
Basically, everyone not currently at amazon is admitting how much it sucks. People currently there are pretending it doesn't suck. The company does have a good reality distortion field and seems like a great place to work for the first 6 months.
Then you find out they were lying to you.
Then you find out they were lying to you.
It's not just the employees interviewed by the Times. I've read roughly 100 comments (across this and several related HN articles) from ex-Amazon employees who confirmed that their experiences at Amazon were similar to what was described in the Times article. And maybe 100 comments from people who wrote that they would never work at Amazon based on what friends they knew at Amazon have gone through. At some point, the evidence begins to build up. I think it's pretty unlikely that there's a vast conspiracy of former Amazon employees and their friends who want to spread nasty lies about Amazon.
First world problems like no other...
We're talking about highly paid professionals working at a rather cushy job all things considered. It's like listening to rich kids complain about having blue M&M's touching the red M&M's in their bowl of candy.
Nothing in this whole bit of drama is shocking other then I'm not quite sure why Amazon is being singled out. All of the complaints made are systematic problems in any large corporation. The workplace isn't there to hold your hand and to be your own personal playground. In Tech, you have to earn your place every day and Amazon seems to make it clear that is the case (leadership principals, talk of hard challenges, etc). I would expect to be "managed out" if I showed up every day expecting to coast through with the bare minimum - who would want to work at a company where that is acceptable?
Boycotting the company as a customer is also pretty funny to me. The chief competition is Walmart - are the activists going to order from them instead? How is that any better ethically?
We're talking about highly paid professionals working at a rather cushy job all things considered. It's like listening to rich kids complain about having blue M&M's touching the red M&M's in their bowl of candy.
Nothing in this whole bit of drama is shocking other then I'm not quite sure why Amazon is being singled out. All of the complaints made are systematic problems in any large corporation. The workplace isn't there to hold your hand and to be your own personal playground. In Tech, you have to earn your place every day and Amazon seems to make it clear that is the case (leadership principals, talk of hard challenges, etc). I would expect to be "managed out" if I showed up every day expecting to coast through with the bare minimum - who would want to work at a company where that is acceptable?
Boycotting the company as a customer is also pretty funny to me. The chief competition is Walmart - are the activists going to order from them instead? How is that any better ethically?
A poisonous workplace with lots of employees will create huge negative externalities to the surrounding society.
1. People look up to their successfull peers. Examples succesfull companies create propagate throughout the management layers in the industry.
2. If Amazon sets a 'lets suck them dry' example then this will lower the barrier for other companies to follow suit, or enforce their existing pathologies
3. Bad work/life balance creates depressed people and is not so good for long term productivity. It might create short term kicks for adrenaline junkies and workaholics. Such practices have no rational defence, except that they appeal to certain macho people. From the POV of the company it might not be a problem since they can always hire more people to suck dry but the broken people who leave have suffered personal tragedies with various side effects.
4. What is this 'Tech' where 'one needs to earn their place every day'? It certainly does not sound like professional software engineering for sane and capable people who can choose where to work.
1. People look up to their successfull peers. Examples succesfull companies create propagate throughout the management layers in the industry.
2. If Amazon sets a 'lets suck them dry' example then this will lower the barrier for other companies to follow suit, or enforce their existing pathologies
3. Bad work/life balance creates depressed people and is not so good for long term productivity. It might create short term kicks for adrenaline junkies and workaholics. Such practices have no rational defence, except that they appeal to certain macho people. From the POV of the company it might not be a problem since they can always hire more people to suck dry but the broken people who leave have suffered personal tragedies with various side effects.
4. What is this 'Tech' where 'one needs to earn their place every day'? It certainly does not sound like professional software engineering for sane and capable people who can choose where to work.
The funny part, I wholly agree with you. But none of this applies to Amazon, at least at the level that I work at.
I work in a remote office in a country with sane labour laws (not the US). My work/life balance is never under threat. In fact it's far better with Amazon then it was with the start-up I used to work for, where 60+ was expected all with a mantra of "we're a startup, therefore we can't pay you but we're CHANGING THE WORLD!". At Amazon, there is zero pressure for employees to work more then 40 hours unless something is truly going wrong with our areas of responsibilities, and then everyone on the team is expected to pitch in to get things back to normal. Show me a functional workplace where this isn't the norm.
The day to day for a lower level engineer is quite relaxed at Amazon. The only pressure I feel comes from my own drive to succeed, not from upper management.
But please, disregard everything I can tell you from first hand experience because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias about the company.
I work in a remote office in a country with sane labour laws (not the US). My work/life balance is never under threat. In fact it's far better with Amazon then it was with the start-up I used to work for, where 60+ was expected all with a mantra of "we're a startup, therefore we can't pay you but we're CHANGING THE WORLD!". At Amazon, there is zero pressure for employees to work more then 40 hours unless something is truly going wrong with our areas of responsibilities, and then everyone on the team is expected to pitch in to get things back to normal. Show me a functional workplace where this isn't the norm.
The day to day for a lower level engineer is quite relaxed at Amazon. The only pressure I feel comes from my own drive to succeed, not from upper management.
But please, disregard everything I can tell you from first hand experience because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias about the company.
Imagine how things might be today if General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch hadn't implemented and praised to the high heavens stack ranking.
>I would expect to be "managed out" if I showed up every day expecting to coast through with the bare minimum - who would want to work at a company where that is acceptable?
So doing the "bare minimum" leads to being sacked? In that case it isn't the bare minimum. In your world the bare minimum is apparently what employees are assigned to do plus an arbitrary amount on top. Presumably workers have to gamble their livelihood on a blind auction of their free time and health in a race to the bottom in order to put a few more billion in Bezos' coffers.
So doing the "bare minimum" leads to being sacked? In that case it isn't the bare minimum. In your world the bare minimum is apparently what employees are assigned to do plus an arbitrary amount on top. Presumably workers have to gamble their livelihood on a blind auction of their free time and health in a race to the bottom in order to put a few more billion in Bezos' coffers.
Poor choice of words - doing the Bare Minimum will keep you around, but you certainly won't get favorable performance reviews (as you would expect). You're basically aiming for a 'C' grade in life if that's your approach to work. Fine if that's your goal, but Amazon doesn't encourage that mentality - other company's are a better fit for that type of person and that's apparent before you even interview.
We're software professionals. We're knowledge experts. We're expected to refine our skills and expand our knowledge base. This is rewarded handsomely at Amazon. Coasting by is not punished, but the people who do end up on backwater teams working on low-priority projects. This isn't being "managed out", but it does cost the company hires simply because even low-ambition people will eventually get tired of the garbage work that exists in these areas. How is this different from other companies?
To the point about sacrificing life for Bezo's wealth... Amazon is the only company to offer me actual stock, not stock options, not sketchy performance bonuses, but stock. I'm not too keen on the vesting period length, but I directly benefit from the company's success. In my market, Amazon is the top paying employer and offers the best options for career growth.
We're software professionals. We're knowledge experts. We're expected to refine our skills and expand our knowledge base. This is rewarded handsomely at Amazon. Coasting by is not punished, but the people who do end up on backwater teams working on low-priority projects. This isn't being "managed out", but it does cost the company hires simply because even low-ambition people will eventually get tired of the garbage work that exists in these areas. How is this different from other companies?
To the point about sacrificing life for Bezo's wealth... Amazon is the only company to offer me actual stock, not stock options, not sketchy performance bonuses, but stock. I'm not too keen on the vesting period length, but I directly benefit from the company's success. In my market, Amazon is the top paying employer and offers the best options for career growth.
> The chief competition is Walmart - are the activists going to order from them instead? How is that any better ethically?
Go away, constructor of straw men. The world is not solely comprised of Wal-Mart and Amazon.
Go away, constructor of straw men. The world is not solely comprised of Wal-Mart and Amazon.
What? It's true, the current main threat to Amazon in the US is Walmart. I stand by my argument - you're disparaging me while providing zero evidence to back up your argument.
You know what a straw man argument is, right? It's on Wikipedia if you don't. The straw man that you constructed is that the "activists" would just switch to Wal-Mart. Your argument falls apart with that assumption. I believe it to be a safe bet that anyone that quits buying from Amazon because they mistreat their highly-paid upper middle class workers sure as hell isn't going to be shopping at Wal-Mart which abuses minimum wage workers who don't have nearly the job mobility of a software developer. In other words, why would you think one would switch to shopping at a company who exploits workers who are worse off than the ones at Amazon?
I say don't escalate to HR but leave to work at another place. HR is not your advocate, it is not there to help you. You are just a "resource" just like it says in the name.
There have been many cases I've heard (personally and from HN comments) where someone would go to HR, complain about harassment by their manager, get assurance of confidentiality, and the next thing you know the manager is told right away. Or the person who complained gets punished instead.
Now you can try to go public and force its hand to basically realign HR's interest (protect the company) with yours (you get heard and the problem is fixed). But that won't be forgotten in the long term.