Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RaycharlesN t1_ixnvrdb wrote

They’re laying off 10,000 people. Imagine making $12Billion dollars in PROFIT and thinking hmmm all these people I hired are disposable and I can make a little more if I stab them in the back.

Your reward for loyalty and success. People who moved their families, bought homes, cast off by a company which is wildly successful. It’s fucked up.

199

capitalism93 t1_ixodw5a wrote

Actually, Amazon had a loss of $5.8 billion dollars in the previous 2 quarters of March (-3.84 billion) and June (-2.03 billion)... https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-reports-net-loss-of-3-8-billion-in-first-quarter-2022/.

48

circ_le_jerk_69 t1_ixp2mho wrote

Also, the layoffs are happening in two of their businesses (consumer and Alexa) which have never been profitable. They have always been money losing businesses that have simply been subsidized by AWS.

31

SuchSalad4 t1_ixnxvvr wrote

Humans are disposable batteries to them.

39

RaycharlesN t1_ixo0ryr wrote

Imagine making a promise to 10,000 people that they have a job and reneging on it because you want MORE profit. This isn’t because they’re failing or not making a profit, it’s to get more. They’re profitable but to get a little more they’ll throw these people aside and wreck their lives. It’s fucked up.

16

SuchSalad4 t1_ixo1y3d wrote

It's what they teach you to do in business school. It's even more sadistic in top MBA programs.

25

[deleted] t1_ixoj4p1 wrote

[deleted]

18

Journey776 t1_ixo2ycp wrote

Says the person who has taken zero MBA classes

−24

SuchSalad4 t1_ixo54s4 wrote

I am speaking from experience. I went to WP Carey MBA program and quit in protest because of how vile their practices were.

Bet any amount of money (above $1000) through a proper betting company if you think I'm lying and I will prove it.

15

Journey776 t1_ixo5xgv wrote

Lol I did my undergrad at Ross and MBA at Yale and in both schools we were taught the exact opposite

−13

SuchSalad4 t1_ixo6h9p wrote

Now that I find hard to believe.

They were teaching us how to exploit people to the max. In fact, they gave a prize to a team who, in a theoretical scenario, chose to keep child labor in Africa just to keep a mine going. This was the last straw that broke my back as I had enough of all the Patrick Batemanesque types of people that were there. Professors were talking trash about other universities, students were on a never ending dick measuring contest, etc. I just felt out of place there. I felt bad for the people who were in my team. Several of them got into the MBA and did nothing with it upon graduation and I ended up with better positions than them with my undergrad. I did nearly complete a master's in administration with focus on project management but quit because I'm now semi-retired in my mid 40s.

10

Journey776 t1_ixo6s7w wrote

Yeah I’m lying. They actually took us to orphanages and we bought the orphanages, kicked the kids out, and then let’s the kids back in at a room and board rate of $350 a month plus utilities.

Or not all business schools are created equal. Either or.

−15

SuchSalad4 t1_ixo6ymw wrote

LOL, I still find it hard to believe because almost every single business program I've heard of is mainly focused on maximizing profits for the shareholders, so for you to tell me that there's an altruistic MBA out there is incredibly hard to believe.

4

Journey776 t1_ixo845l wrote

Eh my classes were more focused on how to increase profit through growth. They did in our Ops class mention that one way to increase profit was to cut Opex but that there were many other ways and that the Opex cuts are the easy if not myopic choice.

Now every time I see a layoff I just think it’s taking the easy way out.

But I also read Antiwork at work so yeah.

1

SuchSalad4 t1_ixobqrb wrote

> focused on how to increase profit through growth

If true, I now feel bad that I made the assumption that all MBAs were shit, because I really wanted to get one. I was just appalled by how terrible the one I went to was.

I also would've imagined that Yale would've been a pinaccle of maximizing profits at all costs. I guess it makes me happy to know that there are other programs that aren't as shitty as the one I went to.

I guess, in the end, my life took me down another path in which I'm quite happy in. I work part time and spend the rest of the time farming/with my kids.

1

Journey776 t1_ixoc7c7 wrote

Eh, I’m sure the stereotype exists for a reason. I also just got my MBA, who knows if like in the past it was all about shareholder profit. I know a lot of the older people I talk to that are higher up - so assuming a majority of them have an MBA - like to say how their end goal is maximizing shareholder profit. I just nod along……. Yeahhhhh that’s not really my main goal though.

Sounds like it worked out for ya though. Tbh working part time and then farming and spending it with family sounds idyllic compared to the office politics and all that jazz

2

SuchSalad4 t1_ixoq1mr wrote

I'll try to put my ego down and say that I'm very, and perhaps say that I'm extremely, glad you feel this way. It gives me the idea that progress has been made.

Please commend Yale if your truly believe the words you were saying. We need more commendable leadership like this.

3

Truth_is_Liberal t1_ixocktw wrote

Dude MBA programs are rife with Chicago School stupidity. They practically worship Milton Friedman. Most business school heads are disgusting people. Only today are we seeing some reforms in business academics, but usually only at schools with a heavy econ focus. Schools like Wharton will continue to churn out whole classes of monsters.

5

Mortentia t1_ixog257 wrote

I still don’t understand Friedman/Hayek worship, considering that Hayek was a relatively poor economist and only a decent liberal philosopher, and Milton Friedman died having admitted that he could not fight Keynes’s ideas anymore and that the Keynesian theory was correct no matter how much he hated to admit it.

The two had a lot of bleed into the business world and somehow only recently has the popularity of econometrics and statistics in market research allowed for proper assessment of business structure. Although, in my BCOM there has been a lot of focus on treating employees appropriately and ensuring that they receive what they deserve to incentivize continued and exceptional performance, so I’d hope that some MBAs are similar.

3

capitalism93 t1_ixopdej wrote

Both Friedman and Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics for their outstanding contributions to the field. That is probably related to the influence they have had.

1

Mortentia t1_ixoq1uy wrote

Oh yeah I’m aware of their influence and the reasons for it but Nobel Prizes don’t necessarily mean that an individual contributed enough or the right things to their field to achieve the type of cult-like following they have.

2

heliumeyes t1_ixo2dib wrote

You do realize that the division that they’re doing most of the layoffs in (Devices) is far from profitable?

9

Kromgar t1_ixp03f7 wrote

It's called Human Resources for a reason

1

akmalhot t1_ixojc3a wrote

They hired hundreds of thousands of people on the last two years. It's not insane to lay off 10,000

39

RaycharlesN t1_ixolczx wrote

If they had only hired 10,000 less they wouldn’t have had to fuck these people over

Proper planning prevent piss poor performance

−32

akmalhot t1_ixon862 wrote

You can't hire the perfect people - because everyone is going to perform at the level needed, perfect screening perfect employees

You're delusional. This is a non story.

They also spent a shit ton of money in trying to grow businesses that weren't profitable. If you take the stance that they shouldnt take the risk of trying to grow new business in the chance they have to close it, millions and millions of less people would have ever been hired in the first place

There are numerous companies who have automatic pio of the bottom 5% performers every year. Why should they be forced to hold onto the lowest performers ? We don't live in some magic utopia

35

RaycharlesN t1_ixonq30 wrote

These are not non performing employees, they were told that this wasn’t performance related at all.

−11

akmalhot t1_ixoo2ff wrote

Yes. Economies shift. The fed raised interest rates

They literally paired back non profitable departments (for example Alexa ) - you can't fund those with debt when it becomes expensive and the marker has turned from favoring growth to profits..

For 12+ years the marker favored growth over all else and there was cheap rates, so you could employ people despite their departments making a loss

This is a stupid argument.

I know you feel bad, and it sucks. But this is a non starter. They over hired , they funded bad investment with cheap debt and they hype of groeth, and the market was okay with those loses. They are not anymore

11

RaycharlesN t1_ixoojm6 wrote

They increased executive stock compensation by $1.5B

−4

akmalhot t1_ixor1rq wrote

Yes they hired 100k people

And let go of 10k of them

The market changed, interest rates went up in the fastest pace ever

What aren't you understanding , amazon is a company, they do what is best for them

Cost of money get very expensive, the market changed, investors don't want to see divisions that are losing billions of dollars per year continue to be funded

This isn't complicated.

Amazon has a fiduciary responsibility to it's investors (lol, but it's true )

It sucks that this happened, but it's a symptom of the entrenched inflation the fed is trying to fight after blasting out helicopter money for 2 years after a decade of zirp .... It's Infidtry wide. Google, fb (fb still makes a metric shit ton of money), etc etc

Maybe these concepts are over your head. Or maybe you should move to France or one of the other countries where it's nearly impossible to fire someone, but it's also extremely difficult to get a decent salary because once your hired you can't fire them easily.

9

rifjcn t1_ixohbw9 wrote

The 10,000 is corporate positions.

16

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixo18hd wrote

>they’re laying off 10,000

Because they hired them during Covid lockdowns, we’re no longer locked down so they’re unnecessary given the current capacity.

Why would businesses keep people around they don’t need, that’s incredibly stupid. Jobs aren’t welfare, welfare is welfare.

We should want companies to be as efficient as possible. Why would we want to misallocate labor and capital, after all we’re competing against every other country on earth.

>$12Billion

Much of that is due to the higher margin AWS, and they’re not doing layoffs of engineers.

15

LordAlfredo t1_ixo2rm1 wrote

They're laying off engineers in certain divisions, but mostly devices/other orgs (eg Alexa) that are seeing lower revenue this year.

25

TheWinks t1_ixoi7mh wrote

Because they're losing literally billions of dollars.

8

RaycharlesN t1_ixo1pkb wrote

Amazing revenue this quarter was up 15% - not a post Covid slowdown

a kind employer might say we only need you through Covid when they’re hiring you - you’d plan your life different.

−6

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixo205k wrote

>revenue

Revenue doesn’t matter only profit matters in this case net income generated by e-commerce adjusted for inflation compared to previous years. Also if those people aren’t needed why would any company be stupid enough to keep them, it’s like you want American businesses to fail so that way foreign competitors can succeed.

Efficiency makes us all better off in the long term.

> a kind employer might say we only need you through Covid when they’re hiring you

If any company had that kind of crystal ball they’d be better off playing futures markets instead of e-commerce

15

heliumeyes t1_ixo2t4v wrote

Your points are very valid but people aren’t going to think logically. They’ll just accuse people like us of being heartless capitalists.

16

davon1076 t1_ixoaca1 wrote

Because it is heartless and capitalist.

Throwing 10,000 people out of a job for 'efficiency' while the higher-ups laugh their way to the bank isn't a good fucking look.

It's not a fair point to say "oh but foreign corps tho!" because guess what, they're heartless and capitalist too.

Valid points my ass. You sit here excusing labor purges like it's fucking nothing while you aren't on the receiving end of one.

−4

heliumeyes t1_ixoj2y0 wrote

Oh I have been on the end of lay offs. Twice actually. So I know pretty well how it feels. And it sucks.

3

RaycharlesN t1_ixo2ll5 wrote

They did manage to award an extra 1.4B in stock based compensation to executives this quarter so we should feel good about that

5

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixoub4g wrote

Stock compensation is paid for via share dilution usually, aka the shareholders pay it.

1

RaycharlesN t1_ixp3ql4 wrote

Shareholders pay for everything, they own the company

1

kuburga t1_ixo6tsz wrote

You just came here and decided to make an argument for misallocating capital into billionaires' super-yachts over investing in creating any form of humane job for 10,000 people which is something Amazon can afford doing probably 500,000 times over. This mindset is as nearsighted and apathetic as the average politician's.

−9

Kerostasis t1_ixoi80j wrote

>job for 10,000 people… 500,000 times over.

I know this was hyperbole, but for reference that works out to hiring every working age person on the planet. No, they can’t actually afford this.

4

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixotw5z wrote

> misallocating capital into billionaires' super-yachts

Billionaires aka CEOs of these companies aren’t (mostly their cash compensation is usually super low) paid via the revenue streams of a company, they’re paid by the shareholders via share dilution.

What that means is the owner equity is decreasing in value (marginally, it’s priced in ages ahead of time) to pay the executives, they’re not being paid via cash flows.

Try some financial literacy courses

0

kuburga t1_ixpm4zw wrote

I'd rather stay ignorant on economics (which I won't) than running to a sweaty rescue of one of the biggest and immoral companies on the planet all the while explicitly asking and telling other people to think about the company's well-being rather than the workers'. Despicable. I think you get what I mean, and what I mean is: They can do a shit ton with their power and they choose this.

−3

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixqsvil wrote

> explicitly asking and telling other people to think about the company's well-being rather than the workers

It’s not the job of companies to give two shits about anyone or anything besides maximizing efficiency and shareholder value. Companies aren’t your mom and dad, they’re not a charity, they’re not the welfare state, those three things are what you want to take care of people. Companies exist to provide services and products, the more efficient they are the greater the national wealth and the higher the tax base

2

Eisernes t1_ixon2gc wrote

They took a 8 billion dollar loss on Alexa this year, which is where the majority of these layoffs are happening. This is a business, not a charity. Perhaps one day UNICEF will get into the unprofitable devices business, but until then they will have to go through Amazon.

On a more serious note, Amazon is an incredibly bloated business. I know because I work there. I know people who work there remotely who don't even turn on their laptops every day. It is a very decentralized business model. Teams work independently and it is very easy to slip through the cracks. A lot of those 10,000 layoffs are HR personnel too. They are super bloated. Every building I have been to, HR is the largest support department. Bigger than IT, safety, and RME. Much of the job HR used to do a few years ago is now done by chat bots and outsourcing. I legit don't know WTF they do all day. There will probably be way more than 10,000 laid off by the time it's done. They don't pay stock dividends and there are only so many stock buybacks that they can do. Shareholders will not accept this level of loss from a company that should be printing money.

4

RaycharlesN t1_ixoo9wm wrote

Corporate, devices and “other” divisions - not just devices. HR has to hire people, they have to train people, they have to ensure no labor laws (or other laws) are broken. HR is how you don’t get sued because your managers play grab ass. They hire hundreds of thousands of seasonal workers, how you going to do that without HR? Kind of shocked to see someone say they don’t know what they do, that’s sort of ridiculous.

They managed to award 1.5B more than last quarter in stock compensation to executives. So please spare me the shareholder thing.. they are gorging themselves

2

Eisernes t1_ixop6p8 wrote

Yeah most of HR at Amazon has nothing to do with any of that. They mostly answer stupid questions that revolve around time balances and process terminations. They don't train people, the learning department does that. Labor laws are enforced by legal and compliance. Lawsuits? Also legal. None of those seasonals are hired by Amazon. A temp agency does all of it. We just give them a quota. They don't even answer the stupid questions and process the terminations anymore. It is done by bots.

4

RaycharlesN t1_ixophhc wrote

Yeah they should get fired, fuck em, they don’t do nothing. What they need to do is give even more stock compensation to executives because that’s a sure fire way to return shareholder value.

1

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixoupdt wrote

Stock compensation is paid via share dilution aka the shareholders pay it.

But jobs aren’t a charity if a company doesn’t need someone they should be let go.

Why don’t you answer this; why do you want American firms to be inefficient? Why do you want US companies to be outcompetes by foreign firms?

5

RaycharlesN t1_ixp4hha wrote

Found Jeff Bezos

The shareholders pay for everything, they own it, it doesn’t matter if it’s stock or cash it’s shareholders paying it.

I would submit to you that it’s inefficient to have hired them to begin with, than morally bankrupt to toss them aside when the company is so profitable that they don’t have to. Find other work for them. When you employ 1.5M people and the majority of them still need food stamps you’re doing something wrong. The median worker makes $29k and you’re tossing around $15B in stock comp to your executives - Fuck this place.

2

Eisernes t1_ixopv39 wrote

Also to me and the other hundreds of thousand employees who are partially paid in stock. 12.5b in profit is pretty cool, but 20b would be cooler. It's not like the Monopoly man is sitting in some Seattle c suite cashing all the checks just because 1% of the company got laid off.

1

uuhson t1_ixp2w12 wrote

Upvote for Joe Dirt UNICEF reference

0

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_ixoi1zl wrote

Where I am at average salary is 18.75 an hour for amazon warehouse. Assuming 40 hours a week, the positon would cost 39000 per 52 weeks. Times 10,000 that's 390 million.

That's 3.25% of a 12billion. Not a negligible amount.

3

RaycharlesN t1_ixoijhg wrote

If you freeze hiring and move employees around you don’t have to lay anyone off. Amazon has given these people that are laid off the opportunity to apply for other open jobs within the company but when they do apply they’re not being interviewed or seriously considered without explanation. There is no attempt to care for these employees at all. No loyalty - Just greed and profit.

2

cchiu23 t1_ixp3k86 wrote

Lol, people working in the alexa division definitely isn't going to be working in the warehouse, I can guarentee you that

5

Stupidquestionduh t1_ixoliiu wrote

You act like Amazon doesn't shit out even more money in other wasteful areas.

−1

moosehornman t1_ixr1oee wrote

The definition of capitalism. Only the very rich get to come to the party.

0

ForeverStaloneKP t1_ixocbcz wrote

It's interesting to hear how things have devolved at Amazon. I've done picking and packing gigs there over the Christmas period about 10 years ago and it wasn't awful. Hard work but nothing too crazy. They would track how many items you picked/packed in an hour but that was about it. It sounds much worse there these days.

141

Freyas_Follower t1_ixolkxm wrote

I did it up until last year, and it's the same.

It's just not the same everywhere. There are some places more whip cracky than others, firing people for 1 to 2 items per hour under the rate. Mine would do it if you were the bottom 5% for 4 weeks straight.

90

[deleted] t1_ixp22hh wrote

[removed]

67

PIPBOY-2000 t1_ixp4e6z wrote

I forgot who made the joke how an Amazon truck could run over his wife and the next day he would be on Amazon.com ordering the black tie for the funeral.

46

EuropaWeGo t1_ixpmrzo wrote

Spoke with an old buddy of mine earlier this year who works in the analytics department at Amazon. We had spoken about the protests over the years and it divulged into talking about social media and people swearing off Amazon services...Yada Yada. Well apparently Amazon does see a slight downtick in users during such times, but he said around 90% of those users returned within 1-2 months and around 95% returned within 3-5 months.

So when I see people commenting about how they'll never use Amazon ever again. I take what they say with a huge grain of salt, because sure they might walk away for a bit, but chances are they'll come back into the fold sooner than later.

6

Icharus t1_ixq1ywd wrote

There's a reason the world cup is only every four years. If it were any more frequent, people might remember the atrocities from the last event enough to boycott the next.

8

usrevenge t1_ixqfsph wrote

Because Amazon has everything.

I work at an Amazon and honestly it isn't half as bad as people say but I don't work in a fullfillment center which I hear is worse

They aren't paid enough but frankly the job is near brain dead and while it is physical it's not absolutely balls to the wall physical like construction jobs can be.

They should get paid more though but the entire delivery part of Amazon bleeds money. Which is why they are pushing automation so hard now. They need to cut huge percentages of the work force to make money on that aspect of the business.

It won't happen but I hope the automation means less workers but they get paid more. Frankly their biggest waste on money is how many managers they have tracking other people or metrics or dumb shit like that. My building had like 50 people working. But there was like 8 managers and 3 PAs not including the safety manager and HR person.

This also doesn't include the other portion of the business my building does where they load vans, get returns, etc.

They could probably cut half the managerial force if they cut all the bullshit metrics and crap they do.

Like get this. They are allocated hours worked for different tasks. So if something happens like, the dock runs slower than it should. They can't just add inductors/loaders to bring it up even if the people are there. If stowers aren't going fast enough in a certain lane they can't send more people over to help, they have to switch them out. Because they don't have the hours allocated.

The dumb part about that situation is if the stowers are doing great and dock is slow they can't drop a stow worker and send them to the dock because they aren't allocated hours for that. So someone will twiddle there thumbs in stow path rather than be allowed to help the dock.

It's a constant battle to add and remove people. It's a constant battle to labor track. It's a constant battle to do the weird crap managers do "insta cleans, 5s projects" and crap like that.

I told the managers yesterday they should grab a bag and start inducting packages by hand to get done early for Thanksgiving. I knew they couldn't but it would have gotten the job done even faster so everyone could go home even earlier than they did

3

sevbenup t1_ixqkwrc wrote

If I’m working one position and it’s slow why the hell would I want to go help on the dock for the same amount of money? Don’t know why that benefits you, Sounds like the company further exploiting their laborers

2

Caffeine_Monster t1_ixsqld4 wrote

Just like it is increasingly hard to de Google, it will get increasingly hard to de Amazon.

2

rohmish t1_ixqmxr9 wrote

I try to avoid amazon as much as possible. I don't have prime and will gladly pay a couple bucks extra to get it from somewhere else. But increasingly (especially here in Canada) sometimes your only option is amazon. It's not just the price but even if someone else is listing the item it will out of stock for months on end. I try to wait for a few days if I don't need the thing right away but you can't just wait forever. And most other options are evil giants themselves be it CT, Walmart, best buy or Loblaws.

2

RuNoMai t1_ixphs7y wrote

"And yet you still take part in society. Curious!"

−2

homealoneinuk t1_ixpsgma wrote

Virtually no one gets sacked for being 1 or 2 items under the rate. Those times are loooong gone. Its actually pretty hard to lose amazon job these days, you genuinely have to put 0 effort and that still might not be enough if your area is low on workforce.

Only exception is some safety/behavior violations but performance wise its not gonna happen unless you dont care, at all. But then who would want an employee like that.

6

abrandis t1_ixoujne wrote

This is the issue with all these data-driven metrics companies, they take the humanity out of work , and expect people to perform like machines and try to measure them such.... I get everyone wants to get it yesterday, but they Amazon supply chain is pretty efficient , I can wait a week or two for delivery...

16

AlfaBetaZulu t1_ixp15kl wrote

No, it's the exact same. At least a year ago it was the exact same.

4

dissentrix t1_ixphci5 wrote

I mean, Amazon has always had a trash reputation when it came to treating its workers like humans where I live, and in the stuff I read about it. Not sure I can really talk about some "devolution"

1

homealoneinuk t1_ixps86n wrote

Its the opposite, very chill. Dont believe the bs articles, they have their own agenda.

−6

sevbenup t1_ixqlsjb wrote

You don’t mind that they’re peeing in bottles and on food stamps huh?

0

homealoneinuk t1_ixqpvhy wrote

No theyre not, its a running joke among amazon workers, just check our subredit.

1

VoyBoyTA1922 t1_ixnzt1r wrote

A few years ago I worked packing items for Amazon during the Christmas season through an outsourced employer. A thing that really sucks in working for them is that your performance is recorded by automatic systems. While there is a lot of demand for products almost no one is fired, even if their performance is low. Once the season is over, the demand drastically decreases: there are just not that many objects to pack and everyone's productivity decreases as well. Then they start firing everyone because their productivity is low. For me it was fine to be fired like that. I expected it, but others were sad about it. Working with automatically-recorded metrics is super stressful because those metrics can be used as an excuse to fire people whenever Amazon wants. They could just be honest from the beginning and tell everyone we just need you for a couple of months.

125

Subziro91 t1_ixogq1t wrote

They do say that, they literally say they’re hiring for seasonal employees . Did you think seasonal means all year ? They tell you it upfront and let you know there’s a chance you may get blue badge in . But you’re just there for the holidays and nothing more , they also do this for the drivers as well.

51

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_ixohj3c wrote

It sounds like Amazon workers get hired for the lead up to the holidays. If you get hired in October it's not unreasonable to assume you aren't a seasonal worker, and then to be dropped in January because your metrics are down keeps them from laying you off due to lack of work.

You thought you had a steady job - and if you're doing amazon you might not have many options - and then you get dumped because amazon just doesn't need you anymore.

26

killerhurtalot t1_ixp53gv wrote

Man... if you get hired in October, you're can 100% be a seasonal worker... The 1 month lead up is literally training for the massive shitshow that is the holdiays...

26

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_ixr9whb wrote

Absolutely. But it isn't unreasonable to think some people might think they have a new job if amazon doesn't say it explicitly.

−1

VoyBoyTA1922 t1_ixojrah wrote

You are right. Some co-workers felt that could lead to a steady job and Amazon pretended they needed us for a bit longer than they actually did, just to keep the workers invested in their job.

7

dont-YOLO-ragequit t1_ixojq3j wrote

The opposite is also frequent.

New hires in November and December doing it for Xmas Gifts or hires in January-February looking to boost their revenue for a mortgage application.

They do very well then start no showing after their 3 months

−8

Stupidquestionduh t1_ixol52e wrote

I've owned 3 houses and each time they required pay stubs. Yearly income doesn't matter you have to prove when you made that income and if you still have it. The winter is a terrible time to buy a house because the market has crap homes on it.

12

Nukemind t1_ixorga1 wrote

I’ve only had one and was going to say the same. The bank absolutely scrutinized ALOT. And winter is the worst time to buy a house no doubt. I can’t imagine getting a job and three months later buying a house, you’d be laughed out. Now if it was a transfer or something like that, or just switching jobs sure. But not just starting a new job and assuming the bank would be fine with it.

7

dont-YOLO-ragequit t1_ixovmu8 wrote

I guess the 2 or 3 guys who tried it ever since the pandemic at our workplace just fell flat and moved on then.

Granted 2 of them did it for 6 months before leaving, one of them did say they were in it to boost their revenue.

0

VoyBoyTA1922 t1_ixoitsx wrote

Indeed they were hiring seasonal workers, they said so and it was not a surprise to me. What I found disingenuous was firing outsourced employees with the pretense of low productivity from the employee. There simply was not enough demand.

0

Subziro91 t1_ixojf3a wrote

That’s not amazons problem it’s the employer of that company that hired you . You can work for Amazon , but you’re not part of it . Meaning they aren’t the ones firing you , the 3rd party employer are.

4

VoyBoyTA1922 t1_ixolzhp wrote

I agree, the outsourced employer is the one firing you. And in those cases I believe both Amazon and the third-party employer, Adecco, where doing everything within the law. I just felt that Adecco was leading employees on. A legal, at least IMO, but somewhat disingenuous tactic.

1

erishun t1_ixolh3t wrote

> A few years ago I worked packing items for Amazon during the Christmas season through an outsourced employer. … Once the season is over, the demand drastically decreases: there are just not that many objects to pack and everyone's productivity decreases as well. Then they start firing everyone.

Yeah dude, that’s called seasonal work. As in, you work for the season. Amazon calls up Manpower or another temp agency to get extra people for the busy season. Then when the season is over, they end the contract. The “temp” in “temp agency” stands for “temporary”. It’s temporary work.

It’s really nothing to do with personal productivity or automated metrics. Amazon may choose to cherry pick a few all-stars to stay on full-time, but most of the seasonal workers will get terminated after the season. That’s just how it works with these “outsourced employers” (i.e. temp agencies)

9

VoyBoyTA1922 t1_ixooruv wrote

I agree with what you say. Thanks for so clearly explaining what seasonal work means. However, when the outsourced employer fires people at the end of the season, they could just say "the season is over, we do not need you anymore". Instead, they fire a lot of their temporary workers by claiming that their metrics are low. The last bit is the disingenuous part.

3

Nexrosus t1_ixo1i0d wrote

Black Friday is a joke in todays economy. No one wants a $20 layaway jumbo flatscreen. People want a weeks worth of groceries under $200 and in stock.

53

Subziro91 t1_ixoh0vh wrote

As someone who may work at Amazon. I can tell you 100% that people still buy silly things and Black Friday is still hated among the warehouses because people buy shit they don’t need . The news may say one thing but the results are another

15

[deleted] t1_ixo49th wrote

Same redditors who're outraged will still use Amazon and buy bunch of useless shit tomorrow.

31

AmethystOrator OP t1_ixnp9sg wrote

"Black Friday" = Friday, November 25th

> Among the countries where Amazon will face strikes and protests, according to UNI Global Union: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey and the U.K.

21

casildamanu t1_ixquc2z wrote

Amazon is not available in Argentina, what even is this

1

AmethystOrator OP t1_ixs1lv0 wrote

I don't know. The journalists think it is, at least somewhere. They could be wrong.

1

witqueen t1_ixnu3sk wrote

I'm not sure what is going on but my orders keep getting lost, and not sure where the problem is starting.

14

takesthebiscuit t1_ixnyuue wrote

My orders have been getting lost as well.

To Amazon competitors.

I have only spent about £5 on Amazon this year.

8

Tambien t1_ixp7gvm wrote

Which competitors have you found to be the best?

1

dont-YOLO-ragequit t1_ixnwrbm wrote

They started storing the very cheap stuff overseas and putting importing fees.

It's like the 4th out of 8 order where one of the item is very cheap but still top brands, has import fees, takes almost 5 days to appear on the tracking, then it geta to an amazon terminal where it is declared loss and you have a 50/50 chance of it still making is way but late or getting a refund.

6

Ok-Stress-3570 t1_ixo0sqr wrote

Their system is weird too. I was notified my package would arrive a day late - then a month late - then it arrived a day early.

5

Subziro91 t1_ixoguyc wrote

Now you see why they’re firing people .

1

Certain-Lingonberry8 t1_ixo2c7l wrote

Stop using Amazon. Buy direct, a competitor, go get it, or just don't buy it. Opt out of Amazon, twitter, Starbucks ,FIFA. Go elsewhere. It's the least and easiest stand to take.

4

[deleted] t1_ixoh04i wrote

This is what I want to do, but it's very hard when amazon consistently has the lowest prices on essentials. When you're broke and have no money, what other choice do you have?

10

Certain-Lingonberry8 t1_ixsjzhw wrote

Amazon isn't cheaper for any of my essentials. It's all the same price, and then the quality can be suspect.

0

hikit22 t1_ixprps4 wrote

Go to food banks ands thrift stores instead. And do a bit of volunteer work there while you're at it.

−3

Irr3l3ph4nt t1_ixod6bi wrote

I'd say, overall stop having a diesel truck come directly to your house every time you want a 0.5lbs item... Move your butt once a week and go shop for everything you need at once. Amazon is terrible for the environment.

−10

glideguitar t1_ixoeaos wrote

It is very likely better than individuals going out to do those errands on their own.

17

Irr3l3ph4nt t1_ixoeva3 wrote

Not when you have a truck come at your door every 2-3 days to deliver a single pair of socks.

E: If you were to order everything you need (groceries included) once a week, it would be better, yes. But lets face it, you like your 1-day delivery, don't you?

−15

glideguitar t1_ixohhxp wrote

Why would I need to “face it”, I do like 1-day delivery. The point you’re missing is that trucks go to multiple stops in the same area. Which likely uses less gas than all of those people driving to all sorts of different destinations.

6

Irr3l3ph4nt t1_ixojl4a wrote

Yeah im not going to try and educate you. Just google why 1 day delivery is terrible for the environment.

−11

Denso95 t1_ixpnhjy wrote

Imagine 100 people going for a drive to get something they want and then imagine 1 dude driving around, delivering goods to those 100 people.

Which one do you think is worse for the environment?

2

Hostillian t1_ixpoaaz wrote

I don't think you're in a position to educate anyone, buddy.. 🙄

2

CutterJohn t1_ixojbyb wrote

>I'd say, overall stop having a diesel truck come directly to your house every time you want a 0.5lbs item... Move your butt once a week and go shop for everything you need at once. Amazon is terrible for the environment.

The truck is taking a route to your house. It didn't drive the 10 miles from the distribution center, it drove 200 feet from your neighbors house.

A delivery truck is literally the same footprint as going and getting everything at once. If not less since its carrying far more things than you'd likely be getting on your trip to the store. You're perfectly aware of how many times you drove several miles just to get a CD or some socks or whatever it was you needed right now. Lots. And how many times did you go and then just leave with nothing because you were just bored and wanted out of the house or they didn't have your size or something?

10

tickleMyBigPoop t1_ixp3dae wrote

Yes instead you and all of you neighbors should drive their individual cars to go get said 0.5lbs items instead of having one person deliver stuff for everyone.

Jesus Christ the American education system is lacking

2

Freeboing t1_ixpa5va wrote

Come work at REI we get Black Friday off and paid

It’s still retail but it’s a lot better than most places

2

cold_iron_76 t1_ixqevs6 wrote

Unfortunately, REI has zero hunting and fishing gear.

1

twitterbot69420 t1_ixr1ub6 wrote

I’ll never understand why people spend so much time trying to get corporations to change their ways by protesting/striking. Isn’t it way easier to just switch jobs? There are plenty of delivery and warehouse jobs…

2

Covfefe_is_over_9000 t1_ixoda5o wrote

Yeah, somebody tell me how that protest when the driver was mauled to death went? Only thing I ever heard about it through Amazon was a flex app notification telling us to keep an eye out for our 4 legged fido friends lol.

1

S3HN5UCHT t1_ixpdvup wrote

No good sales anyways

1

EatsFiber2RedditMore t1_ixpzfzz wrote

I was ordering some stuff yesterday and I tried to pick the latest ship dates I could. I couldn't push it back further than the 29th.

1

SickDastardly t1_ixq3gv0 wrote

I figured this was coming when the items I ordered over a week ago hadn't shipped and were estimated to arrive in January... Going to be interesting to see how they handle BF/CM sales and xmas presents.

1

Autarch_Kade t1_ixq5eil wrote

List of things this will accomplish:

1

456afisher t1_ixqcui8 wrote

Sadly, it won't be until the IT folks can not manage that side of the business will mega-corporations give a shit.

1

Carload31 t1_ixqh2yf wrote

Just need to unionize. That’s how you deal with that .

1

loco1961 t1_ixq6p16 wrote

Fantastic - power to the people and go labor! Let’s keep this movement going strong.

0

MoochoMaas t1_ixohcbz wrote

$weet !
Hit 'em where it hurt$ !

−1

balllzak t1_ixp8aek wrote

the protesters aren't amazon employees and you can't protest outside a website, this wont really hurt

2

cencorshipisbad t1_ixqh8bo wrote

Bezos has to make that paper folks. Good luck getting the richest guy running a monopoly out in the open while also hip deep in China to make any substantive changes.

Haven’t you heard he wants to give the hundreds of billions he extracted from his workers to charity. He’s just working for his charity…/s

−1

JimmyJohnny2 t1_ixodp6s wrote

As long as they get my packages out they can do what they want, but fuck anybody who causes any type of delays with protests

−11

[deleted] t1_ixpyut6 wrote

Yeah fuck the workers right! Where's my overnight dildo at!!!

0

[deleted] t1_ixo5a1h wrote

[removed]

−15

BrassMankey t1_ixoeo64 wrote

It's the perfect setup for the straw-man argument they're about to make.

−3

[deleted] t1_ixo5pq1 wrote

[removed]

−13