Amazon's Algorithm Automatically Fires Inefficient Warehouse Workers (theverge.com) 293
The Verge obtained Amazon documents detailing the firing of hundreds of warehouse workers who failed to live up to "a proprietary productivity metric." Those firings "are far more common than outsiders realize" -- and they're apparently initiated by an algorithm.
In a signed letter last year, an attorney representing Amazon said the company fired "hundreds" of employees at a single facility between August of 2017 and September 2018 for failing to meet productivity quotas. A spokesperson for the company said that, over that time, roughly 300 full-time associates were terminated for inefficiency. The number represents a substantial portion of the facility's workers: a spokesperson said the named fulfillment center in Baltimore includes about 2,500 full-time employees today. Assuming a steady rate, that would mean Amazon was firing more than 10 percent of its staff annually, solely for productivity reasons.
The documents also show a deeply automated tracking and termination process. "Amazon's system tracks the rates of each individual associate's productivity," according to the letter, "and automatically generates any warnings or terminations regarding quality or productivity without input from supervisors." (Amazon says supervisors are able to override the process....)
"One of the things that we hear consistently from workers is that they are treated like robots in effect because they're monitored and supervised by these automated systems," says Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a prominent Amazon critic. "They're monitored and supervised by robots...." The bottom 5 percent of workers are placed on a training plan, according to the company. An appeal system is also part of the termination process.
The documents also show a deeply automated tracking and termination process. "Amazon's system tracks the rates of each individual associate's productivity," according to the letter, "and automatically generates any warnings or terminations regarding quality or productivity without input from supervisors." (Amazon says supervisors are able to override the process....)
"One of the things that we hear consistently from workers is that they are treated like robots in effect because they're monitored and supervised by these automated systems," says Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a prominent Amazon critic. "They're monitored and supervised by robots...." The bottom 5 percent of workers are placed on a training plan, according to the company. An appeal system is also part of the termination process.
Inefficiency reduced (Score:2, Interesting)
At first glance the capitalist in me is fine with this. At second glance, I wonder if handicapped and elderly are left out to dry, possibly illegally.
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK it is not illegal for a job to have necessary physical requirements, it is only illegal to have unnecessary ones. For example the handicapped and elderly probably can't qualify to become firemen.
Re: Inefficiency reduced (Score:2, Interesting)
On the May 13, 2005 episode of The Tonight Show, Jay Leno held a speed contest between two Ham Radio operators using Morse code and two Millennials using their smartphones for texting (SMS).
The winner wasn't texting.
Re: Inefficiency reduced (Score:4, Insightful)
The winner was everyone who didn't watch, and who doesn't give a fuck.
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:5, Insightful)
It creates a class of people that cannot get work despite wanting to. Now, is somebody that is just not very smart or gets distracted easily or has some other issue that reduces their performance "handicapped"? And do not forget that society pays for those people, one way or another and whether it wants to or not. In fact, the more it tries to not pay for them, the more expensive these people get, e.g. via sickness and crime.
Incidentally, legality is not really a factor here. The law is stupid, inflexible, easily outmaneuvered and generally upheld by people with large egos and small skills. That means it has no actual power to do anything effective about this problem. The only thing it can do is accelerate the move to an all-robotic workforce and even more people unable to get work.
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:5, Informative)
It creates a class of people that cannot get work despite wanting to. Now, is somebody that is just not very smart or gets distracted easily or has some other issue that reduces their performance "handicapped"?
There's long been a class of people that aren't really fit for "normal" jobs but aren't drooling zombies. Here in Norway we have shielded workplaces where a lot of people with Downs syndrome and various other mental conditions work. It makes sense for the government to get some residual work benefit out of them rather than be on straight disability.
Re: (Score:2)
we have shielded workplaces where a lot of people with Downs syndrome and various other mental conditions work.
Management.
Laugh if you want. But I've worked at a few places where, if someone could make it off the shop floor and into management with a drinking problem, short term memory fried from too much pot or serious emotional problems, they were golden. All it took was a few buddies to help you cover up and put your name into the hat for the next promotion. Or marry the boss' daughter.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It creates a class of people that cannot get work despite wanting to. Now, is somebody that is just not very smart or gets distracted easily or has some other issue that reduces their performance "handicapped"?
There's long been a class of people that aren't really fit for "normal" jobs but aren't drooling zombies. Here in Norway we have shielded workplaces where a lot of people with Downs syndrome and various other mental conditions work. It makes sense for the government to get some residual work benefit out of them rather than be on straight disability.
You make it sound rather ugly, even exploitative. More important that they get some satisfaction out of being able to do some work and have some satisfaction in feeling useful. No need to rub it in that they are only "useful" within their actual capabilities. That's actually true for all of us, opportunities permitting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose an employer has two job candidates. Both candidates do equal quality work but one gets more work done than the other. Wouldn't you expect the employer to hire the one that gets more work done?
Every employee is always basically a job applicant as well -- if there's someone who is more productive and wants the job, they will replace an existing employee. Of course, the existing employee has some advantages. First, their work is a known quantity while, usually, a new employee is not so is a riskier bet
Re: Inefficiency reduced (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy to shrug it off as "that's life" when it's somebody else.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At first glance the capitalist in me is fine with this.
As it should be. One of the benefits of a flexible capitalist labor market is that people are fired from jobs they are bad at, so they can get different jobs that they are not bad at. We all benefit from a more productive economy.
At second glance, I wonder if handicapped and elderly are left out to dry
Perhaps "warehouse worker" isn't a good fit for someone needing crutches or a walker.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps "warehouse worker" isn't a good fit for someone needing crutches or a walker.
What if they had a speedy walker [hurrycane.com] -- er, "roller"? :-)
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:5, Insightful)
As it should be. One of the benefits of a flexible capitalist labor market is that people are fired from jobs they are bad at, so they can get different jobs that they are not bad at. We all benefit from a more productive economy.
In fairy tale land. But in reality, one gets fired they are now damaged goods. And how many times does one have to get fired to find out what they are good at?
And what if one is good at say, 17th century Russian lit.? There aren't too many jobs for that.
I know some incredible singers. They are fat and not very good looking. Which means, they can't make a living and will NEVER become a star - they get the occasional gigs making lousy famous good looking performers sound good, but they are rotting away in Starbucks most of the time.
And as we see, athletic ability is valued more than STEM talent. The fact that someone very good at basketball makes more than any STEM worker a thousand times over shows that athletic ability is more important in our capitalist society.
Great at math? Meh. Here's maybe six figures and a middle class lifestyle. .365?! Fuck yeah! Here's ten million dollars! And rightly so! For example, great programmers and engineers are easy to come by. Great ball players? Nope. And we need more ball players. They offer more to society than any programmer or engineer any day!
You can hit
Capitalism - rewarding people who are the most important to society's well being.
And Bill, you're management. We all know what value you people add!
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the benefits of a flexible capitalist labor market is that people are fired from jobs they are bad at, so they can get different jobs that they are not bad at. We all benefit from a more productive economy.
One of the down sides is that it dehumanizes workers. There is no allowance for anything other than the metric, e.g. in Amazon's case they time how long it takes to fetch items from the shelves and stopping to assist a colleague who is struggling with something is counted against you.
Amazon has basically found a way to survive on churn. Use people up, burn them out, discard them. There will always be more looking for that above average wage. They just need to keep it going until they can replace them with robots in a few years time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give you a supplemental mod point if I ever got one to give.
You didn't mention the burning question: "What will happen after Amazon has hired and fired everyone?"
My hypothetical answer is that it's a great business opportunity. All of those ex-employees will hate Amazon and be eager to buy from some other company. Any other company, so it's just a question of who seizes the opportunity. It's almost enough to make me hope Walmart survives that long.
There's also the aspect that unemployed people don't do
Re:Inefficiency reduced (Score:4, Informative)
Other corporations have pretty invasive metrics in place to spy on their workforce.
For example, in the test centers of my own company, software sits on their computers to watch everything they do.
The phone calls are all monitored and / or can be listened in on discreetly.
How long you have the web browser open.
What pages you visit, how long you're there.
How many tickets you work per hour.
How long has it been since you last moved your mouse.
Etc. etc.
Folks I talk to say if more than four minutes goes by without moving your mouse, it generates a red flag that you're not
being " productive " enough and you get written up for it.
There is no f*****g way I could work within such an environment.
Re: Inefficiency reduced (Score:4, Insightful)
The capitalist in you expects the bottom 10% of society to kill itself or somehow subsist on charity or job hops...
Re: (Score:3)
The capitalist in you expects the bottom 10% of society to kill itself or somehow subsist on charity or job hops...
If they don't move their hands fast enough to be a warehouse worker, maybe they could learn to meditate while they work and be a construction flagger. That job is so boring, it is hard to find people that can do it long term even at $18/hr.
Or maybe they can't quite hustle as fast as the next person, but they're really tolerant and helpful and would be an awesome retail clerk.
Maybe they're slow because they're too careful, and they could go to the local Community College and learn one of dozens of different
better than (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not comb your hair???? You _must_ be a psycho!
Re: (Score:3)
You do not comb your hair???? You _must_ be a psycho!
Or Bernie Sanders. :-)
He's too busy laying the smack down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not comb your hair???? You _must_ be a psycho!
Or Bernie Sanders. :-)
Or??? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than being capriciously judged by a manager who secretly thinks you have an untrustworthy look because you don't comb your hair.
Yes, because apparently that's the only other possible alternative to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because apparently that's the only other possible alternative to this.
It must be the only alternative, since you can't come up with a different alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the obvious alternative is to find a manager who doesn't comb his hair as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to shave your head.
You know there's a third option right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you had your dream-team of politicians winning the next election, what would you have them do to change things? What policies are your ideals?
Re: (Score:2)
because you don't comb your hair.
Go comb your hair, kid!
Re: (Score:2)
I use a brush, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could just comb your fucking hair you unemployable slob, whichever.
Not necessary, I'm bald.
I work with people who can recognize talent without looking at a hairstyle. It's a useful skill.
Re: (Score:2)
menial jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
NEVER give 100% when doing menial jobs, especially for large corporations. They will always expect MORE productivity from you. It's easy to work a little harder and meet the quotas, than giving 100% and then be expected to do more. If you do menial jobs, you will be promoted to Menial Job Manager and that's it. That's your ceiling. It's just not worth it.
And what amazon does proves that people "giving 100%" Is a race to the bottom.
This is true for many aspects in life. For example, I always do my best to re
Re: (Score:2)
Sad as it is, I agree. If you are in such a job, just make sure to not be in the obvious "cut next" group. There is really no path upwards, so do not work yourself to death. In most scenarios, doing this is not hard, a bit of observation will tell you nicely where you stand. But you need to pay attention to this problem and you need to manage your performance, and I fear that is something many of the people we are talking about here cannot really do.
Re: (Score:2)
I admire americans, though. Hard working people. With hope. Hope that working hard will get you far in life (while this isn't really true most of the time). Over here people are completely jaded. You realize very quickly when there is no way up, and stop worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the ugliness in the article is automation making sure you are monitored 100% of the time and every weakness or temporary slacking off is punished. Squeezing people till the pips come out.
A second part is that firing people doesn't have to be based on 'fixed and reasonable criteria'. It can also be based on the logic of 'culling the weakest 2% every six month', as is done in some industries.(the banking world uses a combination of culling schemes)
A third part is the context. Are opportunities rich or
Re: (Score:2)
A second part is that firing people doesn't have to be based on 'fixed and reasonable criteria'. It can also be based on the logic of 'culling the weakest 2% every six month', as is done in some industries.
Or as Microsoft called it, "Stack Ranking". What a fucked up debacle that was. They still haven't recovered from it.
Didn't matter how good you were- if you were in the bottom X percent you got canned. Even if you were objectively a superstar, then "fuck you you're out of here."
Re:menial jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
When you find something better, quit, and that's it.
In the meantime, DON'T give your best to a company that "avoids" billions in taxes, but ends up paying you minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
*ESPECIALLY* if you need the job to live, then the only reason to not do your best at whatever the job is if you somehow don't think your life is worth doing your best for in the first place.
Re:menial jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are 100% wrong.
Under promise and over deliver. Be the hero when they need one. That will get you much, MUCH further than always giving 100%.
If you always give 100%, soon they're going to want 110%. Always. And once you're giving 110%, they're going to want 120%. Once you're at that point, you can't deal with an emergency, you can't keep putting in more, you look like a moderately good employee but not great, and you just start to burn out.
Give 80%. Then when they need some extra, tell them you're not sure how much you can do. Then when you add 10% effort and get the extra done plus your regular work, you look like a hero, while retaining 10% capacity.
If you always give 100%, you don't have the time to make anything better. If you give 80% and have some downtime, you can invest in you, your position, and your company. Figure out how to make things run smoother, how to automate things, where the major sticking points are. Bosses notice when you solve problems. When you figure out how to make things run smoother with less errors and problems. If you're cranking at 120%, you can't do that.
Giving it 100% effort is the definition of working harder and not smarter. If you've always got your nose to the grindstone, you won't see the larger picture of what's happening around you. "I wonder if..." and "What if we...." are the phrases that make impactful change in an organization. When you're noticed doing that, you move up and you survive the layoffs. Worker bees are a dime a dozen. Last thing you want in most jobs is to look like you're easily replaceable.
Re: menial jobs (Score:2)
That's why employers LOVE metrics. You must always be at 100% at all times are get counseled. If a project comes up? Work weekends and until 9 or 10 everynight to keep your metrics up for the rest of the 8.
80%? You wouldn't last long.
Re: menial jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
80%? You wouldn't last long.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. OP is correct.
I've lasted over 40 employed years doing what the OP suggested (give 80% until needed) and it's worked very, very well for me. Lots of promotions and opportunities and they often came to me because I could "go beyond" the norm when needed when in reality I was loafing along at 80% capacity.
As the song says, "when you work your fingers to the bone, all you get is bony fingers."
Don't be a schmuck and kill yourself for any job unless you personally want to.
Re: menial jobs (Score:2)
You tell me. We just fired our senior sccm admin and anaylst. The MBAs noticed he didn't get any tickets done compared to the level 1 outsourced guys who do 200 password reset tickets a month!
So I took over. We have over 6000 users only 4 of us to handle it. The CFO switched to metrics to weed us rather than hire more. If I don't get 100 tickets done in a month before my real sccm job I am fired! There is no time for 80% as the CFO will say you SUCK because billly gates is not pulling his weight not short s
Fucking idiot (Score:2)
"If a job is not worth doing your best, then it is not worth doing at all..."
Clearly mummy and daddy gave you a big enough trust fund that you've never had to do some demeaning menial job where you were treated as barely human working 10-12 hours a day for minimum wage.
Short answer: No. Many jobs are simple way of earning cash, not showcasing your talents, though how you'd do that filling boxes or sweeping a floor beats me.
Do everyone a favour and save your naive motivation BS speeches for your fellow gulli
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. No... Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only thing my mom and dad did was raise me to have a strong sense of ethics and personal responsibility. They raised me to respect myself and others, and to always do my best at whatever I do, because if I approach a job with the attitude that I am somehow "b
Re: (Score:3)
There's a big difference between doing a good job and working yourself to death for people that don't give a shit about you or your well-being. The less you make the more they make.
Guess whose interests they care about? HINT: Not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do everyone a favour and save your naive motivation BS speeches for your fellow gullible hipsters.
Bingo.
Hey, if someone wants to work themselves to death so the CEO can buy another yacht, good for them. But not me, no no no. Not gonna happen.
Re:menial jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
If a job is not worth doing your best, then it is not worth doing at all...
Lol, that's adorable. New to the job market, eh?
And yeah, I know you need a job, even if it sucks, just to live, but don't you think your life is important enough to be doing whatever your best is to sustain it?
NO. No I do not. My goal in life is not to work as hard as I can- it's the exact opposite. And anyone with a grain of sense will agree.
No one on their deathbed ever wished that they'd spent more time at the office.
Re: (Score:3)
Doing your best is not about working yourself to death, it is about having integrity and a positive work ethic. It's about earning people's trust and respect through a positive attitude. regardless of whatever it is you happen to actually do.
I speak from experience, it is totally possible to do this with a job that you hate and are only doing it to survive
Re: (Score:2)
My goal in life is not to work as hard as I can- it's the exact opposite. And anyone with a grain of sense will agree.
Thanks much for your candor. Given that, I'm sure you don't object to your employer doing everything possible to make sure your actual compensation is fully commensurate with your actual work.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks much for your candor. Given that, I'm sure you don't object to your employer doing everything possible to make sure your actual compensation is fully commensurate with your actual work.
And what makes you think they aren't already doing that?
The fact is that I do a good job but I'm not about to kill myself for a corporation- any corporation. My job isn't my life, and (unless you like it that way) it shouldn't be yours either.
I'd rather spend time with my family or hobbies or enjoying life than impressing my boss. You can make your own choices and do whatever suits you.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be contradicting yourself... first you say that it isn't worth it, and then you say that it is.
Either your life is important enough to do your best to sustaiin or it isn't.
Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
No one graduates from High School (or college) and dreams of being an Amazon Warehouse employee.
No one with two brain cells to rub together, anyway.
Manna (Score:5, Interesting)
In version 3.0, Manna gained the ability to fire employees as well. I had a friend who got fired that way. He came into the store late for his shift, and it was his third time being late. He punched in and put on his headset. He walked over to the eye scan station to log in. He said Manna sounded normal, and had him working normally for about half an hour. Then Manna asked him to walk to Zone 7 at the back of the store. A Burger-G security guy was standing there with three sheets of paper. [...] Manna said to him, "Steven J. Canis, employee number 4378561, your employment at Burger-G store number 152 is hereby terminated in accordance with employee manual paragraph 12.1, failure to appear at work on time." [...]
Sure it's not fully automated (Score:2)
For legal reasons, a human being probably has to sign off on the termination somewhere along the line, at least for "real" non-contract employees.
Now that human may be just a rubber-stamper but "for legal purposes" I don't think you can be "fired by computer" in the United States. Practically, yes, but "on paper," I would be shocked if you could.
Re:Sure it's not fully automated (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is a human in the loop.
They look at the report and press the OK button.
They get assessed on how long it takes them to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth of pay (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a good example of how minimum wages (either set by government or self-imposed by the business) can let people fall through the cracks. There probably are people that just can't keep up with whatever Amazon demands for their X dollars per hour for that position. It could be those employee are in pain, older, weaker, spatially challenged, have worse vision, or generally just slower metabolism... things they can't control (and perhaps can't be helped). Or it could be they are lazy, chatty, or unmotivated. Realistically, it doesn't matter that much in a purely business-sense why they perform lower. But instead of Amazon being able to keep those employees and perhaps pay them less (so they could have a few MORE total employees with the same total output), minimum pay might force employment replacement. Of course, they might also have other limitations to how many employees they can have at once (safety, space, supervision), which can change the equation.
So, anyway, on one hand it seems "fair" to treat everyone the same... And on the other hand it doesn't seem "fair" to treat everyone the same, since people aren't the same. Eventually, it comes down to the employees- if they don't like it or don't think it is fair, they leave (they don't have to work there) or they are fired. And if a large portion of people simply won't work in those conditions, Amazon will have a hard time filling those positions and supply/demand will dictate they have to lower their standards and/or pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
if they chose a more remote location that could fit more workers and paid them less, optimized for cost of transportation and storage, while still maintaining their delivery targets, you would not have this issue of trying to optimize staffing costs against profit margins.
Of course you would. There are only two circumstances in which a company doesn't weed out the least productive workers:
1) When there is such an extreme shortage of labor they can't cut anyone because there are no replacements (such as during a war)
2) When the union is so strong a person can do anything short of killing their co-workers without fear of being fired (such as in many industries and government jobs today)
Kerblam! (Score:2)
Wonder if they can redeploy the code to ... (Score:2)
Wonder if Amazon retunes the same code and decide to fire inefficient programmers who developed that co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wonder if they can redeploy the code to ... (Score:2)
This why Windows 10 went to shit!
Hipster mellenials who never did desktop support, deploy software in an Enterprise environment, or do QA testing, or fuck actually spoken to a real customer write the code now.
Oh just update it agile style and fucking put a frown or smiley on the feedback app doesn't fly PERIOD!
Metrics is bad as it only counts predictable counters that Windows 10 can't measure in software like bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
The bar tender said, "The first one ordered a drink. The second one ordered two drinks. The third ordered 12 drinks. Fourth one ordered 1 and a half drinks. The next one 1.2344 drinks. The next one ordered -1 drinks. The next one ordered 0x7FFF FFFF drinks. The next one 0xFFFF FFFF drinks. I called my boss and said, 'the QA engineers convention is in town. I taking three days off, unless I get combat pay'"
In other words ... (Score:3)
Someone has automated the universally hated and idiotic stack ranking system. Someone's always getting fired/"retrained", no matter of the actual performance.
I guess they don't realize what this will do for the morale of the workers. Or, more likely, they do but they don't care, because the warehouse workers are effectively disposable due to the low/no qualification requirements.
And it is also telling that Amazon is using these practices only in the US - if they tried this here in their French warehouses, they would have been marched to court already.
Well (Score:2)
At least they don't have a laser to kill you if you take too much time in the bathroom [claudiocolombo.net]. Yet.
It is like it is (Score:2)
Some people are just not built for the job (any job), so it's better to separate for both of them.
You have to have the right personality for any job or you won't make it, at least not with any sense of happiness.
Just please don't go into civil service, there are already too many of you there.
Race to the bottom (Score:2)
SF proves prophetic again (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, science fiction actually predicts the future [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Computerized management micro-managing human workers as if they were robots, OTOH...
First rule of management (Score:5, Interesting)
is treat your employees well and they will go the extra mile for you when you need it. Treat them poorly and they will fuck you around any chance they get.
Amazon may think their algorithm gets around this rule, but they would be wrong to think the employees who are not fired don't still follow it.
Amazon is the new Microsoft (Score:2)
Re: Amazon is the new Microsoft (Score:2)
Microsoft to their credit at least treats their employees ok and has reformed after being beat by Google and the internet to where they support linux via wsl on Windows 10 and host it on Azure and contribute to open source.
I was thinking of creating an Amazon account to play with build and e3 but fuck. I don't want to contribute to the problem and I still love whole foods and trader Joe's sigh
Life imitates fiction (Score:2)
Nothing really new (Score:2)
Managers watch the historical output per employee and can easily identify the consistent laggards.
Now the only difference is that Amazon has applied the same approach to warehouses. And somehow it's an affront to humane management.
Broken system (Score:2)
Managers Must Love This!!! (Score:2)
"It wasn't me. The computer did it!", says the manager. The managers that I know hate to fire (or discipline) a worker/employee. It is fraught with all of kinds of fears, anxiety and dangers for the firing manager. Now the computer tracks performance and issues warning when the employee is compromising their position and work. Now the computer fires the employee who doesn't respond to discipline. The manager is out of it.
Of course, Amazon now needs fewer managers but, hey, the j
They're not automatically fired (Score:5, Insightful)
Occam wins again. The Verge really had to go out of their way to crop-quote what they did and ignore the context from the full document they shamelessly display on their site. Here's what it actually says:
Amazon's system tracks the rates of each individual associate's productivity, and automatically generates any warnings or terminations regarding quality or productivity without input from supervisors. Any system feedback or automatically generated warning or termination notices are required to be provided to associates within 14 days. If the feedback is not provided for any reason, i.e. associate or manager on vacation or the facility is at "peak" operation level, the notice expires and is no longer valid.
So no, Virginia -- computers are not automatically firing people. Computers generate recommended actions based on an objective set of metrics, but humans still have to explicitly follow through in each and every case.
Now, let's talk about why they wrote this letter in the first place. They're in the midst of defending against a labor suit by a former employee who claimed they were terminated for engaging in legally protected activity. Amazon submitted this as evidence that they have a highly objective process of measuring employee performance, and thus the worker's claims were baloney. At which point then they're castigated for having an objective system. Damned if they do, etc.
Jack Welch (Score:3)
It is good to know that Jack Welch of still alive and well. Keep on keeping on bro. Keep on keeping on.
Re: (Score:2)
In some sense it is worse, as slaves cannot get fired. But I agree. The only purpose amazon workers serve is to bridge the gap until this can be done fully with robotics. In principle, that is fine, as there is no way around this anyways. A lot of low-skill and medium-skill work is slowly vanishing. But Amazon is doing this aggressively at a time when the world is not yet ready for it, and that is a problem.
Re:Spice mining .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being an Amazon worker is beginning to sound like being a slave worker in the imperial spice mines of Kessel.
Except that you can quit anytime you want, and go work somewhere else instead. Which makes it nothing at all like slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an Amazon worker is beginning to sound like being a slave worker in the imperial spice mines of Kessel.
Except that you can quit anytime you want, and go work somewhere else instead. Which makes it nothing at all like slavery.
I vividly remember saying '...beginning to sound like...' I'm sure Amazon and its corporate buddies will get to the point where they manage to get the 13th amendment repealed eventually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being an Amazon worker is beginning to sound like being a slave worker in the imperial spice mines of Kessel.
Except that you can quit anytime you want, and go work somewhere else instead. Which makes it nothing at all like slavery.
Must be nice where you live. No unemployment, unlimited options for people to pick whatever job they want. People don't need to work for low wages, they do it only because they want to, in the place you live.
Must be really nice.
Re: Spice mining .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Health insurance tied to employment is slavery.
In Maoist China, each factory ran a school for the children of the workers. So if you changed jobs, your kids had to switch to a different school.
We can see that this is idiotic only because we are outside the system. Employer provided education makes no sense.
But employer provided heathcare makes no sense either. We only think it does because we are used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're being way too hard on Amazon. Remember, its founder recently lost something like 1/3 of all his money! Poor guy has to recoup it somehow...
Re:Spice mining .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Being an Amazon worker is beginning to sound like being a slave worker in the imperial spice mines of Kessel.
I get inquiries from recruiters all the time asking me if I want to join Amazon (not as a factory worker but as part of a dev team). I always turn them down- "Nope, not interested but thanks anyway."
The reason for this is that I know quite a few current and past Amazon employees and they describe their mostly white-collar environment as "hellish". They're pushed to put in lots of unpaid overtime, they're encouraged to essentially abandon their home and family life to work harder for Amazon and to care only about what's good for Amazon.
Amazon wants 110% from you at a MINIMUM, and the offices are dens of scheming, backstabbing co-workers who will do anything to get ahead, including sabotaging your shit to make you fail. Way worse than Microsoft by all accounts.
The recruiters say "It's a fast-paced, dynamic, ever-changing environment!" as if they think that's a good thing or that such a place would appeal to me. FUCK NO. That's the very last thing I want.
They always seem shocked when I say "No thanks", as if I'd just turned down an offer of a Knighthood bestowed by the Queen.
Re:Spice mining .... (Score:4, Interesting)
They always seem shocked when I say "No thanks", as if I'd just turned down an offer of a Knighthood bestowed by the Queen.
This is the wrong approach. Instead, act enthusiastic and say, "Wow! Amazon is great! btw, for my next job, I'm looking to make a minimum of $250k." Quoting a high number to recruiters drives the salaries up for all of us. (btw, I recently had a recruiter match $250k so I had to excuse myself a different way and move it up to $275k.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Empire never had anyone fired from the Kessel mines. Executed, yes, but fired, never.
I had a different meaning of 'fired' in mind from the one you seem to be thinking of. Hint: It involves being thrown into an oven. However, Amazon does not seem to be one to waste anything (except maybe investor's money) so I expect they will eventually transition to processing inefficient workers into pet food.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious answer: It is very hard to do, because we do not have any AI that deserves the name. Doing anything fully automated is exceptionally hard and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Even just grabbing a generic item is mostly unsolved these days. Sure, if everything is designed for automation, everything is, say, in a box of a specific size known and with marking so a robot can "see" it, it is doable today to do fully automated packaging of things, for example. But the goods are not (yet) in that
Re: (Score:2)
But a lot of the time the real answer is that people can be made to work cheaper than the robots that would replace them.
Yes, there are LOTS of jobs that our current AI and robots aren't up to. (Sometimes it's the AI, but sometimes it's "simple things" like the grippers.) But a lot of the time the real answer is that robots would be more expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't understanding the problem. So I'll put it this way.
Assume that there's a totally fair way of judging.
1: Set the rules so that 10% fail to live up to the mark.
2: Put people under "lose your living space" if they fail to meet the mark stress.
3: Go to 1
Re: (Score:3)
I just rely on my trusty Satanic Psychic to decide who I should fire.
Uh, good luck finding a Satanist who isn't into data science.