That level of churn should be a red flag, but I've no doubt that they've run the numbers and it's cheaper long-term to just perpetually replace employees than actually invest in them. They're...
She started working at Amazon one year and seven months ago with seventy people; only five are left.
That level of churn should be a red flag, but I've no doubt that they've run the numbers and it's cheaper long-term to just perpetually replace employees than actually invest in them. They're probably just hoping to run out the clock until automation becomes feasible and they never have to deal with low-level employees again.
The company expects her to pick and pack a mind-boggling six hundred items per hour, leading to repetitive stress injuries.
That's one item every six seconds. Absolutely inhuman. I'm reminded of the Facebook moderators who have goals of 25,000 items per day. Assuming an eight hour workday, that's a little over one second per item. Less if you include breaks.
That does seem literally impossible. I wonder if they actually drive them to such a rate, or whether the expectation is set so that everyone fails, so they can be let go 'for cause' at any time....
That does seem literally impossible. I wonder if they actually drive them to such a rate, or whether the expectation is set so that everyone fails, so they can be let go 'for cause' at any time. Either way, that's quite exploitative.
i would be pretty unsurprised if that was the--unwritten, because you'd be fucking stupid to write something like that down--case, given amazon's record on other issues pertaining to workers....
I wonder if they actually drive them to such a rate, or whether the expectation is set so that everyone fails, so they can be let go 'for cause' at any time.
i would be pretty unsurprised if that was the--unwritten, because you'd be fucking stupid to write something like that down--case, given amazon's record on other issues pertaining to workers. they're quite systematic in treating their workers like dogshit, so it'd certainly on brand at the minimum.
That level of churn should be a red flag, but I've no doubt that they've run the numbers and it's cheaper long-term to just perpetually replace employees than actually invest in them. They're probably just hoping to run out the clock until automation becomes feasible and they never have to deal with low-level employees again.
That's one item every six seconds. Absolutely inhuman. I'm reminded of the Facebook moderators who have goals of 25,000 items per day. Assuming an eight hour workday, that's a little over one second per item. Less if you include breaks.
That does seem literally impossible. I wonder if they actually drive them to such a rate, or whether the expectation is set so that everyone fails, so they can be let go 'for cause' at any time. Either way, that's quite exploitative.
i would be pretty unsurprised if that was the--unwritten, because you'd be fucking stupid to write something like that down--case, given amazon's record on other issues pertaining to workers. they're quite systematic in treating their workers like dogshit, so it'd certainly on brand at the minimum.