Sometimes I wonder if we will ever reach the point at which the people that Amazon would never employ combined with the people who would never agree to be employed by Amazon leaves them with fewer people than they need.
Amazon makes the front page because of a variety of reasons, but there are thousands of large employers that are worse in every way. We have a loooong way to go before Amazon's policies are an actual disqualifier for people who work these jobs. Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance. Many large chains still won't employ you based on your sexual orientation. So many small and large employers steal wages, deny benefits, pay under the table and more. All of that and unemployment is hitting record numbers right now.
Imagine my business is feeding wood into chipping machines, and I train every employee in how to apply a tourniquet if they chop their own hand off.
For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual, but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that!
On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to improve safety.
Presumably, prospective Walmart employees are well aware that they aren't well off people, and that getting public assistance would be of substantial benefit to them. I don't think they'd find it an issue in the same way that they would for example an employer where a bunch of people lose their hands in accidents.
The problem is that while you can make the argument that they are doing their employees a 'service'; anyone who has paid attention to how businesses run understands they wouldn't have even bothered doing this if it weren't being used as a means to get a leg up on the competition. I.e, they are relying on government benefits intended to be a safety net to pay their employees for them instead of actually paying competitively in wages and benefits.
It's scummy, but makes the balance sheets look great.
Yes, every employer provides their employees perks as a means to get a leg up on the competition. That's precisely one of the main point of perks (the other point being to remove sources of stress from employees' lives so they are more productive). I don't see what's scummy about this.
The scummy part is that they're effectively subsidizing their payroll with taxpayer money, and they are doing this very intentionally and know exactly what they're doing.
Ah the old 'Not my problem' argument. A couple issues with this -- companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it.
And why is it not the hiring manager's job to ensure the welfare of their workers? What makes that axiomatic to you? That seems like a social construct that we've (maybe) generally settled on, but nothing says that's necessarily the way it has to be.
> companies actively campaign against legislature which increases wages, so it's not that they are just ignoring the welfare of their workers they actively push against it.
That's not true in the case we're discussing though. Walmart often campaigns for increases to the minimum wage, because they know it will hurt their competition.
Walmart has (recently, as far as I'm aware) began lobbying for it because they know they can absorb labor costs more readily, sure. But the largest business lobbying group in the US advocates against raising the minimum wage, pushing back against workplace safety, and other work welfare initiatives: https://www.uschamber.com/labor
The nature of relationship between a business and an employee is such that it is not reasonable to expect that a business would even have the information necessary to take on that responsibility. Furthermore, many of those information gaps are intentional, to prevent discrimination.
If you were interviewing me, how would you determine my appropriate wage?
You don't need demographic information to take care of your workers. Everyone needs health care -- cover it. Even if not everyone needs parental leave -- cover it. Vacation policies and sick time -- cover them.
Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept.
Limit the wages of your company's highest paid workers relative to your lowest paid workers.
That is wildly vague. How much coverage is sufficient for your employees?
> Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept.
That sounds good, but it’s not very quantitative. How do you specifically propose that someone calculate “value of labor” independently of the wages accepted by your workforce?
Also, how would you ensure I can afford the above-mentioned food and housing? While vacation is nice, food and housing are certainly more immediate needs.
The fact that Walmart trains their employees on how to get public benefits is an implicit admission that they know they aren't paying them enough. Maybe defining "enough" is hard, but they're not even trying, and are instead explicitly pushing the burden onto taxpayers. That's reprehensible; I personally do not care to subsidize their workforce just because they want higher margins.
Even just raising wages and watching how much attendance at these "welfare training sessions" declines would be an improvement.
While I definitely think wages should be higher, I don't think your assessment of the situation is accurate. Walmart didn't invent welfare. Walmart lobbies for higher wages, and pays higher than many comparable jobs. Them doing their employees a favor isn't a bad thing, they could just as easily pay low wages and not bother trying to help their employees with public assistance.
Small businesses are the reason the minimum wage is still 7.25, not Walmart.
I think a employer should just pay fair wage and not suggest the employee to ask for benefits from the government to have enough income to cover bills.
They do it as a direct response to the fact that they know they don't pay their workers a living wage.
I suppose it's nice of them to help their workers get access to public benefits, but in general they're just a terrible societal citizen for not paying their workers enough to live off of.
> people who would never agree to be employed by Amazon
The number of people who would never work for Amazon out of principle is extremely small. The vast majority people choose jobs rationally based on the pros and cons of their work options. Amazon will be able to hire people as long as they have the cash to entice workers.
The people who would not work for Amazon are rational, too, they just have different values than you do. I'm one of those people, and I'm not some raving lunatic.
Choosing to not work now at Amazon based on a current weighing of pros and cons, moral or otherwise, is a rational choice.
Choosing to never work at Amazon is not based on reason, but prejudgment. One cannot rationalize the unknown. This is what my original statement was in reply to.
Sorry, I'm a bit quick on the gun here because HN readers tend to be really 'libertarian' and don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to drop their ethical standard to work for a lot of money.
