One interesting thing is that Amazon is almost approaching Walmart's bad reputation in terribleness for employees. (Maybe not software devs, but perhaps warehouse contractors.) Is this kind of ruthlessness essential for such a huge company to be so profitable?
1) Zero paternal leave. This may lead to subconscious hiring bias for men b/c you know they can't take paid leave. I'm surprised the S-team permits this, but I think they're all male anyway.
2) No free lunch ever. Facebook and Google both have them. Microsoft has free snacks I think. Several Seattle companies have catering on Friday. The Amazon Silicon Valley office has them only because there would be a revolt if they didn't. (Oh sorry, there's rumor of free ramen noodles on some floor in Blackfoot maybe)
3) On-call for all devs.
I think reddit had a thread series last year showing off what interns got at Microsoft, Google, etc. At Amazon, interns get to keep their backpack when they leave.
Sure, maybe those facts imply that developers at Amazon have it worse than developers elsewhere, but I wouldn't exactly characterize any of them as Amazon being "terrible" to employees.
I don't think that's fair. Free lunch isn't 'free', it's just part of your compensation package. At least some SV companies don't have it - I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't.
If someone asked you if you'd prefer an additional $500 per month or free meals, what would you say? I imagine it'd be at least a toss-up.
On-call and paternal leave aren't great, but again, it's a factor into a job decision.
I guess my tacit assumption is that most people who get dev job offers from Amazon also get job offers from other places (or could if they so chose) because the job market for CS is so good. So if they take the Amazon job, they must think that the lack of niceties is outweighed by either the pay or the work they'll do.
This probably won't be the case for their warehouse workers, who might in many cases have a choice between Amazon and unemployed.
I don't know about you, the last offer letter I got had on page 1 the specific details (salary, options, whatnot) and on page 2 the perks (which included meals).
It's implicit. When you weigh up job offers, you look at what the job gives you; the busywork and the compensation. Perks are a clear part of that compensation package; the perks are part of the pay.
Yes, you should absolutely view a company that offers free meals as giving you an extra $amount you spend on food each day, or you should subtract the same amount from a company that doesn't.
2) I approve of this. Have a cafeteria with cheap food, great. But I eat healthy, I don't want my workplace dumping pizza on me every day. Let me make my own food choices ;)
3) As long as total comp reflects it and it is not abused, seems reasonable. i.e. better not be more than 1 3am wakeup per year.
Where I work now (Seattle branch of very famous SV company) you fill your plate up buffet style from a daily rotating selection that includes usually 2 vegetable dishes, 2 starches (usually rice and potatoes), and a few main course options (at least one is always vegetarian, usually vegan).
There is also unlimited free fruit/snacks at all hours. In short it's very easy to get a balanced meal containing whatever amount of each macronutrient you want.
Bonus: the food isn't five star gourmet but it's usually pretty good at least.
Okay so I was a bit slippery slope with the pizza comment.. but I really do eat different from the average American, and am generally not well catered to by any food program I have ever seen (which is totally fine - I don't expect anyone to bend over backwards for me). But, I would totally rather make $200 more a month than be given "free food".
Why not give everyone $200 a month and then sell the food for near cost ($4 a meal or whatever)? No matter what you do, some people are not going to consume it.
Amazon doesn't treat software devs very nicely either. I mean, it's certainly better than warehouse employees, but devs are treated as highly disposable cogs.
Friends of mine have been software developers at Amazon. They are well-paid, but evidently that did not make up for other aspects of working there. Apparently Amazon can be a great company without being a great place to work, at least relative to technology companies.
I remember reading about Amazon making warehouse employees sign a non-compete agreement - a stipulation that was rather quickly reversed after The Verge and other publications exposed it. What other examples of terribleness have you read about?
There are articles on how horrible the warehouse conditions are. (For example, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f...). Note that I'm not trying to condone that perception, just merely observing that it exists in tandem with Walmart's (whose problems are well-known).
This came up on reddit a while ago; the general tone of the conversation I got was that it really depends on which warehouse you're working at, some had horrible managers and others had really good working experiences. It's still strange that its like that though.
