Amazon Offers To Help Train Workers For Other Jobs 148
itwbennett writes "Amazon, which has come under attack for harsh warehouse working conditions, on Monday announced a new training benefit program for fulfillment center employees. The program will cover 95% of the cost of vocational training for jobs that Amazon determined to be in high demand and that pay relatively well, including aircraft mechanics, computer-aided design, machine tool technology, medical laboratory science and nursing."
Two limitations of note: the maximum Amazon will contribute is $2,000/year for four years, and the employees need to have worked full-time for three consecutive years before they can take advantage of the program.
Yikes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Three full years in an Amazon.com warehouse? From the stories, that sounds like a death sentence.
NYT: Self-Congratulatory Move by Amazon? (Score:3, Insightful)
An Amazon Education [nytimes.com]: "Sucharita Mulpuru, the retail analyst for Forrester Research, was unimpressed. "It seemed self-congratulatory," she said in an interview. "Most companies, when they treat their workers well, that's just what they do. They don't say, "This is a reason you should do business with us.'"
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you expect Amazon to do? Give a free full ride to anyone who asks? In order to stay in business, amazon must turn a profit, and in order to do that, it must maintain a level of productive throughput at an affordable price.
Sure, the work sucks, but it is the work that customers are willing to pay for. Sure, it takes three years before the education options become available, but were it not for this offer, people who can't find any better-paying work would only have lifelong debt as their alternative.
The only thing forcing Amazon to do this at all is public sentiment. If you don't think it is enough, feel free to tell Amazon that as you boycott them.
So, in comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
How well or poorly does NewEgg treat its warehouse workers? How about Overstock, or Buy.com, or any of the other comparable online retailers?
And really, while people here will complain about Amazon's treatment of its workers - if they have the lowest price, will you truly not buy from them because of it? Or will you just dodge the question and say "XYZ.com always beats them on price anyway, so I shop there"?
Noticed Between the Lines (Score:5, Insightful)
"You should buy stuff from us instead of WalMart because we treat our employees about 50% better than they do."
separate matter: the folks here who are saying that working three years in a warehouse is a death sentence should get out and meet some real people, and try a bit harder to not be entitled pricks. One caveat: if you do meet a real warehouse worker (or dock worker, or other transportation/inventory logistics person), watch out for your teeth.
Here's another angle: people who have the self-discipline to work in a tough job like that for at least three years without quitting and going home to live in their parents' basement stand a good chance at managing the demands of the work/school balance and will likely complete their coursework.
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Amazon improves working conditions and/or pays more, and must charge more to cover the costs, then competitors like walmart, sears, target, etc can suddenly start undercutting Amazon in price. Of course, they will do so by having the same low-waged working situation that Amazon does now.
In order to compete against them despite the higher prices, Amazon will basically have to convince droves of potential customers to buy humanitarianism along with their products. Do you think they can pull that off?
Maybe a few noble souls are like you, and don't mind paying more. The majority of people are too ignorant to know the difference, or too apathetic to care, and just buy cheap.
If you can figure out how to make the masses care (and act), you could accomplish a whole lot more than the improving of working conditions at Amazon.
harsh warehouse working conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
sorry, I had been a box monkey for most of my 20's, the work is mindless, dirty, hotter than hell during summer, cold as shit during winter and requires long hours of physical activity and standing on your feet all while getting meh pay...
and yet whenever you see an amazon warehouse, they have padded mats to stand on, roller tracks, and fairly new equipment and the place is pretty organized and clean... I only had one warehouse job during that time and I considered it pretty cushy ... though a honest days work.
harsh is trodding a 1,100 lb palette of car batteries 50 yards in 112 degree heat on a palette jack with a lumpy wheel that liked to drag, but I did it for 3 years to keep the rent paid while in school. I would love to see what is harsh is in a state of the art warehouse that's not ran by two hillbilly brothers and only 1 forklift in the building that's busted half the time and a leaky roof.
yea get off my lawn, but at the same time quit being a pussy, there are a lot tougher jobs out there than box monkey #21.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only $2k? (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, the tax rate is less than 100%. So it is always better to pay tax, than to give away money. In this, case by keep the rest of the money, $3250, they pay a tax of 15% on it, which means they get to keep a lot it.
Re:Yikes... (Score:3, Insightful)
I will agree with your comment that government involvement, however imperfect, is probably needed. A free market requires full information and it is almost impossible for people to understand how things are produced without somebody outside the companies following up, checking and ensuring that information gets from the production to the consumer. Unfortunately, the current situation is that the people in government are of the "government is for the companies" or "government doesn't work" persuasion and are setting out to prove it. Food labelling means that something which is labelled as "strawberry flavour yoghurt" can have nothing to do with strawberries. At one point the US government was trying to make it impossible to label meat as growth hormone free. For now at least you need to do something yourself. If nothing else so that some of the small, traditional or careful producers continue to exist when / if your government wakes up. Look at how fat most Americans are; understand most nations are catching up. That is, at least partly, the effect of eating crap. Eat better food and it will be better for you.
[...] People buy the cheapest available equivalent product, period. I always chuckle when I see "buy local" signs because it is such a naive idea that is completely detached from reality. How do I know that when buying local that I'm really creating any benefit? I find it silly to adjust my spending based on something that is not rooted in obvious economic value.[...]
No; you buy the cheapest available product; I buy local sometimes. Most importantly, I try to buy conciously most of the stuff that I buy. Learn about the products where you can. How do you know you are creating benefit? Go and visit the farm. Seriously. Almost any small producer will be happy to show you around. They will explain many things. Small farms in many countries often have accommodation ("agrotourism") as a side line. Spend a couple of days staying there, seeing what they do. When you know your farmer personally you will be much more likely to trust him.
For some things local just isn't relevant. When you buy products with the real Fair Trade logo [wikipedia.org] then you can be pretty sure it's better than the alternative. Partly this is better for the farmers. Also the certification includes production standards which are likely better for you. Just beware that there are some fake Fair Trade style groups (the "Rainforest Alliance" and "Fair Trade USA" and so on) which you should only buy when there is no alternative.
How about for example toys? Everybody keeps complaining about how terrible "Chinese" plastic toys are. Then they complain when there is a recall with lead paint. Tell your friends and especially family that you don't accept cheap plastic toys. Buy Lego. They have completely different levels of product safety. The quality is also better; you will still find your kid playing with stuff five years later where normal toys seem to last about a week.
Basically, what I'm saying: there are economic factors you don't see. Products which make you sick cost you money, it's just that you don't directly see the link. Products which pay their workers more mean your company gets more business; again, this is hard to see but it's a real "economic" factor. "Local" is a useful way to guess that something has them. Specific producers with a brand, a reputation and an interest in quality are another way. Specific labels are yet another way. Try to look not just at the price but the broader economic picture. Think about what hidden costs to you are included in any product and choose the best product.
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always chuckle when I see "buy local" signs because it is such a naive idea that is completely detached from reality. How do I know that when buying local that I'm really creating any benefit?
Seems like a cynical view to me, and almost certainly incorrect. I often buy local if I can, for various definitions of local.
I tend to buy local (same county) for bread, flour, beer (often), cider (occasionally--I don't drink much) and a few other things where possible. The products are frequently fresher/better/more unique and interesting first, and secondly, I happen to like living somewhere where not everything is homogonised into a few very large national brands.
I buy fruit and veg local if possible, frmo my home country next and wider Europe next. I try to avoid buying much from further afield. The benefits are that actually, if you restrict yourself to seasonal stuff it tends to be better and it just seems wasteful to eat asparagus air-freighted from Peru.
It means I also have a smaller environmental impact and support local and regional businesses.
I also avoid Tesco and Sainsbury's because they're evil, and I let the presence of independent shops and other supermarkets influence my decision on where to move house to.
There's not point in complaining about such things going bad if one isn't prepared to do something about it.
If you don't act on them, then principles are merely fond notions.
Re:This just discourages hiring full-time workers (Score:4, Insightful)
That is probably already the case.
Hiring people for 39 hours instead of 40 hours a week is the oldest trick in the book for avoiding health coverage costs.
Hiring temporary/contract people is also fairly standard for shitty working conditions. Such people tend not to have the resources to fight back.
Re:Yikes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, the work sucks, but it is the work that customers are willing to pay for.
Probably not. If Amazon is like most companies, if you doubled the money spent on all hourly workers (either doubling wages, or spending money on improved working conditions, or hiring more workers, etc) involved in the product, it would probably make a difference of maybe $0.20 per item (I can't provide exact estimates here since Amazon refuses to tell anyone how many workers they have, but that's not an unreasonable guess). The effects of this would probably amount to each item being on average $0.10 more expensive, while EPS might be down $0.01 to account for the other $0.10.
The real story is this: It's possible to make decent money while paying and treating your work force well, and many companies do just that. It's possible to make more money while paying your work force peanuts and treating them like crap. Wall St and upper management don't care about whether they're people end up sick or injured or dead because of poor working conditions so long as (a) there are a bunch of desperate unemployed people to hire, and (b) the cost of doing something to improve things is greater than the cost of the lawsuits, fines, and workers comp premium changes. The difference between the profitability of good guys versus bad guys is built on the backs of lives destroyed. Could you sleep at night knowing you made lots of money by inflicting human suffering on other people?
Re:So, in comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
How well or poorly does NewEgg treat its warehouse workers? How about Overstock, or Buy.com, or any of the other comparable online retailers?
Most warehouse work is well paid with reasonable working conditions. An honest day's pay for an honest day's work is something that's fallen out of fashion in the Great Recession - Amazon just took it to the next level, and leveraged its considerable IT expertise to wring every last dime out of people desperate for work. Once the recession fades, they are going to be in real trouble when there's competition for their workforce, their reputation as an employer is permanently stained. If it doesn't fade, the workers will unionize and take what the company refuses to give - fair wages and decent working conditions - and they'll be in even deeper trouble when they can no longer meet their obligations to Prime customers, as the local distribution center is on strike.