Amazon To Hire 20% More Holiday Workers To Meet Growing Demand (bloomberg.com) 50
Amazon.com is hiring 20 percent more seasonal workers this year, suggesting it anticipates a strong holiday season. Bloomberg reports: The e-commerce giant will add 120,000 seasonal positions, up from 100,000 last year, "to support growing customer demand," said Mike Roth, vice president of customer fulfillment, in a statement. The workers will fill spots in fulfillment and sorting centers and at customer service sites in the U.S. Last year more than 14,000 seasonal employees were shifted to full-time roles after the holidays and the company expects to increase that number this year, Roth said.
And people will still spend money there... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you kind sir, we await your recommendation for reasonable alternatives to Amazon which treat their employees like royalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The people who work for them are at-will employees and can leave anytime they like. Temp workers are probably grateful for the extra holiday hours as well, or I'm guessing they'd not be accepting temp work.
I stand ready to defect to a more altruistic company as soon as someone builds a better moustrap.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on what you're buying, of course. I have managed to get through my entire life, so far, having bought *nothing* from Amazon. I know it may ruffle your butt cheeks, but it's not only possible, but it's not difficult, either.
So you don't use amazon. Not hard to do. But please tell us where you do shop that pays a living wage and benefits to all its employees (including seasonal ones). Pretty much every retail place uses seasonal workers, pays them crap pay without training or benefits and kicks them to the curb as soon as the holidays are over.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everybody who spends money with them are just as guilty of this as the company, themselves.
Guilty of what? Providing willing workers with jobs? Plenty of companies hire seasonal workers. That doesn't make them evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, all presidents celebrate this lie.
Job reports are seasonally adjusted. The only lie being told is the lie you tell yourself.
And in 2017. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . fewer workers, more robots. I give them 5 years, and they may well have an entirely robotic warehouse. . .
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they're not closer than that now.
Partly I would have expected them to impose more standardized packaging on their vendors to make it easier to pick product via robot. A lot of stuff still seems to come in stupid retail clamshell packaging.
Why unemployment rates look good (Score:1, Troll)
And there you have it America, All of those full time, year round, fully vested pensions and 401k jobs with full health benefits that raised families of 7 throughout the 1960's. Now in the 2010's we have replaced them all with part time seasonal work with Amazon, UPS, USPS, Target, Walmart, and Uber. If we call this "employment" then we're truly in a state of denial. Until we FACE THE FACT that we have 325 Million Americans and about 70 million decent jobs we will never understand REALITY. Let's at the
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have any constructive suggestions?
Yes: better critical thinking skills. Then when someone feeds you a load of baloney like "Back in the golden age of the 1960s everyone had a job for life, a full guaranteed pension, and owned a house" you will ask yourself two questions:
1. Does that make sense?
2. Is it supported by any actual evidence?
The answers are, of course, "no" and "no". Average job tenure has gone UP over the last few decades. Uneducated white men are less likely to have long term employment today, but everyone else is doing be
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, in the 1960s it was very hard for women to survive on the types of jobs that were open to them, so they were all forced into marriages to be supported that they could not easily leave.
When half the population is denied work in most jobs, it is much easier for the other half of the population to find well paying work.
Re:Why unemployment rates look good (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is, despite our bad full-time employement statistics, we're still doing better than most of the developed world with full-time and part-time employment figures. The world is a lot different place than what our parents and grandparents grew up in. Everyone having a full-time job might not be a reasonable expectation anymore.
What's the solution? Do we need a new "new-deal"? Obviously, such a suggestion would not bode well for people centre and rightwards.
It's interesting, part of the justification for Communism was that automation was eventually going to make it so that there was not enough jobs for everyone. Turns out they were right, just jumped the gun 60 years. Problem with communism is it sucks and drags almost everyone into poverty. So what's the solution? Micro-managed hybrid states like modern China? Basic income for all? A new "new-deal", pay people to do things that the economy isn't directly driving just to keep them employed?
There's not really an ideal path yet.
I always thought it ridiculous on sci-fi shows like Star Trek (yes, I know it's fiction), that such an advanced ship would require such a huge crew when the computer was so advanced and could probably fly the ship better by itself. Now I understand why they had such a big crew... busywork to keep more people employed and artificially deflate the unemployment figures.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet many countries build better roads and bridges for a fraction of the cost. Of course, politics driven by contributions from contractors and featherbedding pretty much GUARANTEES work designed to last only a year or three. . . .so new contracts can be let to donors. . . and the cycle goes on.
Want less environmental impact ? Fund better design and implementation, and actually fund maintenance, as politically unsexy as it may be. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's not really an ideal path yet.
Agreed. There is no ideal path yet.
Step number one is simply acknowledging the REALITY. People tend to hold onto misconceptions, and overlook what is actually happening, and this generally leads to poor decisions. I honestly believe that if the world could just agree on THE FACTS, then solutions would be much more likely. We must pull our heads out of the past, out of fantasy land, out of judgemental high ground and just deal with what is actually happening. If we can at least accomplish that much it w
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is, despite our bad full-time employement statistics, we're still doing better than most of the developed world with full-time and part-time employment figures.
This is important to remember. In terms of economic growth and unemployment, the US is doing better than almost any advanced economy. We could do better, but the examples of Europe show how it could be far worse. For example, Spain has a 45% youth unemployment rate (it was worse, 56%, before labor market reforms). US youth unemploym
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought it ridiculous on sci-fi shows like Star Trek (yes, I know it's fiction), that such an advanced ship would require such a huge crew when the computer was so advanced and could probably fly the ship better by itself. Now I understand why they had such a big crew... busywork to keep more people employed and artificially deflate the unemployment figures.
And yet in most episodes almost none of the crew does anything useful. So I think it's more like the Marines/Navy. The Navy provides the ship and can run the ship with a small crew but it's all of the other jobs that are just there "for the ride". Whenever we're introduced to new crew members it's always like "Astrobiologist". Aka, they do nothing on the ship itself they just go to a planet and then start working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
14 hours per day (plus or minus 2) for nine months is way more than full time employment.
Still seasonal work. No one is going to hire a tractor to till frozen ground during the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone driving a tractor in a field like that is not in the same league as an Amazon employee.
OP complained about someone in their 30's (Millennial, of course) doing only seasonal work. I gave a counter example.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was younger I just worked for temp agencies and liked being able to take or turn down jobs, never working more than a few months at a place.
I will quote the great sage, Neil Peart:
"We travel in the dark of the new moon
A starry highway traced on the map of the sky
Like lovers and heroes, lonely as the eagle's cry
We're only at home when we're on the fly
On the fly
We travel on the road to adventure
On a desert highway straight to the heart of the sun
Like lovers and heroes, and the restless part of everyone
To add to the doom and gloom (Score:2)
You know those shit retail jobs that pay like crap but require minimal qualifications? Working for Walmart and other similar stores? Well, an Amazon worker, since robots help bring him the stuff and a computer micromanages his every action, is probably 5 times as effective at moving product as a retail stocker is. So +20k seasonal jobs = -100k shitty retail jobs elsewhere.
Ok, thinking over my post, that isn't quite true. If consumer incomes were still growing - if people were consuming more - then if co
Re: (Score:2)
Well, an Amazon worker, since robots help bring him the stuff and a computer micromanages his every action, is probably 5 times as effective at moving product as a retail stocker is. So +20k seasonal jobs = -100k shitty retail jobs elsewhere.
How in the world is this doom and gloom?! This is fantastic, it means that the concept of having goods in a warehouse that are mass-shipped by carriers like UPS is more efficient than a physical store that consumes a much more space, uses power/AC/light 24/7 and where small groups of shoppers inefficiently load a few bags of groceries into their gas-guzzling automobiles.
This is progress, and yes, when the printing press came out, scriveners and monks were SOL. And the ratio of number of jobs replaced was pr
Re: (Score:3)
Temp jobs and gig economy != Employment (Score:4, Interesting)
These crappy temp jobs are going to bubble up into the unemployment numbers and, though the rate is seasonally adjusted, they'll show job growth. What I want to see is real full-time employee job growth, the kind of work that comes with real salaries, retirement and health benefits. It's really sad to see people in their mid-50s driving for Uber because they can't find work after having their jobs offshored or eliminated. Uber will say they're doing people a favor, but I think they and companies like them are contributing to the perception that employees should be treated as disposable commodities.
There has to be a better safety net for these people than what unemployment insurance provides in the US these days. If people could be assured of at least their full salary being replaced for a reasonable amount of time, they might be willing to take more risks, look for a job that's a good fit rather than the first thing that comes along, etc. I know we're supposed to be living in a wondrous time of automation, innovation, etc. but the fact is that most people need something to do. They need full time employment, a sense of purpose, the ability to put down roots, etc. Almost no one can be a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur no matter how much the small business owners/cheerleaders want people to believe that. Very few people want to be nomadic and move from place to place chasing work every year or so.
I know one theory I have on how to solve this is not popular at all, but what about forcing businesses to pre-fund longer-term employee severance packages at a rate proportional to the employee's salary? Employees would be free to leave at will and their pre-funding would go back into a general fund. But, just dumping a worker because you feel like it, offshore their job, etc. would require a payment out of the fund that would actually carry the employee until they could find new work. It's good for the businesses too, because it forces them to really think hard about who they hire rather than just take the first guy who comes in the door. I know every business owner would scream socialism, evil regulations, etc. over this one. But the reality is that every single business, small or large, has huge advantages over regular workers. Business owners can just funnel all their personal expenses through their companies, the really large ones can take advantage of loopholes to pay zero taxes, etc. Having a common sense plan like this makes sense -- it's just a bigger payment into the unemployment insurance fund to ensure people aren't reduced to what amounts to minimum wage when you get thrown out of a job and still have bills to pay.
I worked for Amazon as a seasonal associate (Score:1)
In the fall of 2011 I needed something to do... I'm over-qualified for just about any regular JOB, but Amazon hires anyone who passes their screening. The gig lasted about 2 months (December/January). I was so relieved when they finally let me go. Humanity's Second-Best Hope [taxiwars.org] was about my time at Amazon (originally posted at Kuro5hin.org [RIP]).
I started driving a taxi a month later. It was a lot of fun, until Wall Street started subsidizing the upstarts...
Radio ad today claims they are hiring (Score:2)
And come on down.
They are going to be hiring some 300 people from this area (Washington state, city).
Temp or not this couldn't hurt many. Me? I'll pass.