Amazon Is Cutting Hundreds of Corporate Jobs (techcrunch.com) 61
According to a Seattle Times report, Amazon is laying off hundreds of corporate workers in its Seattle headquarters and elsewhere. "The corporate cuts come after an eight-year hiring spree, taking the company from 5,000 in 2010 to 40,000 in its Seattle headquarters and gobbling up several retail businesses throughout the country," reports TechCrunch. From the report: However, according to the report, Amazon's rising employee numbers over the last two years left some departments over budget and with too many staff on hand. In the last few months, the company implemented hiring freezes to stem the flow of new workers, cutting the number of open positions in half from the 3,500 listed last Summer. The layoffs will mainly focus on Amazon's Seattle office, but there have already been cuts in some of its retail subsidiaries in other parts of the country, such as the Las Vegas-based online footwear retailer Zappos, which had to lay off 30 people recently. And the company behind Diapers.com, Quidsi, had to cut more than 250 jobs a year ago. The moves suggest Amazon may be trying to rein in spending and consolidate some of its retail businesses.
Robots (Score:1)
This is very confusing to me... (Score:2)
So are they cutting a bunch of middle managers and these 50k jobs are going to be all tech centric?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not sure what is confusing for you here. You can be cutting unnecessary staff while still growing or having growth plans. You don't keep unnecessary positions just because you are growing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck unions, with their lazy "40-hour work weeks", Communist "workers rights", degenerate "vacation time", and their deplorable "health and safety standards". Fuck them! I mean, who doesn't want to go back to 19th century factory working conditions?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. "Hundreds" are not in most common usage the equivalent number to 50,000. Once "hundreds" become "thousands" or "tens of thousands" usually it is reported as such instead of 500 "hundreds".
Or we can wait for 499 more articles just like this one, then they will be equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did 5 weeks there as a contractor and begged the recruiter out.
Not my culture. F* that place.
That said I still buy almost exclusively from amazon.com
Re: (Score:1)
they're just trimming the fat so they can bring on new recent grads and h1b holders, both of which work for peanuts compared to someone who's been with the company awhile.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought all these corporate tax cuts would lead to all sorts of new job hiring (positions) and raises.
Do you mean to tell me that cutting corporate tax rates doesn't directly or even proportionally translate to money invested into workers? I don't believe it.
Probably long overdue (Score:3, Insightful)
Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.
Re:Probably long overdue (Score:5, Interesting)
Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.
If you're not properly managing under-performers to turn them into performers, you're doing it wrong.
Some under-performers cannot be fixed. If you're not weeding those out in the first 90 days of employment, you're doing it wrong.
Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition, because you can't fucking stop doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Probably long overdue (Score:1)
Yes, and they're firing the people who are doing it wrong.
In this case, the issue is simply a matter of middle management bloat. They can't "do it right" because there's nothing for them to actually do.
Re: (Score:1)
Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition,
Except in Amazon's case, they are extinguishing most of their competition. So there's nowhere for them to go.
Re: (Score:2)
You presume that they were at the top of their game at Amazon, whose business model surrounds finding high-margin industries, and sucking away the distribution to attempt to use supply chain and logistics and increased selection to justify margins. Take any of those pieces away, and Amazon leaves that industry segment alone.
Amazon is NOT starting at the top, and so there IS some place for them to go. Amazon is far more of a McJob than they'll admit.
Mass firings can serve a 2nd purpose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh the poor. "... those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rich Hillaryists sure do have contempt for ordinary working people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
well as someone who worked there they litterly hire anyone with a degree.
Just curious - what was your degree in? Please tell me it was literature.
This is why I skipped (Score:1)
I have been offered a number of opportunities to interview for Amazon, but have not interviewed with them at all, for concerns of this nature and other reasons.
There's no reason for me to put my head on the chopping block for such a large, impersonal business where I've heard one too many stories about how they drive their engineers to work long hours at a level of high performance that seems unsustainable long-term. I'll keep my quality-focused job instead and not worry about burnout and layoffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could just be (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Laying off Hundreds? Sooooooo? (Score:2)
If you have ~40,000 employees, laying off hundreds seems like the normal hiring process. People come and go. Also, if you want to get rid of business groups who under perform or are not the focus of the business anymore, you remove those jobs. Then hire in other areas. Common practice in large organizations. Not sure how this really is a story. I'm not even touching on the seasonal aspect of their business.
On the other hand, if they were laying off say 10% of peeps in Seattle, then you have a story.
H1B Reduction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate HQ (Score:2)
Um isn't Amazon looking to move it's HQ soon? Makes sense to go through a few boxes to get rid of what you don't need before you drag it to the new pad...
I'd guess this is all part of the same corporate process.