[ruler88]

I have no doubt that a certain portion of workers benefitted from the new policy while some portion of workers did not. It is too early for anyone to judge the policy without the numbers being published from Amazon. My issue with the article is that it presents a single story of a person who was hurt by the policy and extrapolate that to be the overall tone at Amazon. This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics.

[krapp]

Obviously, Amazon made this decision as a business and not a charity, so it stands to reason that this benefits the business more than employees.

However... as a full time employee who has his two shares of AMZN, I honestly would rather have had the extra income over the last two years. Maybe I could have put a significant dent into my student loans, or could have actually afforded my own place. As it was, too much of the extra "income" provided by benefits required gambles that low income people really should be required to depend on to make ends meet. Productivity bonuses aren't guaranteed, overtime isn't guaranteed, remaining employed for two years isn't guaranteed.

I see it as the ceiling having come down a bit, but the floor also having come up. And let's be honest... the second it becomes feasible to fully automate picking, stowing and counting, those employees are getting fired on the spot. There is no long term career prospect for the vast majority of Amazon warehouse workers, and they should consider the value of stability of income in the face of an uncertain future.

[johnklos]

How about instead of "without the numbers being published from Amazon", we have "without the numbers being published"?

[zeroname]

> This article relies on sensational and emotional aspects of one story, rather than facts and statistics.

...just like every single campaign for minimum wage.

[lozenge]

Campaigns use what's effective, that doesn't mean you can't find facts and statistics if you actually go looking.