[tyingq]

Rescinding an offer that's tied to a visa is just extra shitty, sorry this happened to you. Surely they know the consequences that you'll suffer. I wonder if the Amazon leadership chain that collectively decided to do this has any remorse.

Edit: Feels like something that governments should tie to individual company's ability to use the visa program. Rescind a visa-tied offer (for no-fault-of-applicant reason), and we yank your right to use the program.

[np-]

No, you are purely a number to them, it is very unlikely anyone cares or even is mildly interested in the full scope of the damage they’re causing. I have worked with companies like this, if you try to push them from the “guilt” angle they usually double down about how this is collectively the best solution (carefully omitting that what they mean is it’s the best solution for their personal ambitions and wallets)

[Kim_Bruning]

I would agree. I think the political reason this doesn't happen is because the victims aren't voters in the relevant area. Not even necessarily in the most cynical sense. How many people will have researched upfront who the relevant representatives are at their destination, let alone how to reach them?

I keep thinking one might want to have some sort of international organization where people in each country reciprocally lobby for better international workers rights for each other's citizens.

Maybe something like this already exists, but I haven't heard of anything like it?

[vikingerik]

On that last, beware the law of unintended consequence: that penalty would serve as a deterrent against making offers to visa users in the first place, if the company had no route out of it once offered.

It's the same idea as European worker protection employment laws compared to the US: they sound good, but the effect is that companies have to be slower to hire when firing is that much harder.

[mafuy]

> that penalty would serve as a deterrent against making offers to visa users

It would put the additional costs they create to be visible. This is as it should be, since visa users do cost more than hiring domestic.

However, it would not be much more. And if amazon deems it to be too expensive, then other companies which are more efficient can take up the spare visa users, just as the free market intends.

[chonkerz]

They should pay a penalty if they do this to someone domestically too. It's shitty.

[mafuy]

Shitty, yes. But it goes (slightly) beyond the area that I would deem to be indubitable.

[temporary22]

> but the effect is that companies have to be slower to hire when firing is that much harder.

Which is good. Nobody wants a work environment that changes every five minutes.

[parasense]

> the effect is that companies have to be slower to hire when firing is that much harder.

Sounds like EU labor policy causes a set of effects resulting in a kind of equilibrium, perhaps a Nash Equilibrium.

[mmanciop]

Remorse? Are you kidding? Some likely get a long-forgotten tingle out of it ;-)

[iLoveOncall]

So what's the better option? Laying off someone already employed instead?

It's not extra shitty, it's just as shitty as any other situation. It sucks for the person involved but the alternatives are not better.

At least someone that got their offer rescinded can sue for promissory estoppel.

[tyingq]

A company uses the visa program typically under the reasoning "we need this kind of worker so bad that we can't hire locally". So, if they are rescinding an offer, it's hard to support the original premise.

Also, "extra shitty" seems obvious to me. You're not only not hired, you likely have to leave the country. The company rescinding the offer knows this.

[iLoveOncall]

Hum, no, the reasoning is "there are no suitable workers locally", which is very similar but still different.

The fact that you rescinded an offer doesn't mean that suddenly local people are suitable, it just means this position isn't needed anymore.

[tyingq]

That's how it's written on paper, yes. The actual experience varies. "This route is cheaper" is common.

[prng2021]

The better option would have been to hire him. How is that not obvious?

Amazon as a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company can absorb the expense of employing him. I’m the worst case, they can lay off an existing low performing employee to compensate.

[parasense]

> Amazon as a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company can absorb the expense of employing him.

That is a very charitable opinion. The idea that because a company is large enough, or profitable enough, that it therefore should be compelled to hire indefinitely, or never shrink in size.

Let me ask, is it your opinion that economies only ever grow forward, that companies in the economy never shrink?

[YuryVladkov]

I was reading an interview of Warren Buffet saying that integrity is an important value for a business to succeed. Why are we talking about hiring indefinitely? They made a contract and based on that I made some commitments. How does this case look like hiring forever?

[mijamo]

You can downsize without firing anyone.

[prometheon1]

I don’t think that not rescinding an already made offer and “hiring indefinitely” are the same thing

[iLoveOncall]

There are already tens of thousands of people that are being laid off in Amazon. The low-performers will go anyway, but clearly it seems like it's not enough.

Training new employees is not a worthwhile investment if you are in the situation where you're already firing thousands.

[prng2021]

As I said, in the worst case, they can always find someone else to lay off.

There are countless other ways they can compensate for the cost of hiring him. A couple quick examples are delaying promoting and giving a raise to some people, or removing another open position they were looking to hire.

The result of not just sucking it it up and doing the right thing here, which was to actually hire him as promised, is 1) a terrible public image affecting future ability to hire talent when people are weighing Amazon vs CompanyX, and 2) increased chance that future new hires will read about this kind of bs behavior and not think twice about accepting an Amazon job offer and then rescinding their promise to start employment, at the very last moment.

[benj111]

If they need to lay off people, why are they advertising for, recruiting and offering jobs to people?

If they can't do simple things like not hiring people they don't need, maybe they should employ this guy as HR manager.

[iLoveOncall]

Because conditions 6-9 months ago when the job posting was put online weren't the same as conditions today?

I moved countries within Amazon and it took 3 months, for an external applicant the bare minimum will be 4-6 months.

[phpisthebest]

Markets and business economics do not change that fast where there should be a need to rescind offers in a properly managed company. Amazon clearly has major management problems.

[inezk]

It's Amazon, it's not a startup.

[powerbroker]

That is something that works under U.S. law. I wonder if such a remedy is available if tried in a Canadian court. Any Canadian attorneys out there.

[iLoveOncall]

There are equivalent laws in most developed countries.

[retinaros]

well at least the person employed has amazon on the resume and years of experience at amazon. this guy might have no name companies before amazon and abandoned a confortable position for the opportunity at amazon. id rather have 3 year at amazon on my resume while looking for a new job in this challenging time. especially in europe

[woodruffw]

Perhaps it's not a zero-sum game, and nobody needs to be immediately laid off.

[iLoveOncall]

Thousands have already been in November and more are planned in Q1. Rescinding offers is honestly awful but it's by far the best solution if they want to reduce head count.