"Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows. Its main objective is improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes to management. Scientific management is sometimes known as Taylorism after its pioneer, Frederick Winslow Taylor."[1]
"Dangelo Padilla, who worked as an Amazon case manager at a back office in Costa Rica, said he had witnessed numerous people being fired for no reason."
"'I saw those situations every day,' he said."
"Ms. Nantel, the spokeswoman, said the company had quickly approved personal leaves during the pandemic, hiring 500 people to help process the increased volume, and worked hard to contact employees before they were fired to see if they wanted to keep their jobs."[1]
This on its own may be a good reason to re-think at-will employment and/or improve protections for employees who can be fired for nothing more than a busted algorithm.
Who do you think will make better decisions about hiring and firing - business owners and managers whose success and livelihood depends on good personnel - or people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are simply buying votes?
That's the problem - it doesn't sound like business owners are in control of or even sharing a thought towards who is getting fired. Amazon's deployed a defective algorithm to do away with humans in the loop, and innocent workers are bearing the brunt of that bad decision.
Combined with reports last month of Amazon managers adopting a "hire to fire" method[1] to keep their core team together in light of a company policy that mandates a set percentage of the lowest performers that must be let go every year, it's pretty clear that the company is being extremely nonchalant about disrupting the livelihoods of the workers that it brings aboard.
As a small business owner in the process of growing my own company's ranks this year, I'd prefer to keep at-will employment for my own selfish reasons, but given the scale that Amazon's working at, I do worry that Bezos' Taylorism is going to create a sufficient constituency of (rightfully) angry workers who lost a perfectly good job through no fault of their own.
I reject the premise of the question. Business owners of a small business and managers of a large public company have completely different goals and methods.
You are correct on goals and methods but I'm not sure we are on the same page. My premise is that governments should not be involved in personnel decisions. They have already pushed the limits by meddling where protected classes are involved. I've experienced this first-hand. You are, or were, an entrepreneur. Do you want congress critters making personnel decisions for you? My response to Chris was was intended to convey my opinion that the protections he implied would move the government one step closer to running our businesses.
I have also been in the position of catching flak for hiring employees away from local businesses and government agencies because our corporate pay scale was higher than the prevailing rates. What do you do? You can't tell applicants - especially minority applicants: Sorry, you work for the county. We can't hire you.
No. Was that included in your article? Does Amazon have a turnover goal that managers are expected to meet or do they simply have a policy of weeding out unsatisfactory employees in a timely manner? Is Amazon any different than UPS in that regard? They both have an impact on the labor market. I can't believe that Amazon deliberately gets short-term productivity by hiring at inflated rates and then refills positions left vacant by rebellious employees who quit or get fired. Hiring and firing is expensive. I don't see that as being a money maker.
Meh. Amazon is the new Walmart to hate. I bet Walmart loves it.
I live near Seattle and my daughter's company has part of the Amazon account. They hire drivers and packers and some office workers. Amazon has a lot of staffing companies. The lowest of the low Amazon worker gets $15 an hour but that is the least of them. Most unskilled get much more and many over $20 plus insurance and other bennies.
Everything old is new again:
"Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows. Its main objective is improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes to management. Scientific management is sometimes known as Taylorism after its pioneer, Frederick Winslow Taylor."[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
From the NYT article:
"Dangelo Padilla, who worked as an Amazon case manager at a back office in Costa Rica, said he had witnessed numerous people being fired for no reason."
"'I saw those situations every day,' he said."
"Ms. Nantel, the spokeswoman, said the company had quickly approved personal leaves during the pandemic, hiring 500 people to help process the increased volume, and worked hard to contact employees before they were fired to see if they wanted to keep their jobs."[1]
This on its own may be a good reason to re-think at-will employment and/or improve protections for employees who can be fired for nothing more than a busted algorithm.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/politics/amazon-warehouse-workers.html
Who do you think will make better decisions about hiring and firing - business owners and managers whose success and livelihood depends on good personnel - or people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are simply buying votes?
That's the problem - it doesn't sound like business owners are in control of or even sharing a thought towards who is getting fired. Amazon's deployed a defective algorithm to do away with humans in the loop, and innocent workers are bearing the brunt of that bad decision.
Combined with reports last month of Amazon managers adopting a "hire to fire" method[1] to keep their core team together in light of a company policy that mandates a set percentage of the lowest performers that must be let go every year, it's pretty clear that the company is being extremely nonchalant about disrupting the livelihoods of the workers that it brings aboard.
As a small business owner in the process of growing my own company's ranks this year, I'd prefer to keep at-will employment for my own selfish reasons, but given the scale that Amazon's working at, I do worry that Bezos' Taylorism is going to create a sufficient constituency of (rightfully) angry workers who lost a perfectly good job through no fault of their own.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/top-stories-amazon-hire-to-fire-james-charles-lawsuit-wells-fargo-exodus-2021-5
Here's a better description of "hire to fire":
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html
Dead on
I reject the premise of the question. Business owners of a small business and managers of a large public company have completely different goals and methods.
You are correct on goals and methods but I'm not sure we are on the same page. My premise is that governments should not be involved in personnel decisions. They have already pushed the limits by meddling where protected classes are involved. I've experienced this first-hand. You are, or were, an entrepreneur. Do you want congress critters making personnel decisions for you? My response to Chris was was intended to convey my opinion that the protections he implied would move the government one step closer to running our businesses.
I have also been in the position of catching flak for hiring employees away from local businesses and government agencies because our corporate pay scale was higher than the prevailing rates. What do you do? You can't tell applicants - especially minority applicants: Sorry, you work for the county. We can't hire you.
Did you knowingly hire thousands of them only to fire them within 3 months when you hire their replacements?
No. Was that included in your article? Does Amazon have a turnover goal that managers are expected to meet or do they simply have a policy of weeding out unsatisfactory employees in a timely manner? Is Amazon any different than UPS in that regard? They both have an impact on the labor market. I can't believe that Amazon deliberately gets short-term productivity by hiring at inflated rates and then refills positions left vacant by rebellious employees who quit or get fired. Hiring and firing is expensive. I don't see that as being a money maker.
Meh. Amazon is the new Walmart to hate. I bet Walmart loves it.
I live near Seattle and my daughter's company has part of the Amazon account. They hire drivers and packers and some office workers. Amazon has a lot of staffing companies. The lowest of the low Amazon worker gets $15 an hour but that is the least of them. Most unskilled get much more and many over $20 plus insurance and other bennies.