Abhorrent Amazon - Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Video leaks

[Trik'Stari]

26 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

The problem is that if a system like this were implemented it would basically destroy the freedoms of the employer. 

 

If someone’s job performance doesn’t keep up with their salary, why should I give them a bonus? 

 

As a self-employed individual I have very little sympathy for people who hold the entitled attitude that employers should be honoured that they are willing to work there. 

 

I have a personal policy that goes a little something like this: “I will never convince someone to work at Linus Media Group. Think you’re too good? Don’t like it? Get the fuck out.”

 

So the street definitely runs both ways here. 

You've answered your own question essentially. If an employee is underperforming, what would you do anyways? Considering what I know of you, I assume you wouldn't jump straight to "disciplinary action" or "termination" except in the most extreme circumstances (I remember you mentioning in a video years ago, and employee who was caught sleeping at work or something along those lines).

 

There's a lot of nuance here. Maybe an employee would need to be employed for a certain amount of time before qualifying for said bonus.

 

I agree that employees should not feel honored to work at a certain company, nor should the employer expect them to feel as such. But at the same time I would ask you if you can agree with the following.

 

"A boss with a shitty attitude towards his employees, will never be surprised at their performance.".

 

That is not directed at you in any way. I assume the exact opposite of you. (great attitude, one would feel challenged to keep up?)

 

I'm saying that the mentality that people like those in charge of Amazon, create the very thing they don't want with their actions and their attitude. I see it every day where I work. The company has a shitty attitude towards the workers, and the workers in turn feel unappreciated, and feel zero motivation to work any harder than they have to in order to avoid being fired.

 

Honestly never expected to have this kind of a debate with you lol

 

Edit: I don't think I'm better than the job I'm doing, I think I could do my bosses bosses boss's job, better. Because I have more technical knowledge of the needs of the customer and a deeper understanding of the capabilities of the employees. Wish I had the money to put his ass out of business.

[Donut417]

Just an FYI. Sam's Club/Walmart is the same way. Dont know why people cry about Amazon doing this, as I watched Anti Union videos when I worked at Sams Club. 

[LinusTech]

15 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

You've answered your own question essentially. If an employee is underperforming, what would you do anyways? Considering what I know of you, I assume you wouldn't jump straight to "disciplinary action" or "termination" except in the most extreme circumstances (I remember you mentioning in a video years ago, and employee who was caught sleeping at work or something along those lines).

 

I agree that employees should not feel honored to work at a certain company, nor should the employer expect them to feel as such. But at the same time I would ask you if you can agree with the following.

 

"A boss with a shitty attitude towards his employees, will never be surprised at their performance.".

 

That is not directed at you in any way. I assume the exact opposite of you. (great attitude, one would feel challenged to keep up?)

 

I'm saying that the mentality that people like those in charge of Amazon, create the very thing they don't want with their actions and their attitude. I see it every day where I work. The company has a shitty attitude towards the workers, and the workers in turn feel unappreciated, and feel zero motivation to work any harder than they have to in order to avoid being fired.

Then they should quit. 

 

Amazon wouldn’t be able to fulfil orders on time and their customers would leave them. 

 

They would have to change their business practices. 

 

That would be the “free market” approach.. which anyone but a complete idiot knows doesn’t work.. so regulation then.

 

The issue here is finding a sensible middle ground.. and the main problem with this seems to be the people themselves who keep voting in people who take away their entitlement programs and give the money to the wealthy.

 

So with that in mind, personally I don’t think the job of figuring out what to spend the “tax” or “bonus” money on can be the job of the average person.

 

Left to their own devices people will throw money at things like Kardashian jeans or shiny rocks that a clever corporation convinced them symbolize love.

 

They won’t invest in developing clean energy or curing cancer.. so.. centralized government then?

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Then they should quit. 

 

Amazon wouldn’t be able to fulfil orders on tine and their customers would leave them. 

 

They would have to change their business practices. 

 

That would be the “free market” approach.. which anyone but a complete idiot knows doesn’t work.. so regulation then.

 

The issue here is finding a sensible middle ground.. and the main problem with this seems to be the people themselves who keep voting in people who take away their entitlement programs and give the money to the wealthy.

 

So with that in mind, personally I don’t think the job of figuring out what to spend the “tax” or “bonus” money one can be the job of the average person.

 

Left to their own devices people will throw money at things like Kardashian jeans or shiny rocks that a clever corporation convinced them symbolize love.

 

They won’t invest in developing clean energy or curing cancer.. so.. centralized government then?

If you give the money directly back to the people instead of entitlement programs, and they then mis-spend that money, they have no one to blame but themselves. Which I feel might teach people a lesson. Don't spend money on stupid shit like Kardashian Jeans (love that example)

 

I felt like what I am suggesting is the middle ground. The company has to (is required by law) take a percentage of its profit margin, and re-invest it into its employees. Rather than giving it to the government, or simply keeping it. This keeps them happy (preventing unionization which is in some cases can be very, very bad. Prime example: What unions did to the British car industry or the Detroit car industry) and in my mind, motivates them to help the company do better, since the company doing better means they make more money.

 

And a single employee is lagging behind, I believe the others would be motivated to help that employee perform better, because that one employee would be dragging the rest down.

[LinusTech]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

If you give the money directly back to the people instead of entitlement programs, and they then mis-spend that money, they have no one to blame but themselves. Which I feel might teach people a lesson. Don't spend money on stupid shit like Kardashian Jeans (love that example)

 

I felt like what I am suggesting is the middle ground. The company has to take a percentage of its profit margin, and re-invest it into its employees. Rather than giving it to the government, or simply keeping it. This keeps them happy (preventing unionization which is in some cases can be very, very bad. Prime example: What unions did to the British car industry or the Detroit car industry) and in my mind, motivates them to help the company do better, since the company doing better means they make more money.

I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ here. 

 

I have yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me that people can learn. 

 

I’ve also yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me that they will look past their own needs at the bigger picture. Not everyone can work for what they have - like children, the elderly, and the sick.

 

So I see where you’re coming from, but unfortunately a meritocracy gets you exactly what you have - a lot of people who have shitty jobs for crappy pay and who think they deserve more because someone else has it. Guess they’ve never seen a bell curve. Not only does not everyone deserve average pay, HALF of people, by definition, don’t.

 

[Trik'Stari]

15 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

I guess that’s where we fundamentally differ here. 

 

I have yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me that people can learn. 

 

I’ve also yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me that they will look past their own needs at the bigger picture. Not everyone can work for what they have - like children, the elderly, and the sick.

 

So I see where you’re coming from, but unfortunately a meritocracy gets you exactly what you have - a lot of people who have shitty jobs for crappy pay and who think they deserve more because someone else has it. Guess they’ve never seen a bell curve. Not only does not everyone deserve average pay, HALF of people, by definition, don’t.

 

I can't disagree. I guess my position at the bottom half of that curve, I just see a lot of psychological issues from people at the top that lead to things being worse than they need to be (IMHO).

 

Just as a reminder, I did say that if my idea worked I would expect taxes to be lowered for the companies to offset the "damages". It's hard to take into account people/businesses like yourself when discussing regulations for major corporate entities.

 

Ultimately I'd support any economic reform that would lead to more companies like LMG. Personally I think enormous mega-corporations are as much of a mistake as global super powers. The larger an entity is, the harder it is to hold accountable. I'd expect that both from a moral and legal standpoint, you are far more accountable to your customers and your employees than say, Google? (edit: You have more to lose, and thus naturally are much more careful in your decision making process)

 

If we could measure the extent to which someone cares, I'd place very, VERY heavy odds on you caring more about your customers and employees than those corporations. Which is why I prefer small business over large business.

[EPENEX]

10 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Whether or not you like unions is your opinion, but what fucking company other than Amazon would literally interrogate and spy on those who like unions or unionized employers? That's 16 layers of fucked up.

Wal-Mart is the same way. Unions are generally bad because the employees are stupid, making stupid demands. I'm not against the right to create a Union, I just would never join one.

[LinusTech]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I can't disagree. I guess my position at the bottom half of that curve, I just see a lot of psychological issues from people at the top that lead to things being worse than they need to be (IMHO).

 

Just as a reminder, I did say that if my idea worked I would expect taxes to be lowered for the companies to offset the "damages". It's hard to take into account people/businesses like yourself when discussing regulations for major corporate entities.

 

Ultimately I'd support any economic reform that would lead to more companies like LMG. Personally I think enormous mega-corporations are as much of a mistake as global super powers. The larger an entity is, the harder it is to hold accountable. I'd expect that both from a moral and legal standpoint, you are far more accountable to your customers and your employees than say, Google?

 

If we could measure the extent to which someone cares, I'd place very, VERY heavy odds on you caring more about your customers and employees than those corporations. Which is why I prefer small business over large business.

Having worked for both a small business (my own) and a medium sized business (NCIX) I would say that generalizing in this way leads down the wrong path. 

 

At the end of the day the head of a small business or a big one is just a person with his or her own qualities - both positive and negative. 

 

I would imagine there there are very large companies where the leadership gives a lot of fucks about the average worker.. and I’ve certainly heard horror stories about working for small, family-run businesses.

 

Unfortunately nothing is ever black and white

 

But you’re correct about Linus Media Group. We give many fucks about our customers (on both ends - the viewers and the sponsors) and about our staff. I wake up every day grateful to the people who have helped me achieve the position I have in life.

 

But don’t imagine I don’t share some qualities with the “corporate fatcats”. I have the highest salary, I make decisions from time to time that are unpopular, and I could do a better job of supporting charitable causes (though I sleep pretty well knowing how much I pay for Canadian and BC government entitlement programs).

 

No one is perfect, which is why we need laws and regulations.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, LinusTech said:

Having worked for both a small business (my own) and a medium sized business (NCIX) I would say that generalizing in this way leads down the wrong path. 

 

At the end of the day the head of a small business or a big one is just a person with his or her own qualities - both positive and negative. 

 

I would imagine there there are very large companies where the leadership gives a lot of fucks about the average worker.. and I’ve certainly heard horror stories about working for small, family-run businesses.

 

Unfortunately nothing is ever black and white

 

But you’re correct about Linus Media Group. We give many fucks about our customers (on both ends - the viewers and the sponsors) and about our staff. I wake up every day grateful to the people who have helped me achieve the position I have in life.

 

But don’t imagine I don’t share some qualities with the “corporate fatcats”. I have the highest salary, I make decisions from time to time that are unpopular, and I could do a better job of supporting charitable causes (though I sleep pretty well knowing how much I pay for Canadian and BC government entitlement programs).

 

No one is perfect, which is why we need laws and regulations.

Ultimately, I just want to see more people care, and fewer people struggle. Most of my coworkers are barely making ends meat. I'm lucky in that I live rent free. Although that is soon going to end for a variety of reasons.

 

Also, full disclosure: I have had a really, REALLY bad day at work. I suspect we will be facing layoffs soon, which I would blame on bad business practices combined with large customer incompetence. Basically, a fool and his money are soon parted, and eventually that fool will resent the company that was more than happy to take his money without adequately warning him of the consequences of his decisions.

 

Good talk. I'm honestly surprised at your position. I'd have sworn you were "further left" than I was, at least on this topic in particular. I can't hold it against you though. I'd probably be of the same position if I had built what you have built.

 

BTW I owe my current career path to you. I'd have never gotten back into computers if it weren't for your videos and this community that helped me build my first PC (even if I did completely *bleep* that up)

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, LinusTech said:

I used to think I was left wing, but they’re bit whacko these days. 

 

If I had to apply a label, I guess I’m a hard centrist

welcome to the club where no one in politics will ever represent you right, well other than yourself.  

[Trik'Stari]

15 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

welcome to the club where no one in politics will ever represent you right, well other than yourself.  

I honestly cannot agree more.

[LinusTech]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Ultimately, I just want to see more people care, and fewer people struggle. Most of my coworkers are barely making ends meat. I'm lucky in that I live rent free. Although that is soon going to end for a variety of reasons.

 

Also, full disclosure: I have had a really, REALLY bad day at work. I suspect we will be facing layoffs soon, which I would blame on bad business practices combined with large customer incompetence. Basically, a fool and his money are soon parted, and eventually that fool will resent the company that was more than happy to take his money without adequately warning him of the consequences of his decisions.

 

Good talk. I'm honestly surprised at your position. I'd have sworn you were "further left" than I was, at least on this topic in particular. I can't hold it against you though. I'd probably be of the same position if I had built what you have built.

 

BTW I owe my current career path to you. I'd have never gotten back into computers if it weren't for your videos and this community that helped me build my first PC (even if I did completely *bleep* that up)

I keep politics out of our content for good reason: it’s bad business to get political. 

 

The unexpected side effect is that I’ve had my positions radically assumed on both sides of pretty much any “hot button” issue

 

edit: Im sorry to hear about the issues at work.. but I’m thrilled to hear you’ve made a career out of your passion for tech and that we played a role. That’s my most important job as a “PC Community Influener” or whatever the hell it is I am these days

[Phentos]

A good friend of mine works as a package handler at my local Amazon FC and he frequently alludes to the cutthroat work environment that seems to propagate through the whole place. He signed an NDA about certain aspects of the job so he's quite reticent about the specifics, but from his impressions and my own research I've come to the conclusion that it can be a very toxic place to work at. At least at the FCs that is...

 

So much so that I passed up a lucrative desktop support position there a few months ago in favor of the job I have now doing the same thing, albeit earning a bit less money and with much more limited advancement potential (local small business vs the second biggest tech corp on earth).

 

Because of the nigh-unlimited advancement potential I could have at Amazon I still have an open mind about working there, but not now. I'll wait until I refine my skillsets and see if I can jump into something related to AWS or the like.

[Trik'Stari]

45 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

I keep politics out of our content for good reason: it’s bad business to get political. 

 

The unexpected side effect is that I’ve had my positions radically assumed on both sides of pretty much any “hot button” issue

 

edit: Im sorry to hear about the issues at work.. but I’m thrilled to hear you’ve made a career out of your passion for tech and that we played a role. That’s my most important job as a “PC Community Influener” or whatever the hell it is I am these days

I pride myself on my integrity. Some with more experience with me might laugh at this statement.

 

I have very little self confidence despite this, for a variety or personal reasons. And despite my lack of job experience.

 

Still, I consider myself fairly capable in spotting integrity in others.

 

I would call you a Captain of Industry. I personally think you "get it" more than most people I've seen when it comes to providing a service, which you definitely do. Mainly because I think you prioritize long-term viability over immediate profits, which I see so little of. Most "business types" that I've observed and encountered only seem to care about short term profit, as opposed to long term profit and overall benefit to the customer and the company.

 

This has been fun. I love a good discussion where I am surprised and have my assumptions challenged. Too many people seem to undervalue the teaching/learning experience one can get from it.

[Taf the Ghost]

Unions in the USA have to be viewed in the context of the US Laws around unionization. To save a lot of white papers on the topic, American Unions will almost always end up killing the company they're formed within. It's a Structure & Incentive problem. The Japanese Car Manufacturers have some of the most powerful unions in the world, in Japan, that work well with the companies, yet, in the USA, they're just as virulently anti-union. Same situation with the German Car Manufacturers. 

 

It's a very specific problem to the USA and the laws around Unions, which is why companies that are quite far to the Left, politically, don't have Unions. Google, Facebook & Amazon all are reflexly anti-union. I wish that'd explain the problem, but, well, factions crop up from the words allow.

[aezakmi]

Amazon is kind of right at least imo

at least in my country syndicates or unions are often involved in mafia-like stuff that goes from vandalism or riots to crimes, extortion, scams, kidnapping and money laundering

 

they're against any kind of competition that might interfere with their "job", the latest example would be a series of attacks to guys who signed up for driving stuff like uber or cabify, these services have a fare that's WAY lower than the standard taxi fare so the syndicate started "hunting" for these drivers to steal their cars, kidnap them or their families or burn their cars or/and houses

guys from the bakers syndicate might open fire against stores that are trying to sell bread at a lower price, they don't give a flying fuck if there are customers inside or if they kill someone because they'll never get caught anyway

 

want to park your car on the street on any major city? pay. you don't want to pay? your car gets burned

 

same with minimarkets, buses, airplanes, banks, you name it

syndicates and puppet politicians have already destroyed every aspect of anything close to normal living

[ZacoAttaco]

14 hours ago, asus killer said:

don't all this big companies hate unions? i really don't think this is a "Amazon problem"

 

where can we see the video?

Jeff Bezos doesn't get to have a 162.7 billion USD net worth by being a nice guy. You have to step on a few toes in the process. Unfortunately, just look at Google integrating into China, business comes before morals every time.

[Tellos]

I was a teamster for couple of years the union hid from me when I needed help. I;ve also been paid more at non union jobs so I am fro experience not a union fan,

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I can't disagree. I guess my position at the bottom half of that curve, I just see a lot of psychological issues from people at the top that lead to things being worse than they need to be (IMHO).

 

Just as a reminder, I did say that if my idea worked I would expect taxes to be lowered for the companies to offset the "damages". It's hard to take into account people/businesses like yourself when discussing regulations for major corporate entities.

 

Ultimately I'd support any economic reform that would lead to more companies like LMG. Personally I think enormous mega-corporations are as much of a mistake as global super powers. The larger an entity is, the harder it is to hold accountable. I'd expect that both from a moral and legal standpoint, you are far more accountable to your customers and your employees than say, Google? (edit: You have more to lose, and thus naturally are much more careful in your decision making process)

 

If we could measure the extent to which someone cares, I'd place very, VERY heavy odds on you caring more about your customers and employees than those corporations. Which is why I prefer small business over large business.

Huge corporations usually have less people working for them compared to the company's profit/revenue. (Depends what type of company ofc).

 

You know what would help create more smaller and medium sized companies rather than huge ones?

Give benefits to the smaller ones and take stuff from the huge ones to compensate.

 

(If I remember right, medium sized companies was the best at workers compared to revenue/profits)

 

I am all for that.

[Jito463]

14 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

As much as I consider myself conservative leaning, I cannot help but admit that unions are a necessary evil.

I don't have an issue with the concept of unions, just their typical implementation.  Many times (such as the auto workers unions, which have been brought up previously in this thread), the unions became so power hungry that they nearly drive the companies into bankruptcy, such as with GM.  I also have an issue with jobs where it's mandatory to join a union.  I don't believe that should ever be a mandatory thing.  Ever.  School teachers are one such example, where you're not permitted to teach unless you're a union member.  I am vehemently opposed to any such compulsory systems.

13 hours ago, LinusTech said:

edit: The general conservative hatred of taxes - socialism, ewwwwww -  is quite baffling to me

Not sure if you're referring to Canadians or not, but I'll answer as an American.  For us, it's not so much a hatred of taxes - even the Constitution includes a clause for Congress to receive taxes to fund government - it's how much they take and the garbage they waste it on.  Out last pResident literally doubled our national debt from ~$10 Trillion to ~$20 Trillion in his 2 terms.  That's a lot of debt to accrue in only 8 years, and the burden is on us and future generations to pay it off; and still the worthless "representatives" in Congress don't take measures to actually cut spending.  Their idea of "cutting" is to reduce how much they increase it (so instead of 10% increase, they'll only do 5% increase ).

 

Hope that clears up some of your confusion about our aversion to taxes.  Of course, some of it also goes back to the founding of this country, wherein the very first - and most famous - protest, was the dumping of tea due to unjust taxation.  It's part of our culture.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Jito463
Typo

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Jeff Bezos doesn't get to have a 162.7 billion USD net worth by being a nice guy. You have to step on a few toes in the process. Unfortunately, just look at Google integrating into China, business comes before morals every time.

i don't even think it's evil, the man donates a lot for charity and all. It's a culture of businesses running, you have to spend as little as possible, be very competitive so no ones replaces your company at the top. People are just another item in the accounting you have to save money on, like screws or chairs.

[Mihle]

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I don't have an issue with the concept of unions, just their typical implementation.  Many times (such as the auto works unions, which have been brought up previously in this thread), the unions became so power hungry that they nearly drive the companies into bankruptcy, such as with GM.  I also have an issue with jobs where it's mandatory to join a union.  I don't believe that should ever be a mandatory thing.  Ever.  School teachers are one such example, where you're not permitted to teach unless you're a union member.  I am vehemently opposed to any such compulsory systems.

Not sure if you're referring to Canadians or not, but I'll answer as an American.  For us, it's not so much a hatred of taxes - even the Constitution includes a clause for Congress to receive taxes to fund government - it's how much they take and the garbage they waste it on.  Out last pResident literally doubled our national debt from ~$10 Trillion to ~$20 Trillion in his 2 terms.  That's a lot of debt to accrue in only 8 years, and the burden is on us and future generations to pay it off; and still the worthless "representatives" in Congress don't take measures to actually cut spending.  Their idea of "cutting" is to reduce how much they increase it (so instead of 10% increase, they'll only do 5% increase ).

 

Hope that clears up some of your confusion about our aversion to taxes.  Of course, some of it also goes back to the founding of this country, wherein the very first - and most famous - protest, was the dumping of tea due to unjust taxation.  It's part of our culture.

Current gov in US doesn't just cut expenses, they cut income too with lower taxes and stuff.

 

Wonder how the total numbers end up being after the period is over. (How the expenses cut compare to the income cut)

[Mihle]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i don't even think it's evil, the man donates a lot for charity and all. It's a culture of businesses running, you have to spend as little as possible, be very competitive so no ones replaces your company at the top. People are just another item in the accounting you have to save money on, like screws or chairs.

He have donated much less of his income than some other billionaires.

[asus killer]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

He have donated much less of his income than some other billionaires.

i actually have no idea how much he or the others donate, but that was not my point (the donation ranking), the fact is that he donates.  2 bilions is a lot, even if of course is small change to him.

[ZacoAttaco]

38 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i don't even think it's evil, the man donates a lot for charity and all. It's a culture of businesses running, you have to spend as little as possible, be very competitive so no ones replaces your company at the top. People are just another item in the accounting you have to save money on, like screws or chairs.

You are right, he's not 'evil' by any means. But businesses usually make money and keep money by saving money wherever possible, so trying to prevent workers from starting a union, outsourcing work and replacing other work with automation is usually the result. On one hand the business wants to save money and on the other hand the workers want to be treated well and 'fairly' compensated. All too often it seems the workers get bad end of the deal and it just seems like this is another example of it.

 

Like Linus said he and companies like Costco try to keep their employees happy, from my understanding, most of the 'workers' at Amazon are unhappy. That is a blanket statement but usually if staff are happy then they have no real need to start their own union.

 

To be fair, in Australia, we don't really have Amazon fully, they've sort of half entered the market so I don't know as much firsthand about the company as others.