Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2018, 08:11 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,559,990 times
Reputation: 8094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
Worker productivity gains are in large part due to CAPEX in technology innovations - it has nothing to do with how much humans work. People actually put far less effort and energy into most jobs currently than they have ever before, thanks to technology and automation.

So workers could in theory be paid LESS because they DO less.

For example, grocery store checker. This job is a piece of cake compared to what USED to be required to perform it (ie used to have to manually key in item...then barcodes and checkout scanners came along).

So why should a grocery checker make anywhere close to what they USED to make when they did more work?

If you look at who was actually responsible for the efficiency gains in grocery checkout lanes, its not any worker. Its a few players...and none of them are even in the store.

Its the company management, the shareholders, and the creators/manufacturers of the barcode system, and the checkout scanner who together created the product, built the product, sold the product, bought the product...its not the checker.

So why should any part of the savings from the gains in efficiency go to the worker who had no part in it, and in fact wound up with an easier less stressful job than they one they had?
Great post.

Unfortunately it’s not about right or wrong. It’s about how to force you people to cough up more money or die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,821,115 times
Reputation: 35584
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Drinking half a gallons of water a day is good, why not 50?
Gosh. that was hard.

Actually, it's quite easy to come up with a poor analogy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 06:23 PM
 
26,488 posts, read 15,066,580 times
Reputation: 14637
Default Amazon cutting workers pay not raising it

Amazon got lots of fanfare for raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour.

However, Amazon is now cutting productivity bonuses that usually double during the holidays, cutting attendance bonuses, and cutting the free stock shares that they pass out.

Many workers in high cost of living areas already made hourly rates close to 15 an hour. Meaning many will gain little from the hourly pay increase and lose a lot in bonuses.

The net effect is that many of their line workers will actually get a pay cut.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/03/de...ill-make-less/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 06:32 PM
 
9,329 posts, read 4,139,816 times
Reputation: 8224
Interesting. Still, in the long run, a higher base pay is probably better, since it's more reliable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Fiorina "Fury" 161
3,527 posts, read 3,730,992 times
Reputation: 6601
They finally figured out people who complain about hourly pay were too stupid to realize the other pay incentives are just as beneficial, if not more, albiet more delayed in gratification. But hey, "as long as dems der paychecks is bigger."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 06:34 PM
 
30,143 posts, read 11,778,294 times
Reputation: 18666
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Amazon got lots of fanfare for raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour.

However, Amazon is now cutting productivity bonuses that usually double during the holidays, cutting attendance bonuses, and cutting the free stock shares that they pass out.

Many workers in high cost of living areas already made hourly rates close to 15 an hour. Meaning many will gain little from the hourly pay increase and lose a lot in bonuses.

The net effect is that many of their line workers will actually get a pay cut.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/03/de...ill-make-less/

The economy is good. Lots of job openings. Amazon is not the only employer in the country. As long as they are following the labor laws they can do whatever they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 08:15 PM
 
26,488 posts, read 15,066,580 times
Reputation: 14637
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Your link is from the UK.

If things were so bad, they would not be able to fill positions.

Check out Amazon’s Camper Force. This are people in their 60’s-80’s, RV nomads, who work seasonally. They typically walk 15 miles a day on concrete, in warehouses. While their younger counterparts are more likely to be no shows, arrive late, or arrive at work under the influence and/ or quit because they can’t hack it, the olds are reliable and grateful for the opportunity to work 10 hour shifts, 3-4 months/ year.
I think you are excusing Amazon in a way that you wouldn't excuse a Walmart.

Also, some of Amazon's locations are in severely economically depressed areas where they have lost massive jobs and population. There aren't many other alternatives unless they move.

You can sincerely read the hundreds of testimonies of how bad Amazon is to work for on the line and brush it off as no big deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,868 posts, read 26,498,769 times
Reputation: 25766
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/1...onus-warehouse

Quote:
Amazon garnered praise for raising the minimum wage for its hourly workers to $15 yesterday, but the widely-publicized move also came at the expense of monthly bonuses and stock options. The company explained its decision to shift to a new stock purchase program in the announcement blog post yesterday, citing that hourly employees preferred the “predictability and immediacy of cash to RSUs,” or restricted stock units, but the post doesn’t mention the loss of monthly incentives, which Bloomberg reported earlier today.

Several Amazon warehouse employees have criticized the move, stating they would actually be losing thousands in incentive pay. Currently, warehouse workers get two shares of Amazon stock when they’re hired ($1,952.76 per share as of writing), and an additional stock option each year. After the changes take effect, the RSU program will be phased out for stocks that vest in 2020 and 2021, and it will be replaced with a direct stock purchase plan by the end of next year.

An Amazon warehouse worker told The Verge via email that the news was devastating to fulfillment employees, many of whom depend on their RSU and VCP (variable compensation pay, a performance-based monthly bonus program) incentives on top of their hourly wages. VCP incentives, which are dependent on good attendance and hitting productivity targets, could get Amazon workers an 8 percent monthly bonus, and a 16 percent bonus during the peak November and December seasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Bellevue WA
1,487 posts, read 781,818 times
Reputation: 1786
Should? How is that anybody but the shareholders’ business is beyond me.

Some people always have the tendency to get into other people’s business and enslave them.

Don’t like the pay? Don’t work for them.
Rate this post positively

Where did Craigiri say "Should" i can't locate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 08:50 PM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,854,747 times
Reputation: 25341
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Great post.

Unfortunately it’s not about right or wrong. It’s about how to force you people to cough up more money or die.
Shareholders have NOthING to do with how a company might streamline its work production and improve costs or working conditions...
Why would anyone think someone who owns shares in a company really has any effect at all on what happens?
Shareholders have tried to create changes in companies--like getting Exxon to acknowledge climate change and operate differently in areas like South America with how it treats indigenous peoples--
And they get laughed out of the share-holders' meeting...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top