Apparently if you actually try it, you get fired:
https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home/fired-for...
> Apparently if you actually try it, you get fired
Apparently, firing ensures that there is no further "abuse".
The short version is that Mao encouraged people to openly express non-communist political philosophies and then killed or imprisoned those who had done so.
Excerpt from the wikipedia article [1]:
> The first part of the phrase is often remembered as "let a hundred flowers bloom". It is used to refer to an orchestrated campaign to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime, and then subsequently imprison them. This view is supported by authors Clive James and Jung Chang, who posit that the campaign was, from the start, a ruse intended to expose rightists and counter-revolutionaries, and that Mao Zedong persecuted those whose views were different from the party's.
Many who expressed critical opinions ended up under investigation and in prison labour camps.
"Let a hundred schools of thought contend"
Ah, how history repeats itself.
That is to identify dissenters so that they can be eliminated before they create some damage in the news. Not to solve any of their problems.
Whistle blowing never works. Its a mechanism to identify dissenters and eliminate them.
Of course! What more efficient way could there be to identify and weed out potential troublemakers in the organization?
Well, of course you get fired. You're obviously a malcontent, and clearly not a team player. But, in fairness to Bezos, this is pretty much SOP at many companies.
It's another one of those inventions that heavily favor the employer at the expense of the employee.
edit: I am in Ontario and I know a guy in the medical feild that had a 1 year probabtion
Though I think they can withhold benefits for longer than that separately from the probation period, but that's kind of rare I think.
Really withholding benefits in Canada is pretty different than in the us, though, since here it means you don't buy glasses for three months and there it means you'd better not break your legs.
(IANAL)
It costs a lot in terms of productivity, time, and dollars to bring someone new into the company. As an employer I don't know if you've completely misrepresented yourself or not- especially as a developer. I've hopefully done my best to make a good hire and be forthcoming in helping you make your best decision as well, but just like in dating, we're not necessarily sure how this thing is going to go at first.
In the tech industry I've never come across an employer that withheld insurance during the first 90 days, and most I've come across have you accruing your vacation immediately as well. I've seen employers in other industries (like manufactring) withhold all benefits until the 90 day mark though.
All my discussions with new hires on the 90 day trial period go something like this: "We're going to meet more frequently than we normally would, I'm going to give you more frequent feedback than I normally would, and I'm going to review your work much more often than I normally would in order to make sure that you're not getting lost in how we do things and that I can help you out with anything as fast as possible."
If you're a smart employer/manager you're going to use that arbitrary trial period to aggressively make sure your new people succeed. If you suck, you look for a problem and cut bait.
Personally, I think it's pretty crappy as it means that the company has all the leverage if they make a bad hiring decision, the person is let go after already potentially leaving another job for this one.
But I still disagree. I don't own a company (yet), but I would like to have employees, who are strong enough, to tell the truth, even though it might hurt some feelings. And if they honestly can tell me, what they like or did not at their former place, it would be much easier for me and also for them, to decide, if they would fit in this (imaginary) company.
And if, later, my company would be bad in their perception, they may say so, in the next interview.
I just like solid facts, even though they are sometimes not nice.
It is frankly risky to say anything bad about a previous company, because even something minor like, "management micromanaged too much" could be interpreted by a cynical interviewer as "this person doesn't get anything done and whines when someone asks him what he's doing with his time." But even a good interviewer will take it as a bad sign if you spend five minutes enumerating everything you hate about your previous/current employer.
If the legitimate reason would be, that they micromanaged everything, because of lack of trust, even though I delivered results and that the general atmosphere were a mixture of hate and distrust, then I would very much say so in the next interview, if asked. And if they then won't take me, I would assume it is because the new place is similar and they just don't like people talk about it. So no place where I want to be anyway ...
An interviewer can't see anything about your history except what you tell them, and any decent interviewer will know not to take your word as gospel. So you need to look at anything you say through the eyes of a person who knows is making a guess at the accuracy of everything you say. It's totally possible that if you say your old employer has a culture of distrust and hate, you're telling the absolute truth. It's also possible though that you are a problematic employee and you're bitter because you were fired/pushed out for being unpleasant and incompetent. So you need to be careful how you present your story so that it's hard to interpret negatively.
I've seen employees who really didn't do anything useful. I've seen managers work with them for months trying to resolve issues. I've seen those same managers resort to micromanaging because at some point that's all you can do. And I've seen those problematic employees finally get pushed out and then rant on Facebook and in person about how terrible their manager and/or the company were, when I know for a fact that they were the bulk of the problem.
Imagine if you asked the interviewer how they felt about their current employer and they told you it's pretty good except that the guy you're replacing was terrible, that he was incompetent and constantly angry and despite constant oversight he never delivered anything of value. This should be a point of concern for you. Was the previous employee the entire problem? Is the position overworked? Did manager deal with it but berating the employee to just do more rather than working with the employee to fix the problems? And will the company badmouth you to others if/when you leave?
A bad employee stays a bad employee, even though he hides the truth by not bitching and a bad company stays bad, even though nobody dares to talk about it. But with honesty people find out those things more quickly ...
If you want to speak up at your current employer to resolve issues, I would generally encourage that. There's clear value in being honest with your employer and trying to work out issues (though there can also be risk if you have a really unhealthy relationship with management). Being "honest" with an interviewer about your current company doesn't solve anything. You won't fix problems with your current employer by telling a new company about them. You won't likely discover anything useful about the new company. And they won't likely learn anything useful about you, because it's impossible for them to tell if you're just bitter and spiteful or if you had legitimate problems caused by the company.
See also the other reply, but I seriously don't see why that would be bad for my (imaginary) company, unless I want to hide, that my company is indeed "bad"
> This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth" And no it is not. You don't tell everybody, but your close friends - because they are interested and might be able to help
And having a potential employee telling honestly you, what he did not like at his former place, is a very good context for useful information, to find out, if he fits.
Because if he didn't liked it for example, that in the last company they expected results ... than you know, that he probably won't fit in your place as well.
But if he tells you, that they focused much more on formalities, than on results, then you maybe say "welcome home", we also like more the latter ...
http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32...
> A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.
If a company expects me to lie in the future about my potential bad experience, it would not be a company I would work for. Sure, just "bitching" and whinery complaining ... no, nobody likes that and people who do that. But why should a company get my loyality, if they are indeed bad?
[1] FWIW, I've had some bad jobs, usually because they were startups where people didn't know what they were doing. Well meaning people in over their heads can be tough but fun and the furthest things from abusive. Amazon was organized to abuse employees as a consequence of protecting management egos.
> How then can others be warned about abusive
Nobody prevents you from doing everything else. But this is a job interview, and how you behave here shows how you will behave in the future. You think it's a good idea to show your new employer that you will shit-talk them next time?
This topic has been discussed here on HN repeatedly, what I said initially has always been the recommendation.
http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-w...
http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32...
> A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.
Over and out, it's getting ridiculous.
why not?