Consequently, employers simply do not have the "luxury" to set up a system that treats employees as disposable. It's not profitable at all to do what you indicated is being done, as the cost of finding, hiring, and training new employees is considerable. That's why, so often, you see businesses doing the opposite of what you describe by holding on to poor performers far longer than they should - dealing with worker incompetence is sometimes preferable to starting over hoping for a different outcome.
It's pretty well documented. Here are a couple of articles that outline the conditions at Amazon, but I'm sure there are more.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/life-and-deat...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f...
You might want to also read up on how temp labor is treated, to see how other workers are treated disposably.
> Consequently, employers simply do not have the "luxury" to set up a system that treats employees as disposable.
Yet somehow, in many cases, they do so anyway. You might be an enlightened business owner that properly sees that as foolish, but that doesn't have any bearing on the behavior of other American businesses, especially ones where (unlike yours) the owner can't know all the employees.
"mainly all I needed to get hired was to confirm 20 or 30 times that I had not been to prison"
So it appears Amazon does struggle to get good help, employs very, very low-skilled works, and has systems set up that provide structure. Indeed, it's very controlling to the average information worker that comments on Hacker News, but just might work well within the confines of their warehouse.
You're moving the goalposts. Your initial post, which I was responding to, said that companies treating their unskilled workers as disposable "doesn't pass the smell test." Now, when confronted with evidence, you claim that same treatment is "by definition." That's not very consistent.
> The links you provided - which read like propaganda, btw
So sorry to impinge on your bubble. Too bad I couldn't burst it.
> So it appears Amazon does struggle to get good help
How did you get there from that quote? That's not the only explanation for wanting employees that haven't been to prison, let alone the most likely one.
> and has systems set up that provide structure. Indeed, it's very controlling to the average information worker that comments on Hacker News, but just might work well within the confines of their warehouse.
These workers are people, and they should not be treated like unthinking machines.
2. They read like propaganda because they set up dramatic emotional arguments about people and their families. Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife at 2am because she "can't sleep when he isn't there"? It's manipulation, and consequently your response would lead me to feel quite comfortable that it's not me in the bubble.
3. If the economics of a particular job don't justify a higher wage, then the standards for hiring are lowered. It's not a reach at all to arrive at my conclusion.
4. Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately.
Again, it's moving the goalposts to say these situations "don't pass the smell test," then turn around to say "but it's OK because they're temps."
> Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife
Perhaps not, but it's more engaging writing, and there's plenty of factual reporting there as well.
> Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately.
The thing is, the real situation is usually more complicated and often doesn't offer such easy choices for the actual workers. It's telling that, on the one hand, you excuse these work environments as being fit for non-information-workers, then turn around an expect these workers to have information-worker levels of economic power in job choice.
While it can be quite comforting to believe the market will sort this all out, I think that's naive and causes some people to blind themselves to the actual problems out there.
The difference, if I had to guess? You want "dependable, trustworthy employees who work diligently and productively." That's an excellent goal, and I realize that it's a hard thing to find. Employees who are known to have these traits make a significant premium over minimum wage, even at unskilled tasks.
Amazon... doesn't seek that. These are backend workers, so attitude and customer service aren't relevant. Their warehouse workers are run through metal detectors to prevent theft. They're forbidden from having phones on the job. They can't perform self-directed work; instead they're directed in every task in close detail by software. They can't schedule anything themselves; food and bathroom breaks are rigorously limited, and require checking out through metal detectors to access. Diligence is replaced by incredibly demanding standards for minimum performance.
In short, they've opted out of seeking workers with the desirable traits you mention. With decent wages in low-employment areas, people will suck up all of that, at least for a time.
You forgot to append the most important part to that statement, and instead chose to leave it implied: "at the wage I am willing to pay." Pay your employees more money and better labor will come. So say the laws of supply and demand.
"Difficult to find" is about scarcity, but it's also about the actual act of finding. Traits like 'diligent' and 'trustworthy' are hard to identify before hiring someone. You can't test for them in the short term, and everyone wants to signal that they have them. That's especially true in low-skilled sectors like retail, where you're unlikely to have common contacts or be able to see diligence in someone's work history.
From what I've seen, those traits are hard to find in a very literal sense - even given a candidate you don't know what you're getting. This is coordination failure; raising wages doesn't resolve information asymmetries.