Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Is Forcing Its Warehouse Workers into Brutal 'Megacycle' Shifts

vice.com

97 pointsdsr12123 comments

Open articleView on HN

I actually left an early job because it didn't offer a 4x10.

4x10 is amazing. Your work days are your work days, but the extra day off is amazing. You can actually go do stuff.

My own view - everyone should switch to 4x10 or at least have it as an option.

Now I'm working crazy hours so all a dream anyways these days.

Note 4x10 shifts are not new in warehousing (or even in mfg).

Presumably this was an office job? It might be a little different with a warehouse job that has very productivity targets set from above.

Yes. No disagreement there.

However, I used to do some other work where I was on longer but thought less. In this other job I'd put headsets on and just listen to podcasts and music while working, and when I was done, I was DONE. Any problems were someone elses to deal with.

One problem I have with office work is that it can be hard to leave "at the office" when you are behind. People expect problems to be solved, and if you don't solve them they wait for you the next morning. This has really impacted me badly at times (trouble sleeping etc).

My dream scenario - 4x10 and then somehow have no risk of stuff hanging over me to get done the next week!

Is that better/worse with manual labor? In software dev, I tend to fluctuate how productive I can be for an extended period, so being useful (instead of just ass in seat) for 10 hours seems rough. Granted some days I go for 12 but that's unhealthy and mostly because I get into a groove I am not interested in breaking.

I’ve worked the following:

4x10 - desk job overnight

3x12 - desk job overnight

5x8 - manual job

4x10 - manual job

5x8 - desk job

4x10 beat 5x8, regardless of workload. I wish I could do it now.

Agreed, 4x10's are the best ever.

On one construction project the weather was much better than expected so we were allowed to start a new phase two months early, but the project manager only allowed us 40 hours/wk, so I put my crew on 4x10 and it was the best few months, the guys loved it.

I used to work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week throughout my summers in college landscaping. Honestly wasn’t as bad as you’d think.

There was a shared camaraderie that you don’t find in white collar jobs that honestly made it pretty fun. Obviously not sustainable for someone with actual responsibilities but with that said I’d be far more miserable if I tried to pull that off in the office.

Yes - I once worked a summer job like that - one downside - talk about work hard party hard - you are with a group that can go just crazy on days off.

Working at a station, you can build up camaraderie. Working as a picker, moving around a warehouse on your feet at a fast clip, not so much.

You have a lower risk of physical injury in a desk job. Compare finger fudging your code to bumping warehouse shelves with a lift and causing a bunch of it to fall down.

4x10 is almost as bad as 5x8. 4x8 would be a real improvement.

Do I hear 3x6? How about 2x4 or 1x2?

> 4x8 would be a real improvement.

3x7 is where its at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES-qu2MqDYk

For a few glorious weeks in a past job I managed to work 2x16 1x8, yeah those days really sucked but you get a 4 day vacation every single week.i don't think any employer would want to offer such a schedule but I would probably be willing to take a paycut to get it back.

I'd be reluctant to have an employee work regular 16 hour days, much less two in a row. It's not impossible that that 16th hour would be productive, but I'd put the burden of proof on them. Especially if we were talking about any kind of creative work, including programming.

I'd rather have an employee work 2x12+1x8. I'd rather they give me 32 productive hours than 32 productive ones + 8 dubious ones.

I'm aware that we frequently make doctors and nurses work those kinds of shifts. And people die because of it. I would much rather we reoriented the system so that we didn't have to require that of them.

Sure, a 4x10 would be workable if the hours fit roughly into a traditional household schedule.

But 4x 1:20a-11:50a shifts per week would make it impossible to get your kids ready for school. And you'd be sleeping when it's time for dinner, or homework. Not to mention having time for a relationship with your spouse. Etc, etc.

The shift they outline in the article sounds miserable.

I've come to realize that if Amazon does something, it gets a ton of coverage.

4x10 shifts are not a new concept. This article makes it sound like what is pretty standard warehouse stuff is a new diabolical amazon plan to create the soul crushing "megacycle".

And working nights is not new. Anyone who has had to deal with 24x7 staffing (police, guard, nursing, flying etc etc) has had come up with approaches for night shift work (which is definitely terrible). Heads up, the non-megacycle night shift is also no fun for a lot of people.

That said, night shift work is miserable. No question there!

It’s suddenly telling employees “take the megacycle or be unemployed” that is soul crushing and diabolical.

> 4x10 shifts are not a new concept.

This sort of argument sounds like a red herring.

It's irrelevant if a company pioneers exploitative working conditions. What's relevant is that the company is imposing exploitative working conditions.

Isn't the whole point of society to ensure everyone has the right to a decent living? Why are we arguing about the virtues of forcing a Dickensian work cycle?

It’s better if we can just switch to a 4 day per week schedule. And still work 8 hours a day.

We don’t work on farms anymore. Software Automation, machines, and robots are everywhere now. But the capitalist bozos owns all of them. If they don’t want to pay higher wages, then make them pay for it by giving people more time off.

Agreed. I worked 4-10's before, and I looooved it. It was awesome. I had Wednesdays and weekends off.

This is a 4x10, 3rd shift schedule which is pretty normal for factory/warehouse jobs.

According to the article, employees previously not on the 3rd shift schedule were given a week to either agree to it or lose their jobs.

I don't know about you, but if my employer said I had to start working 1:20am to 11:50am within a week or lose my job, I'd be pretty angry too. Especially if I was a warehouse worker making a low salary that couldn't afford to find a new job easily.

I think you’re both right.

Some people love these schedules _if_ they don’t have other commitments (like a second job or child care, etc).

But making it mandatory and not making it elective, usually with some incentive (like 25% premium), is a bit predatory, or at least strong arming workers.

Sounds like that's kind of the point, you impose a policy only a certain type of worker can manage. The fact that this type of worker skews cheaper and more flexible (younger, single, no kids, lower cost of living, etc.) is probably not a coincidence.

When I was in my late teens I briefly worked in a warehouse. Work was okay. Pay for what it was was okay. I would _not_ have liked an abrupt no options policy like this imposed. At least make it palatable with a premium per shift as well as make it optional. Ramming it like this will only make people resent it. In a non surveillance world, I’m certain shrinkage would go up from either theft or from intentional mishandling/damage.

I don't think the point of the article was to normalize this schedule for 'factory workers'. To me, it's trying to say that this is an unhealthy way of life, and should not be implemented or tolerated in the workplace. Those people need better labor rights

From the article:

"Megacycle isn't not just bad for lifestyle reasons," a warehouse worker at a delivery station in Queens, New York and a member of the group Amazonians United NYC, told Motherboard. "It's bad for your body. I don't think everyone can handle this."

Back when I worked on a rotating 8 hour shift schedule in a NOC, we had a very thorough introduction on how to handle such a schedule, plus the health effects and tips on how to deal with the sleep cycle changes and so on.

There were regular medical checkups, we got hazard pay and the NOC had a workout room, massage chairs and everything.

Even with all of that, it beat the hell out of me, and I was doing glorified office work, no hard physical work at all. The average graveyard shift security guard or warehouse worker will presumably have none of those benefits, and will be so much worse off.

Thats the point of the comment, to show counter argument/view.

From September 2020 I had to work at an Amazon Warehouse in the UK. Nightshift.

Our shifts were 4 x 10.5 with two 30 mins breaks (which you only got paid for one!)

It was absolute shite and the toughest job I've ever done but, hey, I kept my roof over my head.

It's not nice but unfortunately when you don't have a job and prospects suck then they hold all the cards :(

Thats not an accident. Offshoring and immigration have killed the ability of labor to walk when given terrible choices like this.

> Offshoring and immigration

That is a straw man. Instead, corporates need to be forced to follow labor laws and respect human rights.

Increasing supply and reducing demand lowers the price. Thats why everyone who opposes immigration and offshoring is called a racist by corporate media.

Are you really coming on HN to try and blame immigrants for this?

Do you know the kind of contributions immigrants have had in this industry? Do you know how important open immigration has been to the rise of tech?

You guys can both be right (and I believe you are). Instead of attacking the GP, why not find middle ground?

Population growth could be changing the ability to easily get a low skilled job, but I personally believe offshoring is the biggest issue. There's simply less places to go.

Anecdotally it used to be super common to walk out of a job on Friday and find another by Monday. We need that back for the sake of worker's rights.

Because corporate interests are hell bent on stopping the people's will. Immigration gives employers a huge amount of power over workers and they will call normal people of all ethnicities racist in order to shut us up.

There are different kinds of labor from immigrant populations, one is mostly brawn, the other is the one that brings brains (and conversely may cause brain drain in the source country).

That said, China has been successful (there are others) and have achieved success without this input. So I don’t think it’s a necessary ingredient. That said, talent improves economies. Imported labor (as well as automation) drives down labor costs and affects unskilled and semi skilled workers the most.

> Imported labor (as well as automation) drives down labor costs and affects unskilled and semi skilled workers the most.

The impacts of automation are massive, I really recommend this Andrew Yang interview [0]. It's a real eye-opener.

I had not realized the scale of this mess before watching that episode. Interesting numbers and insights in that 17 minute segment.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtyv8NpbFQ

On the contrary, China's success comes from exactly this form of migrant exploitation, only internal to the country, and codified by law and culture into a two-caste system. Urban citizens get one set of opportunities, rural citizens get another. Legislation and opportunities overwhelmingly favor the urban citizens, and massive wealth transfer occurs between the two groups.

"Today, holders of rural hukou are ostracized and discriminated against by their fellow citizens, and have little choice but to take on the most dangerous, demanding, and low-paying jobs that those with urban hukou wouldn’t dare involve themselves in."

https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/chinas-caste-system-h...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou

What China isn’t doing is importing labor. When it does it makes sure to get the good end of the deal: a foreign concern wants the Chinese market? Ok, invest, give us access to IP, show our people how to make the enterprise work. Then they copy once they have leaned.

Not many expats get to become citizens of China despite the wealth and power they have contributed to China. Chine see it as them doing _you_ a favor, not the other way round.

If China were like the US you’d have people from all over Asia streaming in to cash in on a growing economy, instead they make sure this wealth is spread amongst themselves rather than putting the poor against others willing to work under poorer conditions.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with this take, but it's not an uncommon one and shouldn't be so downvoted. Bernie Sanders himself was singing a similar tune for most of the last 20 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/16/years-ber...

Popular bad ideas should be down-voted much more liberally than unpopular bad ideas.

Not a fan of downvoting in general. Bad ideas should be engaged and shown to be wrong, not shouted down by a mob.

Yea, when I ran a factory, our team preferred the 4x10 to 5x8 by a long shot.

I don't think that's the point being debated.

> But labor experts say the move to consolidate shifts in the warehouse industry is a tactic long used by employers to cut back on labor costs; hiring and scheduling fewer workers for longer shifts means paying for fewer benefits.

It's still 40 hours per person per week, and they run 24/7, so the only way this could reduce the number of benefits they have to pay for is if people on this schedule legitimately work better. While this could very well be the case (doctors and nurses for example typically work long shifts to reduce the risks associated with shift changes), I don't really see that being the case here where it doesn't really matter who is handling a package.

Further, the alternative scenario with lots of shorter shifts is a frequent predatory practice which allows employers to hire lots of part time individuals who do not qualify for benefits as well as giving them leverage over their employees by threatening to give them bad shifts and insufficient hours. It would be one thing if day shift workers were being asked to switch back and forth between day and night shifts with short notice, but that's not what's happening here. They are being offered a different position with steady hours to completely replace their current one. It would be silly to say that once you've accepted a day shift position you're ineligible from being offered a night shift position.

The article also frames this as exploiting existing workers who will get fired if they don't comply. But would it have been better for either the employees or amazon to just lay off everyone at the closing location and fill the new warehouses with all new hires, thus forcing those who would have been fine with working there into a difficult job market and depriving Amazon of skilled employees? One might make the argument that the current warehouse should not have been closed in the first place, but the factors which caused that decision and its merits are beyond the scope of this discussion. Regardless, giving everyone the voluntary option to remain employed in some capacity when closing a facility is, at least in my opinion, good practice which should not be vilified.

American culture is optimized for consumers. When you're a consumer, it's a great thing: customer service, return policies, payment methods, and the entire process of buying stuff is leaps and bounds above somewhere like the European Union.

When you're a worker, though, no one particularly cares about you. If a CEO can squeeze more profit out of his workforce by forcing them to work odd hours at the drop of a hat, he's celebrated for it.

We really need to shift this balance in the opposite direction.

Where are you getting this great customer service? I'd like to get in on some of that.

American customer service is leaps and bounds above anything you get in Europe. And I don't mean restaurant service. Europe as a whole is much more worker-first than customer-first.

I guess one might have to do some definition of terms here.

Is "customer service" where a customer gets to call/walk in and talk to a human who genuinely tries to help them solve their problems, or where a customer gets to call/walk in and treat someone like absolute shit in order to feel better about their problems?

'Cause "customer service" in the US is all too often used to mean the latter.

Service itself is pretty good compared to the EU. Consumer protection for goods however isn’t. Most products in the EU must come with a 2-year consumer warranty for example.

I sympathize with these workers. But if this can be seen an indictment of American culture, then all in all, maybe things aren't so bad. I worked a construction job for a summer in Chile where we had 12-hour shifts, 5 days a week, and every week we alternated between day (8am-8pm) and night (8pm-8am) shifts. And I had it easy, because I lived close to the site - a lot of the other workers had 1+ hour commutes each way.

Except America, the most dominate economic power in the history of the world, should be compared with other first-world developed countries, not Chile.

Having the American middle class move backwards is not exactly an accomplishment.

Yeah, I agree. Hopefully labor conditions can improve in the rest of the world as well.

> customer service, return policies, payment methods, and the entire process of buying stuff is leaps and bounds above somewhere like the European Union.

Nonsense. Buying stuff is just as easy here as in the US and my experience of return policies is that they are more generous here. Plus you have a much longer legally enforced warranties. What payment methods do you have in the US that we don't? Apart from cheques that is.

I'm constantly amazed how photographer colleagues in the USA order three lenses at the same time, evaluate them for copy variation and send two of them back. That's simply not possible in the UK for example.

> That's simply not possible in the UK for example.

I’m pretty sure it is? Online sales have a mandatory 14 day return policy, unless there’s some exception that prevents doing the specific thing you describe

I'm not a photographer so please excuse what is probably a naïve question: why would the lenses vary so much? Does it mean that photographers in the UK have only a one in three chance of getting a good lens each time they buy?

If the quality is so variable wouldn't this generate a bad reputation and thus reduce the sales of the brands that were poor and increase the sales of those that were better?

It's not optimized for consumers. It's optimized for the c-suite.

More towards both of them. Away from employees and problematic for merchants too from what I read.

> customer service

Until you want to cancel your service, I suppose?

From the article it sounds like the spirit behind this decision is to better serve the customer by hitting fast delivery times more. Is this really such an important thing for people? I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed.

I’d be interested to see the percentage of people complaining about slow delivery times vs the percentage of people who choose the “slow” shipping option on amazon.

> Is this really such an important thing for people? I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed.

I'd wager that most of Amazon's customers aren't aware that there's even a trolley problem to solve here.

Unfortunately customers don't have direct insight into what goes on behind the scenes to make the supply chains more efficient. They are shielded from the exploitation that exists and for the most part don't care after the initial shock of learning about such exploitation.

My simple understanding of why this happens is: they move on to other things, convenience trumps everything else, there's so much bad stuff happening in the world that we don't really have the cognitive bandwidth to think about everything, a lot of times we can't really affect change so that doesn't help matters either.

Eg: Cloth factories in India/China/Bangladesh; Electronic manufacturing factories such as Foxconn, etc.

What makes me laugh about this is that the Amazon customer experience is degrading in so many other, more important (to me) ways.

* Reviews are no longer trustworthy - subject to spam, altered product listings, and "discounts" (read bribes) paid to purchasers for positive reviews.

* Counterfeits are still rampant.

* Products regularly arrive damaged because they're not packaged well (usually tossed in an envelope).

* Amazon Prime cancellation process is becoming Kafkaesque.

Given the above, even if Amazon could do 1-hour delivery, I don't want to buy anything from them. Maybe they should focus more on some of these other problems instead of running their warehouse staff into the ground.

> Is this really such an important thing for people?

Yes. Ideally, I’d buy things and get them instantly but to my knowledge nobody has created a teleporter for general goods.

> I for one would rather wait an extra day if it meant there weren’t countless workers having their schedules destroyed.

Same, but it's at the discretion of the companies if they over that.

In Switzerland and the UK, there is the concept of "second class mail". Generally letters, but also (some) packages.

They come at a slower delivery guarantee (2-3 days instead of 1), but a ~20% discount.

But shopping online doesn't seem to be headed that way. Hell, the last time I bought something online, the cheapest (free), slowest, and only delivery option was "express". How messed up is that!

If there was ever a case for a humanoid robot it would be for packing packages in a warehouse. Same for agriculture harvesting: the back breaking nature of picking strawberries could be done by a robot with hands that have the same dexterity and nuance as a human.

Why is either of these a case for a humanoid robot, and not a specialized robot? Humanoid is a pretty awful design for any specific task; it's just that we've evolved and learn to be good at many tasks.

In the warehouse, you can adjust the design of the warehouse a relatively small amount to ensure that the robots can easily store and retrieve the packages—which come in a finite number of standard sizes and shapes, which in turn can be adjusted to ensure they pack well while still leaving room for the robot's grasping arm/claw/whatever to grab it. Depending on the specific designs, it may be worthwhile to combine the store-and-retrieve robot with the carry-cart. It's certainly not going to be more effective to have a humanoid robot that has to climb up ladders, rather than some sort of wheeled or tank-treaded robot that can anchor itself to the floor and extend a telescoping part of it up to get or leave the package.

For picking strawberries, even if we accept that you want "hands with the same dexterity and nuance as a human", why would those hands do best attached to a human body? Strawberry plants are pretty low to the ground, so why not put them on a little rolling bot that can go between the rows right at berry-level?

No; the best case for a humanoid robot is in human-facing positions. We like to interact with people, and a robot (note, not a human-level AI: a robot; human-level AI gets into serious ethical and philosophical quandaries real fast) doesn't care if you yell and scream at it. It'll just keep saying, "Yes, sir. Please give me your account number so I can proceed," for hours on end if need be.

Amazon is testing automation for picking, stowing and palletizing but none of them are humanoid. They still have human workers to do the jobs that require manual dexterity and "wetware AI," which both reduces the cost of the automation and reduces the value of human labor.

Win win for Amazon, lose for the employees.

I only mention humanoid mistakenly. It’s really I guess just the fine motor skills a human typically has and the smarts to make decisions seemingly ad-hoc and such.

Bestbuy, Target, Costco, and even Walmart are what I try to order from.

Waiting a few extra days is a small cost.

That would be illegal in Germany: your regular work hours must not exceed 8hrs per day.

What about the fact it's in the middle of the night? I'd much rather work longer hours during the day than start at 2 am.

8 hours of work already mean about 10 hours dedicated to work, including commute and preparation. It’s 18 hours if you include sleeping and you only have 6 hours left for “recreation,” which must also include personal errands, cooking and cleaning.

If you work 10/12 hour shifts you have no life. No wonder people await the weekend like it’s air.

Really? That is interesting, although I can't say it would be preferable for me. I've had plenty of times when 4x10 was a good fit for my lifestyle. I've got a co-worker who currently does 3x12 and really seems to like it.

The daily limit is actually 10 h, the 8 h-limit only applies to the average daily working hours measured across the last six months (or a different period of up to a year by agreement). Additionally, the average working hours are calculated based on the official six-day working week, which means that anything up to 48 h/week still remains fully within the legal limit.

3x12 on the other would be illegal on the other hand, unless it includes a significant amount of on-call duty or falls within one of the other permitted exceptions (which probably wouldn't apply to your co-worker, though).

my current job is 3*10. That won't be allowed in germany ?

Pretty sure it would be, just have to pay more for the extra hours. I'm not a German but it would be surprising if it's any different than the rest of the EU countries.

oh. My employer is giving me flexible schedule as a perk to me . Would be hard to convince them to pay extra on top of it. They might just ask me to work regular hours.

Brief summary: The regular limit is 8 h per day, but can be extended to 10 h per day as long as the daily average doesn't exceed 8 h/day as measured across a six-month period (the averaging period can be extended to up to a year by agreement).

The thing to note is that the average is based on the official working week, which to this day still runs six days, Monday to Saturday. So as long as you're working less than 48 h/week, it's actually impossible to exceed the 8 h/average day limit and 3x10 h is perfectly fine from that point of view.

Extra pay and/or extra days off are only mandated for night-time work, anything else is a matter for wage agreements or your individual contract.

It can be contractually set to exceed 8h if the average of 8h is maintained (I think over 4 months for daytime work and 1 month for night work).

Not sure about night work, but for daytime work the averaging period can be extended to up to one year by agreement (Edit: And the default averaging period is six months).

Also note that the averaging is based on the official working week, which to this day still runs from Monday to Saturday, i.e. six days, so anything up to 48 h/week remains fully within the 8 h/working day average.

US is reverting to early 20th century labor market norms, thanks to 'gig' economy and megacorps subverting unions. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/22/tech/amazon-nlrb-union-el... Only thing missing is union-busting Pinkerton thugs... https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...

As a gig worker I hope it stays, gig work has been a massive quality of life improvement for me. I think if the unions want to compete with us that's fine but the state shouldn't get to pick the winner.

I would love to hear more from you about this. It’s different from my intuition even though I too work for myself.

The state is there to look after its people (in theory). If gig work doesn't provide livable wages and drives down wages or job availability for people looking for livable wages then it shouldn't be allowed

Not everyone has the luxury of meaningfully different choices. For many, the main task is finding the least bad out of a lot of bad options.

> As a gig worker I hope it stays, gig work has been a massive quality of life improvement for me. I think if the unions want to compete with us that's fine but the state shouldn't get to pick the winner.

The fact that you registered a brand new account to post what might be interpreted as a blatant pro-exploitation message doesn't help your argument.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26039449 and don't do this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I really don't understand this either. I worked a wonderful 12 hour shift once, switching between days and nights every 2 weeks. Some weeks I had 5 days off, it was fantastic, and the frequency of day/night allowed for normal weekends.

Just cancelled my Prime membership a few weeks ago. It's funny how addicted our family was and also how free we feel now.

What makes your feel free about cancelling prime?

I was just really dependent on it, and crap like this made me feel guilty about being dependent on it. Now my conscience feels a lot better.

Vice.com with the clickbait divisive headlines.

Unionize.

Serious question: if these jobs are so awful, and they do sound awful, why are people taking them?

I can think of several possible answers, but I haven't the faintest clue which ones are (most) right.

...because most people don't get to be picky about their jobs. They take whatever they can get. Especially during a pandemic / economic crisis.

Even before the pandemic there were lines worth of people entering on these low quality jobs, this is not a consequence of the pandemic itself, it has just further highlighted the issue of service based economies and poorer wages/standard of living for working class people in higher income countries

Because people have bills to pay.

Because the American middle class has been eviscerated by globalization, pandemic, etc and these are the best, er least bad, jobs available to many of them. They don’t have any leverage or bargaining power, collective or individual.

+1 I have long been saying that part of why American jobs are so bad is because people keep taking them. Of course, this does ignore the realities of why they keep taking them.

Getting people to a place where they can say "No" to a bad deal should be a major goal for progressives and conservatives alike because it fits their model of how the world works -- progressives want people to have the stability of life and "good jobs" and conservatives like it when market forces are reasonably at play (enough workers are saying "no" to bad jobs and "yes" to good jobs)

im not sure how minimum wage workers are being branded middle class here. These are minimum wage workers. unfortunately they will have less choices through lack of education and opportunity.

Many of these minimum wage workers used to be blue collar workers making more than minimum wage and solidly middle-class. Then, en-masse their jobs got exchange-rate arbitraged (outsourced) to slave labor overseas making pennies an hour.

Keep in mind only 30% of the US population has a college degree, much less a graduate degree. More and more of that 70% are falling out of the middle class and struggling to survive.

Not everyone can be a professional. Companies like Amazon, Walmart and Monsanto squeeze out “mom and pop stores” so they can no longer compete and end up working for the man.

Because both parties -- whatever their outward platform is -- have sold out the working class over time. This leaves the working class with few options, especially in geographies w/o a deep pool of jobs.

People are taking these jobs because it is the least worst job.

The prospects of low-skill American workers have been devastated by globalization, mass immigration from countries with lower standards of living, the destruction of unions, and the centralization of business into huge corporations.

They have extremely low bargaining power against their bosses when ten people are scrambling to happily take their job after they're fired. Most other jobs are equally bad, so while they can leave it's often trading one bad job for another.

The vast majority of people need to work whatever job pays best. Gotta step out of that overpaid web dev bubble.

This is a great example of how labor laws in the US are weak (deal with this sudden, dramatic change to your schedule or you're fired). It is also an example of how employers take great advantage of those weak labor laws. It is not, however, an example of how big corporations are evil. There's plenty of examples of that out there, this just isn't one. But for some reason is is surprisingly common for people to blame companies for following the law instead of blaming the actual culprit - the (arguably) bad laws made by (arguably) bad lawmakers. You see this everywhere, but for some reason it's especially common on HN.

I don't do lots of bad things, even though I have the legal right to do so. Is it so much to ask the same of Amazon?

Yes, it is too much to ask a corporation to sacrifice it's own self-interest to be nice. That is why every nation in the world has thousands of laws regulating economic activity.

Regulations are written in blood. This seems like blaming OSHA for poor safety when an incident they hadn't yet considered happens.

A lot of times employers help write or weaken those labor laws (see proposition 22 in California). I'm not sure they can shrug their shoulders and say: "Aw shucks guys, we're just following the rules!".

One of my first jobs was for a small engineering shop. Paid about 55k a year in 2010 dollars. It did pay overtime, that should have been my first warning. They hired me with the promise of 4x10 work-weeks. What happened in reality is that we came in at 7 am, worked to 6pm (or whenever "the boss" was ready to go home) with a 30 minute lunch, and then on Friday, ..."well we are behind so we need to come in again this week"... almost every week (there were a few exceptions) we worked all day Friday as well. Oh, and how about a half day Saturday many weeks. Once during my short time there, we had a solid week or more (hard to remember due to sleep deprivation and depression fogged recollections of this time) going at 90+ hours per week on a project. It was absolutely insane and I got out as soon as I could, trying to convince as many co-workers as I could (in practice only the young guys) that they were being gaslighted into thinking they had a good job. Luckily I was underemployed for my education level, and single; thus it was easy to get out of this, for there was no way to think sharply, keep proper food in the house, work out enough, etc., at this pace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com