Hacker News Reader

Comment by TapWaterBandit | Hacker News Reader

I don't really see why this is a problem. It seems like all this policy does is lead to the hiring of people who seem like more "iffy" hires during the interviewing process who are given the opportunity to work/learn/shine at Amazon.

I can see the point that maybe that employee would have taken another role instead of the Amazon one, but I highly doubt anyone who was "hired to be fired" who then showed they were a great fit/good employee was then fired to fulfil the policy.

If instead of being called "Hire to Fire" the policy was called "Rock or drop" (as in show you rock or you'll get dropped), would this even be worthy of an article? Why is the very idea that someone be given a chance that also comes with the reality that you might not make it so hard for some to accept?

View on HN

What you're missing is that people are intentionally hired and set up for failure from the start. This seems to be standard practice at Amazon. You can't just fire people randomly, there is a whole process including documenting how the employee is falling behind and giving the employee a warning and a chance to dispute, etc. Setting up a new employee for failure by abusing the internal processes, setting up roadblocks and giving them unreasonable tasks or incorrect requirements is pretty common from what I've seen.

Doesn't that count as a hostile work environment?

its definitely common. Really short stints on a resume damage careers

Over three years is more than enough. Less than 18mths is concerning. Of course, some people make a virtue of 6 to 12 mth engagements each of which have defined outcomes - and you hire these people to come and do the same for you.

What counts as really short?

Probationary periods are a thing, and in fact are the default form of hiring in many countries. If the intention of the policy was what you said then Amazon would have told these candidates "we are hiring you for a one year period, and will then evaluate your performance and decide whether to keep you or not". Their comp plan and stock vesting structure would have reflected this as well, and they could then make their decision with all this info.

The fact that "hire to fire" wasn't even an official policy but rather an off the books stunt pulled by managers should tell you everything about it.

A significant problem with the policy is that once people know about it they're more reluctant to apply for jobs at Amazon. That leads to missing out on some good hires.

If you can believe stories on Blind, this is already happening. People reporting Amazon having a hugely difficult time sourcing senior engineers because their bad reputation has finally caught up to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com