Edit: Feels like something that governments should tie to individual company's ability to use the visa program. Rescind a visa-tied offer (for no-fault-of-applicant reason), and we yank your right to use the program.
I keep thinking one might want to have some sort of international organization where people in each country reciprocally lobby for better international workers rights for each other's citizens.
Maybe something like this already exists, but I haven't heard of anything like it?
It's the same idea as European worker protection employment laws compared to the US: they sound good, but the effect is that companies have to be slower to hire when firing is that much harder.
It would put the additional costs they create to be visible. This is as it should be, since visa users do cost more than hiring domestic.
However, it would not be much more. And if amazon deems it to be too expensive, then other companies which are more efficient can take up the spare visa users, just as the free market intends.
Sounds like EU labor policy causes a set of effects resulting in a kind of equilibrium, perhaps a Nash Equilibrium.
Which is good. Nobody wants a work environment that changes every five minutes.
It's not extra shitty, it's just as shitty as any other situation. It sucks for the person involved but the alternatives are not better.
At least someone that got their offer rescinded can sue for promissory estoppel.
Amazon as a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company can absorb the expense of employing him. I’m the worst case, they can lay off an existing low performing employee to compensate.
Training new employees is not a worthwhile investment if you are in the situation where you're already firing thousands.
There are countless other ways they can compensate for the cost of hiring him. A couple quick examples are delaying promoting and giving a raise to some people, or removing another open position they were looking to hire.
The result of not just sucking it it up and doing the right thing here, which was to actually hire him as promised, is 1) a terrible public image affecting future ability to hire talent when people are weighing Amazon vs CompanyX, and 2) increased chance that future new hires will read about this kind of bs behavior and not think twice about accepting an Amazon job offer and then rescinding their promise to start employment, at the very last moment.
That is a very charitable opinion. The idea that because a company is large enough, or profitable enough, that it therefore should be compelled to hire indefinitely, or never shrink in size.
Let me ask, is it your opinion that economies only ever grow forward, that companies in the economy never shrink?
Also, "extra shitty" seems obvious to me. You're not only not hired, you likely have to leave the country. The company rescinding the offer knows this.
The fact that you rescinded an offer doesn't mean that suddenly local people are suitable, it just means this position isn't needed anymore.
If they can't do simple things like not hiring people they don't need, maybe they should employ this guy as HR manager.
I moved countries within Amazon and it took 3 months, for an external applicant the bare minimum will be 4-6 months.