Hacker News Reader

Comment by chevman | Hacker News Reader

I know a few folks relatively high up in Amazon HR/TA/People Ops type roles and the scale at which they operate recruiting is nuts. Mainly driven by the insane need for people in the ops/fulfillment/delivery areas, but corp roles are also similar.

They typically make more offers than roles they have available, as they have fairly good analytics around what % of offers will not be filled post acceptance (ie someone simply never shows up for day 1 of work).

Now, fast forward to today, and as you've heard in the press, and from Amazon directly, they are slowing hiring and may even do cuts in the new year. I think what you're seeing is in some areas they may be over running offers, and need to pull back and kill some post acceptance to correct based on the new reality of hiring forecasts.

Still sucks and is a shitty situation.

View on HN

While I understand this mentally it is still unethical to offer multiple people the job where by they start taking life changing steps where the employer knows full well they have extended multiple offers simply because "maybe one of them will not show up"

I have experience a few times new employee's not showing up on day 1. I would NEVER even consider extended multiple offers to people just to ensure one of them shows up. That is more than just "shitty" as you say.

It's unethical because of the downside asymmetry of the two scenarios. In one someone has made significant life changes and left guaranteed income. On the opposite side a business entity won't be able to best optimize profits.

If you can prove that the offer letter was issued in bad faith, for example the employer issued 2 offer letters for 1 position (hence one of the letters was issued for a job that doesn't exist) then I suspect you may have a legal case.

2022 exposed the fact that in the US, with its at-will employer, offer letters never offered much of a protection if they were offered in good faith, and then rescinded.

> I think what you're seeing is in some areas they may be over running offers, and need to pull back and kill some post acceptance to correct based on the new reality of hiring forecasts.

There are times when you read something that conveys real depth of knowledge, sharp execution, and competence, but a complete lack of consideration for whether the thing done was right to do in the first place.

It does suck and it is a shitty situation, and it is probably a good idea to keep that framing in mind, as there is no recourse against a company the size of Amazon behaving like this towards someone without much power and influence.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that this is was an unethical action to take. If your forecasts include some risk, and your potential hires are taking that risk on (as H1Bs, no less), don't lie to them and tell them it's safe to quit their previous job when it's not.

Well if I turn up for a flight that's full, I get compensated, it is currently illegal in my country to ring people up and not connect them with someone. If I sign a contract to buy something in the future, I am expected to buy that thing.

If Amazon are doing this, they should be paying the full cost of their error, which is more than a month's salary.

That’s terrible and it looks like you’re trying to justify this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com