Seattle CEO to cut his pay so every worker earns $70,000

[D Fly]

I wanna go work in an amazon warehouse for a day and get fired just to see how it is.

Not as great as it sounds.

 

[mplsdunk]

Not as great as it sounds.

It sounds horrible, I just want to see it for myself, that’s all.

 

[fluid hips]

If someone was personating me
Or if someone was relating a message
But got the facts were invorrwct
That is an instance where it could not be true

My guy said personating, relating,invorrwct

Were you drunk

 

[whitemamba27]

man **** this dude

 

[sreggie101]

I wanna go work in an amazon warehouse for a day and get fired just to see how it is.

word. for what amazon offers:
two day or 1 day shipping for almost anything you can think of, to almost anywhere much faster than anywhere else at that price...and sometimes amazon drops prices.
ease of returns

one has to wonder how they accomplish all that. i know they bought a robotics company or developed their own robotics division from the ground up for warehouse purposes. but its all about that manpower.

The Relentless Misery of Working Inside an Amazon Warehouse

Life as a cog in Amazon’s retail machine

onezero.medium.com

turns out its not so great. a quick search shows that it kinda sucks. i think i read somewhere that it makes it worse for workers for azn to pull off 1 day shipping. but honestly i didn't really look too much into it.

with how much this company grows, i'd have to think also that amazon has a growing % of the overall US economy. or workforce rather. like if amazon went under, it would have a significant impact

 

[nawghtyhare]

My guy said personating, relating,invorrwct

Were you drunk

Nah just typing
While not proof reading
But of course it’s the internet
So let’s make a big deal on grammatical errors
Same dudes tripping off grammatical errors
Don’t even wash they *** on the regular

 

[mplsdunk]

word. for what amazon offers:
two day or 1 day shipping for almost anything you can think of, to almost anywhere much faster than anywhere else at that price...and sometimes amazon drops prices.
ease of returns

one has to wonder how they accomplish all that. i know they bought a robotics company or developed their own robotics division from the ground up for warehouse purposes. but its all about that manpower.

The Relentless Misery of Working Inside an Amazon Warehouse

Life as a cog in Amazon’s retail machine

onezero.medium.com

turns out its not so great. a quick search shows that it kinda sucks. i think i read somewhere that it makes it worse for workers for azn to pull off 1 day shipping. but honestly i didn't really look too much into it.

with how much this company grows, i'd have to think also that amazon has a growing % of the overall US economy. or workforce rather. like if amazon went under, it would have a significant impact

I think amazon going under would have a positive impact on everyone else.

they drive freight prices down so much with trucking i know that it’s hurting some guys. It’s a race to the bottom with amazon.

MOST people working there are making less than 20 an hour. You could find another job tomorrow if amazon canned you.

 

[friscostylez]

 

[friscostylez]

He Asked His Team How to Avoid Layoffs. Their Response Thrilled Him. | Entrepreneur

Before making a tough decision that impacts your team's future, Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price has a simple suggestion: Ask them for advice. It worked for him.

www.entrepreneur.com

 

[sreggie101]

this thor vibe is killing me.

in any case, I think what I draw most from this is that what he did with this company endures as a pretty robust socio-economic experiment, but only to prove what no reasonable person would've disputed, to begin with. I think the bigger question here...and maybe this is a more psychological and/or philosophical question, how do you get rid of greed? how do u get rid of that mentality? jeff bezos could one up this guy in every way possible. Which is obvious given amazon's market cap, but he could make amazon the best company to work for (market dominance econ issues aside).

but he doesn't. amazon warehouses don't have great reputations and that is something that shouldn't exist given the money that company has.

granted, the company wouldn't be AS profitable if it spent more on its employees, but amazon would still be top 5 all world corporations money wise.

he could set the standard for paid parental leave in this country, and pay wages that people could afford the cost of living, at least respective to their local market. that is one example, but he could design a benefits and employee satisfaction standard for hourly and salaried employees, that maximizes productivity and a work quality of life.


...but he doesn't (strongly invite people to prove me wrong).

I'm broad stroking the economics of this, but these large corporations ain't taking a beating much, if at all, if they spent more on their workers. and the fact they don't, is really just greed.

so when i see thor doing this for his small or mid size co., I'm like aight cool.

how do we get large corporations (including hospitals) to do the same thing?

 

[moderndarwin]

The main issue with companies and greed is that most large companies are hyper hyper focused on stock price. And with the reporting that goes around that. It’s fundamentally at odds with having a good work environment across many different roles.

To me it’s feasible as a private company (e.g., Patagonia is a great example) because the goals of the company can align to this greater good for this small ecosystem set of principles.

https://business.linkedin.com/talen...019/5-ways-patagonia-built-ridiculous-culture

As a public company there are so many external pressures that it’s extremely challenging to shape a work environment that fits the reasons for people working there. Usually, executive manager level people work at public companies because of great stock options compensation. And by that one reason alone almost all actions downward are driven by that greed based principle. It’s extremely challenging also for companies to “grow” to where profits > expenses in many of the newer tech style companies. There is such an outsized portion spent on RD and growth that it usually comes at the cost of human effort. Like at my company probably my job requires about 2 people to do for work life balance. Instead they keep the headcount at 1 and i’m constantly faced with 50-60 hour workweeks. I put up with it because the money is life changing for my family and know that eventually i’ll leave the company to find something that isn’t this stock value driven. I don’t say it in a bad way - i do this by choice. Intense company growth comes at a sacrifice. And usually most people for all the complaining they do are okay with it because of what they have the potential to make through stocks.

 

[Based Jesus]

how do we get large corporations (including hospitals) to do the same thing?

Through the government. There's a reason so much lobbying is dedicated to ensuring as little government oversight and intervention as possible.

 

[sreggie101]

The main issue with companies and greed is that most large companies are hyper hyper focused on stock price. And with the reporting that goes around that. It’s fundamentally at odds with having a good work environment across many different roles.

To me it’s feasible as a private company (e.g., Patagonia is a great example) because the goals of the company can align to this greater good for this small ecosystem set of principles.

https://business.linkedin.com/talen...019/5-ways-patagonia-built-ridiculous-culture

As a public company there are so many external pressures that it’s extremely challenging to shape a work environment that fits the reasons for people working there. Usually, executive manager level people work at public companies because of great stock options compensation. And by that one reason alone almost all actions downward are driven by that greed based principle. It’s extremely challenging also for companies to “grow” to where profits > expenses in many of the newer tech style companies. There is such an outsized portion spent on RD and growth that it usually comes at the cost of human effort. Like at my company probably my job requires about 2 people to do for work life balance. Instead they keep the headcount at 1 and i’m constantly faced with 50-60 hour workweeks. I put up with it because the money is life changing for my family and know that eventually i’ll leave the company to find something that isn’t this stock value driven. I don’t say it in a bad way - i do this by choice. Intense company growth comes at a sacrifice. And usually most people for all the complaining they do are okay with it because of what they have the potential to make through stocks.

great post. but wtf 50-60 hrs? u software engineering? (going of the RD example you gave in prev sentence, assuming you work in engineering). at that amount of hrs/week yea i'd imagine the pay would have to be a strong motivator.

Through the government. There's a reason so much lobbying is dedicated to ensuring as little government oversight and intervention as possible.

good point. Lobbying needs to be banned and we need new politicians. like shorty in your avy

 

[sreggie101]

double.

 

[moderndarwin]

great post. but wtf 50-60 hrs? u software engineering? (going of the RD example you gave in prev sentence, assuming you work in engineering). at that amount of hrs/week yea i'd imagine the pay would have to be a strong motivator.




good point. Lobbying needs to be banned and we need new politicians. like shorty in your avy

Deal operations. I don’t think 50-60 hours is that bad. Usually I work 730 am to 6 pm and 2-3 hours on Sunday to catch up. If it’s really busy usually will end up working 7 am to 7 pm some days. Requires discipline mainly to get to sleep early and wake up early.

Edit: And i can say that because i came from public accounting where there were weeks we’d work from 8 am to 10 pm to hit busy season deadlines + get paid awfully lol

 

[MakeNTGreatAgain]

this thor vibe is killing me.

in any case, I think what I draw most from this is that what he did with this company endures as a pretty robust socio-economic experiment, but only to prove what no reasonable person would've disputed, to begin with. I think the bigger question here...and maybe this is a more psychological and/or philosophical question, how do you get rid of greed? how do u get rid of that mentality? jeff bezos could one up this guy in every way possible. Which is obvious given amazon's market cap, but he could make amazon the best company to work for (market dominance econ issues aside).

but he doesn't. amazon warehouses don't have great reputations and that is something that shouldn't exist given the money that company has.

granted, the company wouldn't be AS profitable if it spent more on its employees, but amazon would still be top 5 all world corporations money wise.

he could set the standard for paid parental leave in this country, and pay wages that people could afford the cost of living, at least respective to their local market. that is one example, but he could design a benefits and employee satisfaction standard for hourly and salaried employees, that maximizes productivity and a work quality of life.


...but he doesn't (strongly invite people to prove me wrong).

I'm broad stroking the economics of this, but these large corporations ain't taking a beating much, if at all, if they spent more on their workers. and the fact they don't, is really just greed.

so when i see thor doing this for his small or mid size co., I'm like aight cool.

how do we get large corporations (including hospitals) to do the same thing?

I dont like when people say Amazon won’t be as profitable if they treated their employees better

the dude Dan Price literally proved that theory wrong

 

[friscostylez]

 

[wallyhopp]

Wasn’t he accused of rape? But yeah. Let’s listen to him.

 

[storm2006]

Wasn’t he accused of rape? But yeah. Let’s listen to him.

Not that I’m caping for him and I don’t know the full story but the operative word appears to be “accused”. And while I think all rapists should be thrown under the jail, that doesn’t disqualify his views on employee retention.

Now about his post and the topic of this thread, moderndarwin summed it nicely above. I don’t totally agree with the idea that because Dan Price’s approach worked for his company that it would work similarly at the publicly traded companies people criticize when this topic gets brought up.

I'm broad stroking the economics of this, but these large corporations ain't taking a beating much, if at all, if they spent more on their workers. and the fact they don't, is really just greed.

so when i see thor doing this for his small or mid size co., I'm like aight cool.

how do we get large corporations (including hospitals) to do the same thing?

To your point, It’s actually not that difficult to make an impact over a group of a hundred folks especially when you have total control and autonomy of decision making like in Price’s case. The problem is that the large companies in question have hundreds of thousands and employees.

Then you have to think about the big picture effects. If all of these companies were to spend more implementing these changes then there are several potential ramifications such as increases in automation, trimming workforces, these increased costs being passed onto consumers not only at the a company but across the entire supply chain.

Related to both moderndarwin and sreggie101
‘s posts, I’m also not sure I would call it greed at the executive level or even within the company as much as it is the shareholders or those closest to the top and even the Board. Yes, as an executive I naturally think of the share price when making decisions. However, those interests should align with what’s best for my employees and that’s often not possible because of shareholders and the reactionary nature of the market. At big companies when you’re pitching changes that will cost hundreds of millions or billions dollars (as these ideas would) and your justification is “this will improve employee retention, increase overall engagement and reduce turnover over the 3-5 years” then it’s just not going to fly. The funny thing is that if you went through with in 3-5 years most investors won’t even remember or bring it up

All in all, I am not saying things shouldn’t get better. It is just so difficult to improve decades old structures that are built on shaky foundations.

 

[frshstunna]

Its simple just pay ppl more than cost of living and let em work from home if they don’t gotta be face to face with customers…But nothing ever is that easy so we’ll keep hearing bout “labor shortages” and “ppl don’t wanna work”

I’m glad more folks realizing you don’t gotta bow down to the will of companies tho, they need you more than you need them

 

[friscostylez]

To ME, it sounds like world will be better off with moe SMBs (think how Germany does it) than large blood sucking monopolies (Amazon, Google, etc)


It has been way overdue to fix or move on from capitalism b & no I don't mean communism

 

[Mark Antony]

Didn't know about the rape but awful if true. Interesting it was thrown out immediately as a deterrent to a living wage though. Wealthy capitalists never have to lift a finger to defend themselves, enough poor idiots to do it for them.

 

[Comparison Ford]

Even if the accusation was true, how does that change anything discussed in this thread?

It's just using ad hominem and non-sequitur to distract from the main takeaway.

 

[sreggie101]

Not that I’m caping for him and I don’t know the full story but the operative word appears to be “accused”. And while I think all rapists should be thrown under the jail, that doesn’t disqualify his views on employee retention.

Now about his post and the topic of this thread, moderndarwin summed it nicely above. I don’t totally agree with the idea that because Dan Price’s approach worked for his company that it would work similarly at the publicly traded companies people criticize when this topic gets brought up.



To your point, It’s actually not that difficult to make an impact over a group of a hundred folks especially when you have total control and autonomy of decision making like in Price’s case. The problem is that the large companies in question have hundreds of thousands and employees.

Then you have to think about the big picture effects. If all of these companies were to spend more implementing these changes then there are several potential ramifications such as increases in automation, trimming workforces, these increased costs being passed onto consumers not only at the a company but across the entire supply chain.

Related to both moderndarwin and sreggie101
‘s posts, I’m also not sure I would call it greed at the executive level or even within the company as much as it is the shareholders or those closest to the top and even the Board. Yes, as an executive I naturally think of the share price when making decisions. However, those interests should align with what’s best for my employees and that’s often not possible because of shareholders and the reactionary nature of the market. At big companies when you’re pitching changes that will cost hundreds of millions or billions dollars (as these ideas would) and your justification is “this will improve employee retention, increase overall engagement and reduce turnover over the 3-5 years” then it’s just not going to fly. The funny thing is that if you went through with in 3-5 years most investors won’t even remember or bring it up

All in all, I am not saying things shouldn’t get better. It is just so difficult to improve decades old structures that are built on shaky foundations.

i can totally buy that. there can be def nuanced economic impacts that may transpire within a corporation vs a small co. i can get with that. it sounds like you're saying that the flaw is inherent to the system we play by. aka by design. i guess the bigger question would then be what is a better system i guess?

also to the issue of the cost of living, cost of life, etc....i don't see this as being the sole responsibility of the company to solve.

socialism has been successfully trashed by certain people (typically on the right) as effectively what you'd see in idk...cuba i guess. and it hinders the progress we as a wealthy nation could make to benefit us as a society. when i hear about socialism (if u wanna call it that) in this country, i think of my tax dollars doing more for me.

it is one of life's mysteries how the vast majority of Americans cannot seem to agree that is a good thing. to me its capitalism reigned in a bit. I've said this in other threads. Not against there being rich people. But i'd love my tax dollars to cover the cost of healthcare. i'd love for college to be free and accessible (generally) to anyone like the prior 1000 yrs of education u have to go thru just to get to college.

i don't mind a higher tax rate, if in return, it helps my everyday costs go down.

it bothers me to no end, that we find all the money in the world to fund the F35 project, but i still gotta dodge potholes like canelo in these city streets.

higher pay would make the biggest, most immediate impact, but it is not the only solution.

Even if the accusation was true, how does that change anything discussed in this thread?

It's just using ad hominem and non-sequitur to distract from the main takeaway.

plus im not quick to all of a sudden just label someone guilty. just the accusation alone can really derail someone's life. sometimes its not true or not wat it was made out to be...a lotta times its true. this is a whole diff thread topic honestly....but i rock with cliff huxtable. but not with bill cosby ya dig?

 

[storm2006]

i can totally buy that. there can be def nuanced economic impacts that may transpire within a corporation vs a small co. i can get with that. it sounds like you're saying that the flaw is inherent to the system we play by. aka by design. i guess the bigger question would then be what is a better system i guess?

So it seems like a cop out answer but yes I do believe the system we operate in is flawed and designed such that it incentivizes a lot of short-sighted bad behavior. Unfortunately, I have to admit I am not quite sure what the better system is. For me personally, I feel like there are so many competiting factors that I'm not sure where to start.

it bothers me to no end, that we find all the money in the world to fund the F35 project, but i still gotta dodge potholes like canelo in these city streets.

Those cost-plus contracts hit different