Sometimes I wonder if we will ever reach the point at which the people that Amazon would never employ combined with the people who would never agree to be employed by Amazon leaves them with fewer people than they need.
Out of curiosity what is wrong with this? It seems akin to e.g. my employer providing Deloitte tax consultation as a benefit.
For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual, but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that!
On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to improve safety.
It's scummy, but makes the balance sheets look great.
I don't know about you, but I've never been asked about my family size or my housing situation when I've applied for a job.
It's the legislature's responsibility to set reasonable wage standards. A hiring manager's job is to simply fill a job position.
And why is it not the hiring manager's job to ensure the welfare of their workers? What makes that axiomatic to you? That seems like a social construct that we've (maybe) generally settled on, but nothing says that's necessarily the way it has to be.
That's not true in the case we're discussing though. Walmart often campaigns for increases to the minimum wage, because they know it will hurt their competition.
If you were interviewing me, how would you determine my appropriate wage?
Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept.
Limit the wages of your company's highest paid workers relative to your lowest paid workers.
That is wildly vague. How much coverage is sufficient for your employees?
> Base your wages on the value of the labor, and try to maximize what you pay workers rather than paying the minimum pass the threshold they will accept.
That sounds good, but it’s not very quantitative. How do you specifically propose that someone calculate “value of labor” independently of the wages accepted by your workforce?
Also, how would you ensure I can afford the above-mentioned food and housing? While vacation is nice, food and housing are certainly more immediate needs.
Even just raising wages and watching how much attendance at these "welfare training sessions" declines would be an improvement.
Small businesses are the reason the minimum wage is still 7.25, not Walmart.
I suppose it's nice of them to help their workers get access to public benefits, but in general they're just a terrible societal citizen for not paying their workers enough to live off of.
The number of people who would never work for Amazon out of principle is extremely small. The vast majority people choose jobs rationally based on the pros and cons of their work options. Amazon will be able to hire people as long as they have the cash to entice workers.
Choosing to never work at Amazon is not based on reason, but prejudgment. One cannot rationalize the unknown. This is what my original statement was in reply to.