From what I've seen, that's perfectly normal for any kind of job description anywhere in that ballpark. You see similar things if you look up job descriptions at UPS.

That sounds like a typical retail job. Up to 10 hours doesn't mean it will be normal, it just means they might ask you to work over when your typically flaky co-workers don't show up.

Not sure why there's so many comments on the $15.35 per hour. LA changed their minimum wage to rise towards $15/hr back in 2015.

In Seattle (where there's speculation on a similar grocery store in Cap Hill https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon-confirms-amazon-go-team...) minimum wage in 2020 will range from 13.50-16.39/hour ( https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/LaborStandards... )

It's still unreasonable to live on $15/hour in any major US city.

Because of zoning and anti-development policies by the government.

Some people making $15/hour will get lucky and get subsidized or “affordable” housing though and be able to live on that. Or they’re living with their parents.

Maybe if you define major as Seattle, New York, or other similarly expensive cities. Places like Jacksonville FL or Columbus OH, both of which are larger and more populous than San Francisco, $15/hr is pretty reasonable for a job with minimal education or experience requirements. A household with two income earners will spend less than a week's combined income on an apartment for example (which is easily under $1000/month either place).

What do you mean unreasonable? Does a blanket statement like this really apply to every major US city? I see multiple apartments for $800 or less in LA, SF and Seattle on an apartment search site.

Health benefits for full time employees are not optionally legally.

$15/hr with benefits (before any raises/promotions) across 2 people is higher than the median household income in Broward County, Florida.

https://embed.datausa.io/profile/geo/broward-county-fl/

This store is in LA, not Broward County, Florida.

I guess they could commute from there and take advantage of high wages in LA and low cost of living in Florida.

It can be a better wage than the median somewhere, and still be inadequate.

It says benefits available, not the price of those benefits.

Or the coverage...

How is this relevant?

I'm not sure what is notable here.

That is 50.3% higher wage than Northern Virginia area (Very high COL) grocery stores for exactly the same work requirements. Saw a job offer go out literally this afternoon for $10/hr starting at Giant in Loudoun county.

Target in my area (NoVA) starts at $13. Most places are the same, including whole foods. Whatever you saw is not the norm.

Again, not sure what the quibble is about. Amazon is paying higher than average for the same job

This is irrelevant because it's minimum wage where the job is posted.

I worked a 34 hour shift one time at a grocery store. Because of staffing issues, work hours can be quite chaotic. Didn't even get overtime for that shift though I did later in the week when I went over 40 hours total.

The CA law is 1.5x for the 8th-12th hour and 2x for the 12th hour plus [0]. Federally overtime is only required for non-exempt employees working more than 40hours a week, but other states have shift limiting laws as well.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Overtime.htm

It was nice when I moved to California and started getting paid time and a half on Sundays, though I think that was by union contract rather than by law. It was eye opening to work in the same industry but in a "right to work" state and California.

> I think that was by union contract rather than by law.

Time and a half on sundays is not CA state law.

Source -- A guy that recently programmed overtime rules into a computer system.

Curious, 49 pounds seems like an odd choice of upper bound. Does some regulatory/legal thing kick in once somebody is required to lift 50 pounds?

Yes: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2013-...

Looks exactly like an Aldi's job ad.

"...without reasonable accommodation" suggests Amazon has moved beyond testing regulatory constraints, to openly challenging them. I'm someone who always reaches for Hanlon's Razor first, but I can't see how any business with more than a few hundred employees could be so brazenly ignorant and naive as to willfully assume the liability of literally quoting ADA's "reasonable accommodation" in a job ad as something they're intentionally planning to not care about complying with.

The "with or without" phrasing is standard and means that employees can have reasonable accommodations if they need to aid them in their job, but that the requirement is a core function and it will not be considered reasonable to modify the requirement itself. This is standard in all job ads.

This is standard text I’ve seen in hundreds of IT support job ads too. Nothing nefarious.

It says “with or without”.