> Amazon burns through workers so quickly that executives are worried they'll run out of people to employ, according to a new report

Sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-turnover-wo...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/15/us/amazon-wor...

I know I will never work for them, they constantly reach out to me and its all nope on my side.

As a side note there's always new college grads(a sucker born every minute according to PT Barnum) willing to suffer for their chance to work at a FANG.

I haven't seen too many threads on HN complaining about the work conditions at any FAANG other than Amazon though?

> Why aren't they?

Do you have evidence they aren’t? I was under the impression Amazon warehouse logistics employees had extremely high turnover (averaging less than 1 year).

I suspect I agree with you that logistics workers realize they are on a lower rung of the ladder and are willing to work for less compensation. I suspect much of janitorial and security staff in Amazon HQ probably have no access to stock options either.

> I suspect much of janitorial and security staff in Amazon HQ probably have no access to stock options either.

It's likely that security and janitorial are 3rd party contractors and have no access to anything available from Amazon whatsoever.

Amazon's security works for Securitas at the Seattle campus, and turnover is extremely high as they try shenanigans like "Cover the Alarm Panel, do entryway guarding at the main entrance at the same time (despite both requiring 24/7 physical presence and not being in the same area of the building)".

Amazon has very high security staffing requirements compared to most other Seattle companies. Absolutely bonkers IMO

> So, elaborate on your model of the world. Shouldn't the logistic employees already be leaving in droves since they're not getting stock? Why aren't they?

Wait, does “logistics” include warehouse, where the article mentions they had reached 150% annual turnover prepandemic? Sounds a lot like “leaving in droves”.

Yeah, they're leaving in droves. They're also arriving in droves, which is why Amazon has been able to withstand 150% turnover.

But Amazon is now worried that they've worn out much of the US workforce available for "industrial athlete"positions. (Their term.) The droves of arrivals may slow down to dribbles.

"Arriving in droves" is much more telling about the external conditions of the job market. I think it's safe to say that it sounds like a good gig before you have a good understanding of what the work is. Then, after working for less than a year you see it for what it is and get out of there.

Quite amazing you can interpret "150% turnover" as "arriving in droves".

150% turnover is unconditionally bad.

On top of what other folks said, the warehouse folks not getting stock is a fairly recent development (2018, when minimum wage was raised). They do have a shockingly high turnover rate, but not sure if there is much that can be said about that relating to stock price currently, given how soon it's been since their stock comp went away, combined with the general strangeness of the Covid-19 pandemic

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/amazon-hourly-workers-lose-m...

Getting your salary raised is probably a better deal. I don't think you can fund a stock purchase program at those wages (obviously you can take RSUs though) and the main effect might be they have to pay for Turbotax.

because they may not have other job opportunities ? Because being screwed is better than having no job at all ?

Depends on who is classified as logistics: warehouse workers are a key component in the logistics l, and they have %150 annual turn over rate.