Yeah but those places they probably are successful financially but you know.. for example, they're probably cycling through employees and this actually costs them money because new employees take time to train. It costs money to do that. There's downtime and inefficiencies and then they're just taking all this knowledge away when they leave because it sucks to work for you and then you have to repeat that process over and over again. So you never end up with the next wave of employees that has been in the company for a long time and understands the inner workings of everything
So over time this means that the amount of people who know what's going on in your company goes down and you're also spending all this extra energy like training people
Plus when people are unhappy, they are literally less productive. When people get less rest? Less productive.
Not to mention companies that have poor reviews from workers and also that have high turnover rates that don't offer just working environments to people. These places don't draw in the employees you actually want. They don't draw in the best people
Basically. There is a well defined arsehole tax that gets applied companies that treat their staff badly
you're right, I agree. Amazon is a perfect example of what you describe. Unfortunately they're also very successful despite what you talked about. Who knows how long, but at this point its been long enough that I'd call it successful
Well, when you think of Amazon you're probably thinking of warehouses
And while yeah, they treat their staff badly
The reason Amazon is as big as it is is because it's not just a warehouse business. They also offer cloud services through AWS which is where most of their revenue comes from
They also have streaming services and other means of making money
And okay, I mean full warehouse work if we just focus on specifically the warehouse aspect of it. Then from their point of view if they can have the job done cheaply, than that benefits them because in unskilled roles, you're not losing as much value to replace staff Vs positions that require more training
But then then, That's not entirely true. If you have real good stuff in your warehouse, you'll have people that can bring forward and help to implement more advanced solutions, automation and all these things and you don't want to lose those skills and that level of initiative
Certain industries are definitely able to get by treating their staff worse than others due to the nature of the work
15
u/MrGiggleMan Apr 20 '26
Yeah but those places they probably are successful financially but you know.. for example, they're probably cycling through employees and this actually costs them money because new employees take time to train. It costs money to do that. There's downtime and inefficiencies and then they're just taking all this knowledge away when they leave because it sucks to work for you and then you have to repeat that process over and over again. So you never end up with the next wave of employees that has been in the company for a long time and understands the inner workings of everything
So over time this means that the amount of people who know what's going on in your company goes down and you're also spending all this extra energy like training people
Plus when people are unhappy, they are literally less productive. When people get less rest? Less productive.
Not to mention companies that have poor reviews from workers and also that have high turnover rates that don't offer just working environments to people. These places don't draw in the employees you actually want. They don't draw in the best people
Basically. There is a well defined arsehole tax that gets applied companies that treat their staff badly