>" You could argue the reason is that they weren’t good enough. "

This is a valid possibility. However, companies that enforce churn through up-or-out and stack ranking tend to end up treating employees ruthlessly in order to satisfy the system. There are no shortage of stories where managers and individuals backstab and sabotage each other so that they aren't automatically fired as part of the culling process. There are plenty of 'just fine' employees out there, yet companies like Amazon act like everyone needs to be above average.

Needing to see a doctor suddenly means you're a poor worker?

Needing to urinate while on shift also makes you a poor worker.

I see bottles of sun tea piled up in various places around town where delivery trucks pause for red lights.

Those are good workers, committed to the job.

Did I say that? No.

That’s quite the conclusion to jump to. I was mere pointing out that maybe some of the churn is justifiable? Most companies have churn, but everyone wants to point fingers at Amazon for what are otherwise normal and accepted business practices.

Can you please justify the "churn" stated in the article about a worker needing to see a medical professional due to an infected tooth, then shortly getting fired one week after the event automatically with zero conversations between him and his superior?

Mind you this is a worker that was meeting all the bullshit metrics Amazon foisted upon him. His only mistake was being human and needing to see a dentist.

I should ask you this yourself, do you have any decency?

YesI have plenty of decency. I take it you don’t own a business nor work in management. And probably think rules don’t apply to you. You might want to reread the thread, otherwise i think your reading comprehension is low. My original comment was in response to a comment mentioning more than a single worker, but thanks for playing.

For a maximal hypercapitalist corporation? Well, yeah.

For as long as they are (seen as) trivially replaceable, an employee that sees a doctor, or has health concerns, or uses benefits of any kind, or really has any slip in their productivity even to the slightest degree is a poorer worker than one that doesn't.

This stops working if you run out of people to hire, or if the cost of hiring increases past a certain threshold.

It is the most rational way for the dominant corporation in the current economic system to act, if they can get away with it.

> For a maximal hypercapitalist corporation? Well, yeah.

I don't think worker attrition is cost effective. It is just less work and lower skill requirement for the managers to rule by fear and overwork.

Isn't Amazon paying abit higher wages than the competition? They need to pay the bullshit fee to the workers.

The workers are always good enough though. This comment doesn't make any sense.