>And to enter it, you ... append it to your password?

Are you implying this is wrong somehow? It's a fairly common way to do 2FA and there's nothing wrong with it. On the backend, all it's doing is taking the input, substringing the final 6 characters and inputting that as the code, and then uses the remaining characters as the password input. It's essentially just a shortcut that allows you to log in with one click rather than having to enter your password, click submit, enter a code, then click submit again.

Per the FAQ, if you for some reason don't want to append it to your password, it'll send you to a normal "Enter your 2FA code" form like you're probably used to.

The main issue for me is that the 2FA is locked to using the Symantec VIP 2FA app, which is disappointing from a usability standpoint.

But here's where it can go wrong, using ETrade as a specific example. ETrade appends the 2FA token to your password, but also enforces a password character limit. Yep, that means turning on 2FA reduces your password character limit. From what I hear, it has some surprising behavior if your password is already at the character limit and you turn on 2FA.

(Aside: ETrade has some very sketchy security practices, like apparently letting you use the 2FA token on its own to reset your password (according to a coworker), but that's another discussion.)

FWIW I think 2) is the bigger sin here.

I interviewed in 2019 and never got a CSAT. The recruiter (and rest of the team) completely ghosted me after telling me an offer was coming. No further communication, and certainly no CSAT.

It seems that could be a huge hole and your entire CSAT program is subject to confirmation bias if you are not even sending them to the people who are most likely to respond with a negative experience. I'm not sure I would trust this "empirical data" you have.

Ironically, this is almost the exact same attitude I got in my poor experience interviewing with Stripe. Interviewers were constantly late to our calls and mixed up who would be interviewing me more than once. Despite that, I still was told I was going to receive an offer... only to be ghosted for weeks. Once the recruiter finally reached back out, they said the position had been cancelled but they would find me another position. Spoiler: I never heard back from them, and they ignored all of my further communications.

Throughout all of this, I was apologized to several times (credit is due there, I guess) and each time the excuse was "ha ha sorry things are such a mess, that's just how things are when you work at a start up!" First of all, "haha we're a startup" is not a valid excuse for being late to meetings and ignoring communication.

Second: you're a company worth tens of billions of dollars, have thousands of employees in offices around the globe, and were founded a decade ago. You are not a startup. You are not a "small team". Stop using it as an excuse.

Pretending to act like a startup has become a cover for being sloppy at big companies. People want to pick and choose what it means to work like a startup, and usually they choose the aspects that give them flimsy excuses for bad behavior.

In reality, my experience with actual small startups has been that people are better at arriving to meetings on time and following through with commitments because small teams mean everyone knows each other. If you don't show up to the meeting, we can see you across the small office and hold you accountable.

It's the big companies where accountability starts to disintegrate. People know they can get away with dropping balls all over the place as long as they get their OKRs finished for quarterly review. Things start to slip through the cracks because that person you're dealing with is just another e-mail address, not your close coworker who sits on the other side of the room.

Cloudflare dont charge per GB. They are more like per "feature" CDN.

In the US, Amazon warehouse workers make more than double the federal minimum wage. They make, at minimum, more than double the wage of an average McDonalds worker. They make more than Starbucks store workers, more than most construction workers. Even in Canada, Amazon warehouse workers make more than your average Tim Hortons worker.

Warehouse workers also get the same health insurance that Amazon SWEs get, which is better health insurance by far than even most white-collar American workers have.

>The majority of their employees are unskilled labour.

Unskilled laborers getting double minimum wage and great benefits seems to me to be a good thing for society. It baffles me that people are trying to decry this.

It's not a good enough reason to not form a union.

Pay is only one piece of worker treatment, and when you're talking about hard manual labour, it's really not the most important piece—workplace health & safety is. Doesn't matter how much you were paid while you worked there if you get killed or crippled because the employer skimped on safety, either in equipment or in allowing you to take your time on dangerous tasks.

Workplace safety is another. Greater autonomy is another; maybe these people want a 45 minute lunch break? Who knows? (Well, the workers know what they want...)

Another thing I've seen a lot, can't remember off the top of my head if this applied to Amazon too, is doing mandated security searches off the clock when people leave the job site. Imagine you're off at 5, but you don't get to leave til 5:30 because you're in a big line waiting to have your bag checked when you leave. Why should you be obligated to give the company that time? If they wanted, they could crunch the numbers and figure out what would cost them less, employee theft or paying for security checks, but they don't, because they can steal the worker's time at no cost to them. (And I guarantee you the security guards are being paid for that security check time, it's just the rank and file who aren't.)

Germany's got another thing I'd like to see here in the states, where the unions have a seat on the board and play a role in higher-level decisions as well. This is something I'd like to see even for high-paid tech workers, especially for morally questionable things like taking contracts with ICE -- there's been walkouts and worker organizing over companies taking contracts with ICE, but better still would be if the workers had a formal lever of power (in the form of a union) to stop that before it started.

Don't get me wrong a board seat would be great for preventing the company from pulling Gorden Gekko type shenanigans, it's just if the plan is to use it as a platform to further the progressive agenda than there's going to be some disappointment

And that US federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, $15,080 for a years worth of work. That is not a livable wage in almost any area of the country, especially the population centers the Amazon warehouses are located in.

In that sense $15 an hour is nothing to be proud of, from one of the largest and most successful companies in the country, run by one of the wealthiest people in the world.

I also would be shocked if your average construction worker or Starbucks is getting federal minimum wage, I have a feeling they are closer to $15 than you would think.

One question, do you work for Amazon? Your history consists solely of comments defending Amazon and their labor relations. If you do, it would be nice of you to disclose that before posting about your company.

And that's why it's great to hear that Amazon pays more than double that minimum wage, as I noted.

>In that sense $15 an hour is nothing to be proud of

I don't see how it's not. $17/hr is an incredibly high wage for the target audience of these jobs. $17/hr may be pennies for SWEs on HNs who think that anything under $100k/yr is oppression, but $17/hr for someone who was previously homeless, or a 16 year old getting their first job, or someone just looking for some extra cash part time during the holidays, is an amazing wage.

Amazon warehouse work is an amazing stepping stone for people that have no previous work experience or skills, for them to get a wage and benefits way above average. Indeed, Amazon even offers to pay for 95% of tuition costs for warehouse workers that want to get an associates degree, so that the warehouse work truly can be a stepping stone.

The fact that people far beyond their "entry level" stage of their career are stuck working in an Amazon warehouse seems like a problem with society, not Amazon, and there's only so much that Amazon can do there.

>I also would be shocked if your average construction worker or Starbucks is getting federal minimum wage, I have a feeling they are closer to $15 than you would think.

I didn't say they are getting federal minimum wage. And yet a quick Google will show you that Amazon warehouse workers get paid more than these workers.

>One question, do you work for Amazon? Your history consists solely of comments defending Amazon and their labor relations. If you do, it would be nice of you to disclose that before posting about your company.

No. My comment history is such because I use a special account specifically for posting about Amazon, because unfortunately this website has become very vitriolic as of late and I doubt some of the posters here would hesitate to try and ruin my life if I attached my main account and real name to statements defending "the evilest company in the world".

The COL is higher in Canada, but at least they have healthcare and worker protections. I'd rather be a Starbucks barista or Amazon warehouse worker in the CAN than anywhere in the US.

These 'citation needed' comments add no value.

And what does minimum wage represent? A livable wage? An inflation-adjusted wage? Some random number that has no basis in real-life living and expenses?

If you chose option C, congratulations, you probably won't be basing any arguments on a number that only represents (if it represents anything) the stinginess and or fossilization of American politics.

You can have good wages and benefits for this kind of labor without firing organizers, plotting to smear them as “inarticulate” in the press, and exposing workers to undue injury and disease.

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of complaints about Amazon on this forum are explicitly referencing pay.

I think the workers should be receiving more in hazard pay, but this whole round of controversy was sparked by their firing warehouse workers organizing for better safety, not pay.

Where do you work, BTW? Your account is about a month old and only seems to comment on stories about Amazon.

Your original reply to my comment was an overgeneralization, and used that overgeneralization to attack a point that I never made. I'm not engaging in your argument because it was made in bad faith to begin with.

>They are on the lower end of big tech salaries.

Amazon pay may be slightly lower than FB, Google, or Netflix. But the $150k entry-level starting pay that most of the corporate workers get is still so so so much higher than the vast majority of companies pay that it's laughable to imply that Amazon doesn't pay them well.

>And the vast majority of their employees are warehouse workers, and they are paid very poorly.

Amazon warehouse workers get $17/hour minimum and amazing health insurance (probably better health insurance than most of the American posters on HN) for a job that requires no experience, education, or really any prerequisites.

When compared with a SWE job like most HNers are familiar with, it's really easy to look down on $17/hr as "paid very poorly". When compared with skilled manual labor like oilfield workers, $17/hr is low. But when put into perspective that this is a job available to almost anyone, even those unable to get job elsewhere, $17/hr is a huge amount to someone who was previously homeless or to a 16 year old getting their first job.

Again for perspective, McDonalds pays on average half of what Amazon's minimum pay is. And yet I can't even recall the last time I saw a post lambasting McDonalds as being an evil company for how it treats its cooks and cashiers.

As for the rest; 17/hour to break your back is not a lot. And people have been lambasting the minimum wage for decades, and companies that pay it.

Some demonstration of class divide, that.

Also, it should go without saying, that one section of corporate employees being in more danger than their peers doesn’t disprove the broader reality and divide between warehouse and HQ workers.

Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true.

But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.

>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?

>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?

Yes.

>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.

No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

>This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

Yes, at will employment gives the parties the right to terminate the employment...but, Amazon can not terminate an employee for any reason. For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. You may want to Google "workplace retaliation cases", because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.

The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities.

>For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.

Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.

This is generally true but there are exceptions, which funny enough you acknowledge one of them in your comment.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives private-sector employees the right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.” They can share information about pay, benefits, safety and other work-related issues — and they can do it in the break room, at happy hour or on social media (such as Facebook and Twitter).

Real-world example of workplace freedom of speech:

Situation: A group of employees who worked for a retail store in San Francisco were concerned about their safety due to their store’s closing an hour later than other nearby stores. After unsuccessful discussions with the manager and later, the owner, the employees posted their frustrations on Facebook. An employee who saw the posts showed them to the owner, and subsequently, the other three employees were fired.

Ruling: The National Labor Relations Board reviewed the Facebook posts and determined they were acceptable. The employees were discussing the store’s legitimate safety concerns, so the posts were considered protected under the NLRA. It was determined that the employer committed an unfair labor practice by firing the employees.

What is otherwise not protected speech becomes protected speech.

>Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

Amazon published a press release on the matter acknowledging they fired the employees for their posts about safety in the work place...it doesn't matter Amazon claims the post violated company policy, these employees have legal right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.”

As you may or may not know the NLRA protections come from the Constitutional Right to association, which is an essential part of freedom of speech. While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

>Normally tech employers don't fire people for complaining about company policies

I've worked in tech for a long time, at a lot of different companies, and consulted for many more. Tech employers fire people all the time for complaining about company policies. You just don't hear about it because...

>and it's almost always news when they do

No, it's really not. When some 20 person startup lets someone go because of a disagreement, it doesn't appear in WaPo. It does happen whenever Amazon or FB or Google are involved because those are big names. But just because you don't see it in the news when every other tech company does it, does not mean it isn't happening.

>A general sense of shared cause and cameraderie is part of the way the industry is "supposed" to work, and part of that is a culture of reasonably open discussion of this stuff.

This sounds wonderful and ideal, but I've never experienced this at any of the tech companies I've worked at, even the big name Silicon Valley ones.

>But Amazon can't have that now, because the only resolution that they can see here is either victory or complete capitulation to a hostile union.

The world isn't this black and white. I assure you from talking with my friends at Amazon that there is plenty of open discussion about the working environment, while also plenty of satisfaction and happiness with their job. And a couple of particularly outspoken people being fired hasn't changed that in the past, and I strongly doubt will change it now.

Normally, tech employers don't have many hundreds of thousands of employees. You'll always be able to find anecdotes to support any narrative you want when you're looking at that big of a workforce.