McDonald's Update: Ice Cream Machines & Burgers

Low integrity management and low trust marketing

Let's update a post from three years ago, on McDonald's and the never-ending troubles they have with their Taylor ice cream machines.

So here I am on the other side of the world, in the Philippines.  And you often see Taylor ice cream machines here just as you do in all US McDonald's.  After that first post, I tend to notice these machines.  But yesterday I was in a Jollibee (the largest fast food chain in the country) and I noticed that they had removed their Taylor machine and replaced it with a Carpigiani, an Italian competitor.  Like the one in this photo.  Or see the actual machine, below.

So I asked the manager, Hey what's with the new machine and how long have you had it?  She said, Yeah, it's brand new, we've had it for two weeks.  Our Taylor machine was defective.  I said, Yeah, a lot of them are.

If you are wondering, machines from both companies sell for around $20,000 up to $60,0000 depending on model.  And that is before installation and setup fees, and ongoing maintenance costs. (Grok)

This was the same day that a video went viral of the McDonald's CEO, Chris Kempczinski, supposedly eating the company's newest "product," the Big Arch, with obvious distaste.  Yes, he referred to the burger as a product.  He originally posted the video in early February of this year.  Here is one reaction video:

Burger King also had a fun response.  As Lindey Glenn points out, it is practically guaranteed that Kempczinski does not eat McDonald's offerings.  Ever.  He's no Dave Thomas, or even Donald Trump.

By the way, I met Dave Thomas when I was in college; he always referred to Wendy's products as sandwiches, even the burgers.  Which I found a bit odd, but at least you never heard him refer to any of his burgers as a "product."  Kempczinski might as well be selling tube socks.

I have no doubt that Kempczinski is a smart guy.  But his inability to relate to McDonald's products, franchisees, and customers is concerning.  His unwillingness to correct the ice cream machine situation is disqualifying.  I do not believe this is gross incompetence; rather it appears to be gross misconduct.  Clearly he could solve the problem if he wanted.  But this is not an operational issue; it is an ethical problem.

Note, Dairy Queen also uses Taylor machines, though a different model, without issue.  Same for Wendy's, Burger King, and Chick-fil-A. (Grok)  Someone should insist on a remedy.

You gotta wonder how many Big Macs does the company have to sell in order to pay Kempczinski's daily tab at Michelin-starred brasseries?  McDonald's clearly hates their franchisees and their customers.  So the long history of questionable management continues.

Anyway, here's the Carpigiani machine I saw yesterday:



For reference, here is an older Taylor ice cream machine in a different Jollibee:

For those who do not know, Jollibee is primarily a chicken joint.  But they serve all of the fast food staples, like burgers, fries, and of course, soft serve ice cream.  And rice; nearly everything here comes with rice.  They also do a sweet spaghetti that is very popular with Filipinos.  In the US, where they have around eighty locations, they offer great looking chicken sandwiches.  But sadly, those are not available in the Philippines.

Update, 11 March 2026

Today, Lindey Glenn can explain Kempczinski's reaction to the new Big Arch.  My question is, if the burger is not ready for prime time, why did the CEO allow its market release?  Maybe it is gross incompetence after all.

𓐵

The Banality of Academic Group Work

Back in the eighties, American businesses, large and small, were scared to death of Japan, Inc.  I am not at all sure this fear was justified, but at the time, it was all too palpable.  Consequently, business schools in the United States started studying the way business and industry worked in Japan, hoping to emulate some of their success.

Well it did not take a lot of work or intelligence to realize that Japan has a consensus culture.  And their businesses are also run by consensus.  And the only way to achieve consensus is to ask everyone for their input.  And pre-internet, the best way to do this was to bring together all the key players and discuss the situation and come to the hoped-for consensus.

However long that might take.  And however good or bad the resulting decision.

What our crack business academics saw were groups of Japanese managers coming together to achieve some desired outcome.  And they said:  Hey, we need to do that too.

To be fair, business schools were previously teaching group collaboration.  But it was Japan, Inc. that supercharged the practice.

Now it just so happened that I was in business school in the late eighties.  And we students were early test subjects for this new urgency.  So the professors started assigning group projects.  The idea, ostensibly, was for us to learn to work together to achieve the best result.  Sounds great in theory.

And while the practice was new to me, at first I did not really mind it.  Just another way of getting the work done.  But it soon became clear, that in an academic setting, even at a top-tier school, as opposed to a real, profit-driven, operating business, some group members contributed more than others.  This was always going to be the case.  It is just human nature; some people are more motivated than others.

Yet I did have the opportunity to work with groups entirely comprised of smart, highly motivated individuals.  And I certainly have over the course of my career.  These groups prove the academics' theory is true if groups are in fact so comprised.  But most often teachers assemble academic groups with a diverse mix of contributors.  Here, and without apology, the academics fully expect the strong to carry the weak.

In a business, weak performers can be fired, or otherwise removed from a collaboration.  And even if this is not done, say for political or nepotistic reasons, everyone knows.  But in an academic setting this is never done because the academics do not really understand how things truly work.  They seem to believe that one must learn to work with and appreciate weak performers.  I never have.

Two immediate problems.  One, and the professors readily acknowledged this, is that groups tend to produce results that are better than what the worst-performing members could produce on their own.  But at the same time, inferior to what the best-performing members could produce on their own.  In the aggregate, coming in slightly above average.  This is just common sense.  I guess academics believe that slightly above average is still above average and therefore worth pursuing.

But the outcome is an inferior result; certainly inferior to optimal or best.

The second immediate problem is the result takes longer than necessary because of all the time spent coming to the magical consensus.  I mean the best group members have to spend time trying to convince the worst group members of the correct direction.  And even then, because consensus is the driving force, the group will elect a suboptimal approach.

This is what happens when the real goal is not an optimal and timely result, but rather a consensus-driven result.  So groups produce suboptimal and time consuming results.

Not to pick on Japan.  Because it is really American academics who are to blame for this nonsense.  But a great example of what I am talking about was the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, where indecision and delay led to more serious consequences.  Delay caused while they were trying to reach the Japanese cultural imperative of consensus.

Nevertheless, the idea that group consensus should determine our management and business direction took off in academic quarters.  Further, this idea infused other academic departments, most notably the notoriously less-than-rigorous education departments.  Education professors just loved the idea and added it to their pedagogical methods.

Over the decades since, as businesses will do, they have adapted what works and what does not work, into useful and productive business practices.  What I mean is that if a situation calls for group consensus that is what a business will do.  But if a situation would be ill-served by such a practice, they are not about to impose it to merely fulfill some academic standard.

But no matter what, top performers hate any practice which limits their, well, performance.  This is why you find the best people in entrepreneurial roles, not middle management.  Leave the corporate bureaucracy and academic claptrap to Boeing and Disney.

Now I have no idea if business schools are still teaching groups and consensus-driven decision making.  But they specialize in producing mediocre performers, so probably so.  But you know who is absolutely still pushing this?  Education departments.  The education academics in their wisdom have decided that groups produce higher quality pedagogical results.  It's nonsense of course because the same results happen in education that happen in business.  That is, the results are only better than what the worst-performing members could produce on their own.  But that seems to be perfectly okay for our educators.

So teachers, all kinds of teachers, have been taught to use groups.  Where a couple of generations ago, the teacher would have made an assignment to all individual members of a class, today they're likely to divide the class into groups and make the assignment to each group.

So has academic excellence been drilled out of our current generation of educators?  Do teachers even recognize the inherent problem of group suboptimal performance?  Do they even care?

I do not believe they do.

Why?  Because if a teacher has twenty-eight students in her class and divides them into seven groups of four students each, then the teacher has to read and grade only seven assignments instead of twenty-eight.  Yes, it is just that simple.

So this is the why; my theory anyway.  But there is one last problem.  Who pays?  Well the best, most motivated students of course.  Because they end up doing all the work.  This is not terrible; if assignments were made individually, they would be doing all of their own work anyway.  But group assignments do tend to be larger (because supposedly all members are contributing).  But naturally this is not what happens.  The lazy, unmotivated students contribute little or nothing.  And the bright, motivated students have to carry them along.

Strangely, this never seems to concern the teachers.

𓐵

* Apologies to Hannah Arendt.

The List

Corporations supporting gender ideology and the radical trans agenda

You cannot just not buy Bud Light or Jack Daniels.  No one at Bud Light made this most recent marketing decision, no matter what Alissa Heinerscheid might have you believe.  These decisions are simply not made at the brand level.  Rather, they are made higher up the corporate food chain.  So it is not just Bud Light, but all of the AB Inbev brands that we should boycott...er, reconsider.

Anyway, I think we should start a list:

AB InBev (Owner of Bud Light – All brands)

Brown-Forman (Owner of Jack Daniels – All brands)

Diageo (Owner of J&B Scotch Whiskey – All brands)

Hershey's Chocolate (All brands)

L'Oréal (Owner of Maybelline – All brands)

Nike (Owner of Nike women's wear – Also Converse)

Proctor & Gamble (Owner of Gillette – All brands)

Plus consider this:  Isn't it funny that AB Inbev chose to target the Bud Light customer base rather than, say for example, the Michelob Ultra customer base?  Surely the Ultra customer base would have been much more receptive to this advertising scheme.  So why did they choose Bud Light?  The only possible answer to that question is that this is not a beer marketing campaign.  It is rather a pro trans campaign (and lecture), which the company has decided is more important than this particular brand.  In other words, they decided to sacrifice the brand and its customers for what they believe to be the greater good.  Clearly they hold the Bud Light customer base in contempt, people in need of a good lecture.

In any case, how hard is it to choose a Heineken?  Or switch to Jeremy's Razors or pick up a Cadbury bar?  Jeremy has chocolate too.  All I can add is thank God Diageo sold Bombay Sapphire to Bacardi 25 years ago.  But will Bacardi be far behind?  I have never been a Bud Light drinker.  I'm not even a big beer drinker.  But on occasion when I have had a taste for a beer, I have quite often picked up Michelob Ultra.  I wonder if AB Inbev factored that into their analysis?  They are not stupid, so clearly they just don't care.

Of course, the decision makers are managers, not owners.  So hey, it's not their own money they're throwing away.  And the bulk of their owners are other institutions, also run by the management class.  So turns out, there is little or no accountability for these decisions.

Anyway back to the list, if you look at it in this comprehensive way, well that's a lot of products.  Too many to keep up with.  But I hope this list helps.  We all do what we can.

𓐵

McDonald's is Wasting Ray Kroc's Legacy

It is a slow motion corporate suicide

When I was a kid, I always liked McDonald's.  But I stopped patronizing them when the bad experiences became the rule, rather than the exception.  In the last, say, twenty-five years, I have only eaten at McDonald's in a pinch.  Here in the Philippines, my wife and I have been to McDonald's exactly three times.  Each time for breakfast, when it was the only available option.  Our orders were wrong every time.  It is no big deal to me.  Bad service; I just quit giving them money.

But for many years it has been obvious to me that there is something very wrong with McDonald's.  It is a management problem.  Without caring enough to do some research, that's about all I knew about it.  But their bad behavior stretches back to the early 1970's when they ripped-off their whole McDonaldland ad campaign.  More recently, McDonald's managers failed to warn franchisees about abusive hoax phone calls.  Courts ruled against McDonald's in both of these cases.  But for McDonald's, the judgments were peanuts.  What kind of people act this way? 

Well, people who figure it will be cheaper to pay a judgment rather than act in a responsible manner.  Nevertheless, over the years, I have known many people who have bought McDonald's stock, and swear by it.  I never joined them.

The video above is almost two years old, but it only popped up on my YouTube home page today.  Now "broken" ice cream machines are a well-known and longstanding problem with McDonald's.  And like many people, I always assumed that the problem was that McDonald's employees just did not want the hassle of cleaning the machines.  So they would tell everyone that the machine is out-of-order.  But it turns out, the problem is much more systemic.  This is yet another corporate management problem.  And I suspect, at its core, this is another ethical problem.

The video confirms what I have long suspected about McDonald's management and management attitude.  While I am rather leery of franchising in general, it is worth noting that McDonald's corporate managers do not work for the franchisees.  No franchisor does.  To my mind, it's just a bad business model for the franchisees.  But I am not even convinced that McDonald's managers know they work for the shareholders.  And they sure-as-hell don't work for the customers.

After World War Two, it took forty years for Montgomery Ward to go out-of-business.  Sear's utterly incompetent management followed, but somewhat faster.  I do wonder if McDonald's is going down the same path.  These corporate fat cats become complacent.  And entrenched.  And deaf.

That is what this story is really about.  Broken ice cream machines are not the problem; they are a symptom.  The root problem is bad, unresponsive management.  They are, at best, incompetent.  At worst, they're still the unethical management organization that they were fifty years ago.  Judge for yourself.

You see, after a management team goes bad, they tend to perpetuate their problems, however they manifest.  At upper levels of an organization, it is almost impossible for a bad manager to hire and/or retain a good manager.  It just doesn't happen.  Gresham's Law kicks in:  The bad drive out the good.  There is just no way a bad manager, incompetent or dishonest, can keep a competent, honest manager around.  So what do they do?  They hire people as bad or worse than themselves.  This can go on for years.

I mean what are the odds that the CEO of McDonald's is unaware of their ice cream problem?  One can only speculate why he has not fixed it.  And make no mistake, this is a fixable problem.  Just ask Wendys, or Chick-fil-A, or even Burger King.  Ask Dairy Queen.  The current CEO has been with the company since 2015.  He was appointed CEO in 2019 after the board fired the previous CEO.  No surprise there.  It is also worth noting that the company has had three CEOs in the last ten years.

This whole thing is an unmitigated disaster for McDonald's.  That video has over eleven million views.  And just think about it.  To watch a half hour video on something as esoteric as McDonald's ice cream machine problem.  Who would do that?  Well, perhaps the millions of frustrated customers.  Perhaps all of their competitors.

At this very hour, two years later, twelve percent of McDonald's machines are down.  Note, that is two years since the video came out; the problem was around for years before that.  So where is the CEO?  My guess?  He's out playing golf with the Taylor (ice cream machine) CEO.  Also, I would not be surprised if he hasn't spent a good part of the last two years bullying Google to take down that video:  Take that video down or McDonald's will pull all advertising off YouTube.  Though, I am surprised he has failed (so far).  I'd be willing to bet that he has spent more time on the PR aspects of this problem than on the actual, fixable, problem itself.  Actually, we know this is true because otherwise, the problem would be fixed.

In any case, at some point it becomes impossible to turn around an organization without outside intervention.  And I don't mean bankruptcy; I mean a Carl Icahn type intervention.  Someone who will come in and fire everyone.

The franchisees can only hope.  They're pretty much stuck with the bad McDonald's management.  Though yes, they did volunteer.

The customers can only hope.  But they might just eventually decamp to Wendy's and Dairy Queen.

And, the shareholder's?  Well so far the management problem has not had a major impact on the company's performance.  But how long will that last?

And Taylor?  I cannot end without some comment on their role in all this.  Evidently Taylor does make ice cream machines that work.  So they make a number of machines that work, plus they make the McDonald's machine which does not work.  So clearly they are intentionally selling McDonald's franchisees defective machines in order to juice their repair business.  And that is bad and also unethical.  But here's the thing.  McDonald's knows about this problem and yet they have forced their franchisees to buy the machines anyway.  Taylor is not forcing them to buy the defective product; McDonald's is.  As bad as Taylor's role in this fiasco may be, McDonald's is so much worse.

Again, no surprise.

Now almost six years ago, there was a report (behind paywall) in the The Wall Street Journal that McDonald's would allow franchisees to purchase a machine from a Taylor competitor.  I have no idea what happened with this.  You would think that would have been the end of it.  But clearly not – when twelve percent of their machines are still down.  Could the franchisees not also buy other model Taylor machines?  You know, the ones that work?  If an alternative has been available for so long, why is there still a problem?  One suspects the answer to that question points back to McDonald's management.

In any case, what would be the "worst case fix" for this problem?  Well, McDonald's could pull out all the defective Taylor machines.  Sure, sue Taylor if you like.  But first get rid of the machines.  One wonders why they don't do this?  Cost?  In a cost versus reputation contest, what wins?  But my guess is that it is not cost or reputation that really matters.

No something stinks.  There's an ethical problem here somewhere.

Update, 7 March 2026

Find an update to this story here.

𓐵

Leaving the Chocolate Factory

Chased Off

I wrote back in January about going to work in an Amazon fulfillment center.  I have been sort of languishing in the role for a while.  Tonight was my last shift.

My managers liked me well enough; they certainly liked my work ethic.  But I’m not sure they knew what to do with me.  Plus in retrospect, I think I was a bit too observant for their tastes.

One night our Area Manager (the boss) asks me what the problem is.  I had been rather cool towards him for a couple of weeks.  I mean I worked hard, I did my job, but I’d pretty much nod and get on with it.

He noticed:  “Okay, what’s going on?”

“Not to worry Chase, I’m leaving.”

“Really?  Why is that?”

“Well, I feel manipulated.”

I saw it in his expression, he knew exactly what I meant.  See, he had given me a highly unusual year end bonus.  Tiny.  So small that it could only be seen as a symbolic gesture.  He did not even call it a bonus; he called it a thank you.  But it worked.  I felt like my hard work was appreciated.

A week later, he asked a few people to apply for promotion.  I was not among them.

Complete mea culpa.  “You’re absolutely right, I meant to ask you.  But then I was out for two weeks.”

I never learned why.

“I’ll fix it.”

By this point, I did not know if he could be trusted.  And as I mentioned in my original piece, I had noticed some things about how the department was run that made me wonder.

A couple of days went by.  Then, low and behold, he moves me.

“I want you to do this a couple of nights a week and water spider a couple of nights.”

Water spider is the Amazon term for the guy who delivers unmade boxes and other supplies to the packers.  I had been doing this job practically since I started.  It's easily the worst job in the building, but I never complained.  I worked my ass off and he knew it.

“Great.”

So he moves me to the label printers.  Ten industrial printers that print the address labels for the now packed boxes and envelopes.  They are pretty amazing:  The boxes and envelopes are of all different shapes and sizes, and these machines apply the labels to them while they are moving.  They need quite a bit of tending.

It’s not that it is a step up.  But to get ahead at Amazon, you need to have exposure to as many different roles as possible.  A few days later, he moves me again, to the main sort router, keeping product inventory flowing to the packers.

His Process Assistant, T.J., tells me:  “We are moving you to vital roles that keep the business running.”  So for the first time in over a month, I actually felt good about what I was doing.  But it was fleeting because I spent less than one full shift in each of these roles.  Evidently Chase did not believe me when I told him I was leaving.  Or more likely, didn't care.  I don't think he had any intention of moving me.  This was just further manipulation.

And hey I understand, a good box guy is almost impossible to find!  Seriously, for a few bucks and a few insincere promises, he got the hardest working water spider he could imagine for, well, as long as he could sucker me into staying.  I guess he thought that was a pretty good trade-off.  But I can only allow myself to be played for so long.

Twenty years in the real estate business and thirty years as an entrepreneur have taught me to be a pretty decent judge of character.  The guy's a bit shady, and I just don't want to work for someone I cannot trust.  I'll happily do the least desirable job.  And do it well.  But don't lie to me.  I gave Chase every opportunity to prove me wrong.  But once I was convinced of his inherent dishonesty, I left.

I am rather glum about it.  I loved the idea of working for Amazon.  The actual experience...not so much.

Oompa Loompa doompedee doo...

I need some boxes...I’m looking for you.

Oompa Loompa doompedee dee...

I’ll find a dupe who will fetch them for me!

𓐵

The Amazon Way: Quantity versus Quality

Editor's Note:  I have no interest in transforming this blog into a journal of my Amazon experience.  But I do want to follow up on my last post with a piece on quality.

In terms of business, I come from a high quality background.  I have always strived to provide the highest possible quality to our customers, no matter the cost.  And regardless of price charged.  It is just the way I have done business; I guess it is instilled in my DNA.

There is just no other way to put this:  Amazon is solely focused on quantity.  More specifically, speed.  Speed-wise everything is measured, which is fine and all.  But while speed is easy to measure, quality is more difficult to assess.  It is certainly possible.  Many companies have quality control departments to do just that.

I assure you, there is no quality control at Amazon.  None.  The closest they come to quality control is to weigh the packed box.  And that's the extent of it.

Again, this seems to be a business decision they have made.

Let's use packing boxes as an example – Because that is the department I know best.  On the face of it, it is really hard to screw up.  A customer orders six items, the six items show up ready to be packed, you put the items in a box, tape it shut, and throw it on a conveyor.  Right?  And you do this as fast as you possibly can because you know that management is counting both the number of items you pack as well as the number of boxes.

Well by now we've all received Amazon boxes.  And in most of them, along with our ordered product, the box contains dunnage.  You know, the bubble wrap used to prevent product from being shaken and damaged during shipment.  But if a packer wants to increase his or her pack rate, one obvious method is to skip or skimp on dunnage.  And why not?  Like I said, there is no quality control.

If the combined product does not fit well in the box?  Let's say for example, the box is the wrong size.  All products have listed dimensions, but it often happens that they are not quite right.  Products and product packaging change all the time.  In any case, the product(s) and the designated box are not a good match.  But it is difficult to realize this until you have attempted to pack the box.  And starting over with a different box involves determining which box to use.  And...wait for it...extra time.

Hey, just make it fit and get on with it.

Again, no quality control.

And it is not like management is unaware of this.  Pick up any box and you know immediately if it is the right size and if it has an appropriate amount of dunnage.  And managers pick up boxes all the time – to move them.  But never to assess them.

Dunnage is emblematic of the company mindset.  The machines that make the bubble wrap are notoriously unreliable.  And they need constant service, which is often not forthcoming.  And serviced machines are often not available.  So while the company proclaims adequate use of dunnage, they don't always make it easy for a packer to do so.  In truth, this is simply not a priority.

If you take this attitude and extend it to an entire company, what you have is:  The Amazon way.  Everything is rushed; start to finish.  Which inevitably produces lots of errors.  No problem, they have a whole department to solve problems.  Really.  But solving problems is a far cry from Edwards Deming style quality control.  In fact, Amazon is run exactly counter to Deming's principles.

Amazon seems to believe that speed equates to competency and hard work.  But this is only half true.  Speed can be an indication of hard work.  It is also much more likely to be an indication of low quality.  At least initially – or, when learning a new process.  One should first take the time to master quality, then and only then work on quantity.

Like I said, this seems to be a business decision they have made.  I am not naive; maybe it does not matter.  Maybe the company has made the correct business decision.  Perhaps.  I mean the customers want fast, free shipping.  Right?

Take their chief competitor, Walmart.  Is Walmart any different?  I really don't know.  What I do know is that I hate shopping at Walmart because of all the corners they cut.  The most obvious example:  Not enough cashiers.  Right?  And yet we all put up with this because they are cheaper, slightly cheaper, than Target.

I mean, we're not talking about Nordstrom here....

So is it the American way?  Quantity versus Quality...versus Cost.

Maybe so.

Here's a question:  Can a firm be low cost and yet focus on quality?  I think so.  Here's a list off the top of my head:  Southwest Airlines, Lidl, Aldi, Toyota, Honda, Dell, Timex, Charles Schwab, Chik-fil-A.  Okay sure, your mileage may vary.  But notice this:  All of these firms are in very competitive markets.

But Amazon has no real competitor.  Now I know, the company would take issue with this.  They would argue that the entire American retail landscape is their competition.  And this is absolutely true.

But it is also undeniable that for what Amazon does and on its scale, Amazon is without competition.  And I can't help but think that a little competition would be good for the company.  It might even force them to pay some attention to quality.

𓐵

Becoming an Oompa Loompa

On Working in Jeff Bezos' Chocolate Factory

In November, I started working nights at an Amazon fulfillment center.  One of my co-workers, a new friend of considerable intelligence and imagination, described it as working as an Oompa Loompa in Willie Wonka's chocolate factory.  I think the comparison is as close to accurate as I can imagine.  Working in an Amazon fulfillment center is a bit surreal.

The employment application process  It starts with the employment process.  Late one Friday night in mid-October, looking at my dwindling checking accounts, I decided I had to do something different.  I'll spare you all the depressing details (low inventory and the changing nature of the residential real estate business, family problems, Covid and Covid hysteria, the complete collapse of office and retail commercial real estate, etc).  So just for kicks I went to the Amazon jobs website.  Sure enough, they were hiring for night shift warehouse associates.  What the heck?  I clicked apply.

After entering your standard basic information, but interestingly not your employment history, the website application process directs you to a sort of online test.  Ostensibly it's designed to test your ability to pay attention and follow directions.  But I think it is really there just to weed out the complete idiots.

If you pass, they give you a job.  In fact, I received a contingent job offer that very Friday night, just after midnight.  Contingent on what?  Not a review of your resume or an interview.  Oh no.  Contingent on only two things:  Passing a drug screening and a criminal background check.  That's it.  No resume, no interview, no references.

A few days later I went for the drug screen, and a few days after that, I had a formal job offer and a start date.

I started working at Amazon on November 1st.

I started with about a hundred other people.  I asked the trainer how often they bring in this many people?  She said:  Three nights a week.

Immediately, I knew turnover is extremely high.  At that point, I could only wonder why.  But at least it somewhat explained the employment process.  Why bother with all the standard, time-consuming and expensive processes, when you're just going to have to replace them quickly anyway.  This seems to be an operating decision that they have made.  It did make me worry that the company might view the workers as disposable.  We'll come back to this.

The Amazon magic  The first thing you notice upon entering the building is the sound.  It is loud.  It is a very large building with conveyors as far as the eye can see.  The conveyors move very fast and make lots of noise.

But let's stop here and ask the question:  How would a non-Amazon retailer handle mail-order or internet business.  Let's use the most obvious possible challenger, Walmart.  Let me first say, I have no idea how Walmart handles its internet business.  This need not be Walmart.  It could be Target or Land's End or LL Bean or Bed Bath & Beyond.  Here is what I imagine.

Picture their warehouse.  We find shelves and shelves of product inventory.  Someone gets an order and perhaps takes a cart around and fills the order from the various shelves.  They bring the product(s) to a packaging area.  Put it in a box.  Label it.  Take it to a shipping area.  And finally load it on the waiting UPS truck.  Right?  Well something like that anyway.

Amazon does not do it this way.

The main advantage that Amazon has is they never had a legacy retail (brick-and-mortar) business to maintain.  So they never had to try and fit an internet logistics operation around a brick-and-mortar retail business.  They could envision and work to build a pure internet logistics operation from scratch.  And of course, that is what they did.

Yes, I realize they are adding retail stores now.  But my guess is they are doing the opposite from just about every other retailer.  Instead of fitting an internet business around a brick-and-mortar operation, they are fitting a brick-and-mortar business around an internet logistics operation.  See the difference?

While this sounds very simple, I assure you it is a tremendous competitive advantage.  While Walmart can easily compete with Amazon on product price, they cannot begin to compete with Amazon on product handling, movement, and tracking, internally plus shipping and delivery, in terms of both cost and speed.  I really don't think anyone can.

At Amazon the staff does not go to the inventory.  The inventory comes to the staff.

Stop and think about that.

Imagine how that might work.

The conveyors take up as much room as the warehouse.  The whole building is designed to not only store product (warehousing), but also to move product.  From receiving to storage to shipping box.  As efficiently as possible.  While Amazon is known as a technology company, I assure you it is a very sophisticated and elaborate conveyor system which makes the magic happen.  Any conventional warehouse would have to be gutted and rebuilt to accommodate this level of conveyor-ship (to coin a term).

Their true competitive advantage is that they have combined their elaborate conveyor system with advanced technology to operate it.  The system can deliver multiple products, from various storage locations, to a single location, far from the actual warehousing area, at the same time, ready for boxing.  That is almost magical.

So as not to breach any confidentiality agreement that I may or may not have signed, I am going to stop here with the how.  I really don't know if I signed such a document, so I am going to assume that I did.  But I think you get the picture.  Or at least enough of the picture.

Amazon's working environment  It is not that it is fully automated.  There are lots of people involved.  For example, the actual box packing is done by staff.  But the conveyors and technology allow for a very high production rate per staff member.  The packing staff stand in one location and product comes to them.  Box after box.

It is not a fun job.  Packing boxes.  But it is amazing when you really think about it.

Then the box goes on a different conveyor off to some labeling machine and on to shipping.

Anyway, that's where most people start working at Amazon.  Packing boxes.

I say it is not fun.  But it is far from the worst job I ever had.  It is not mindless, as every order is different, requiring the packer to pay attention.  I guess the worst part of it is that you have to stand for ten to twelve hours.  Packing boxes.

Which brings us to another decision that Amazon seems to have made.  I don't think one could efficiently pack a box sitting in a chair or on a stool.  I think to be efficient, you really do need to stand to do it.

But outside of the break rooms, there is not a chair or a stool in the building.  Amazon seems to have made the decision that they expect all of their people (staff and managers alike) to stand the entire time they are working.  No doubt they believe that this increases overall productivity.  And maybe it does.

I said I would come back to whether the company views its workers as disposable.  This standing business is only the start of it.  The building is completely, and unnecessarily, windowless.  I don't understand that.  I don't think anyone could seriously make the argument that natural light is a bad thing.  The company does not allow ear pods.  Staff members can only listen to the loud and surely harmful operating environment or use earplugs.  Those are the only options.

Everything is measured and watched.  If you pack boxes, they are counting the number of items you pack.  So you better stick to your work.  This seems to be the source of most online complaints about the company.  Everything is measured and there are cameras everywhere.  You are always being watched.  But I think the complaints are really unfair.  Amazon is paying you to pack boxes.  Just because any other firm might not have the ability to track how productive you are does not mean that Amazon should not as well.

And further, the company is not at all outrageous about it.  There was this one lady who started right about the time I did.  She was terrible at it.  For weeks.  She just could not seem to get the knack of it.  I really worried that they would fire her.  But she was trying and I think the managers realized that.  She is still there.  She may never be the fastest packer, but she was given time to become adequate.

So yes, turnover is high.  But just like any firm, Amazon seems to prefer retention.  What I understand less well is why they don't do more to improve the working environment for the staff.  I think this would help tremendously with morale and retention.

Little things.  For example, it's January.  Amazon provides no place to put your coat.  I really think they prefer you to simply not wear a coat into the building.  As inconceivable as this is, it is the only explanation I can fathom.  I mean on the very first night I started, the operations manager said:  Bring as little with you as possible.  But no coat seems a bit extreme.  I mean, it is cold and the parking lot is the size of a sports arena's.

Break room food.  From machines, it is prepackaged, terrible, and expensive.  Why?  In order to help retain staff, it should be good (perhaps even fresh) and company-subsidized.  I suppose the company really wants you to bring your own.  And many people do.  But to my mind, it would help with the expense of turnover if they'd provide better and cheaper choices.

Speaking of the break rooms, the company has installed these plastic pods around little individual (single-person) tables.  So staff members can each sit alone in their pod during their breaks and not catch the covid from their neighbors.  It is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen.

A tyranny of the trivial and the pointless  But if one staff member sticks his head around the pod to speak with a fellow staff member?  Well, there is someone from the Human Resources Department on hand to put a stop to such a grave breach of protocol.  Seriously.

In fact, I have never seen a company where HR has been given such an outsized role.  I guess it might be fine if they seemed to understand what goes on in the building.  But it is like they work in a completely different universe.

I'll give you an example.  In their quest to make everyone safer in this age of Covid, they have mapped out how they expect staff to move around the building.  Posting maps and arrows and roping pathways and everything.  Needless to say, they want staff members to walk long, unnecessary distances (within short break periods and in a company that constantly measures staff productivity), supposedly to maintain social distancing and avoid close contact with other staff members.  Which, no matter what they do, is not at all possible given the size of the staff.  But nonetheless, HR has to assert itself.  I mean, they will even get out on the floor with a bullhorn and shout that you cannot go this way or that.  Yes really.

In any case, in the building, there are these overhead walkways.  Large gangways.  And instead of following the HR maps and arrows, staff members just go up and over to get to where they want to be.  Here is the point:  The HR department seems to be absolutely unaware that these walkways exist.  But of course that is impossible.  They know they are there and that employees are using them.  And I think certainly that they know that employees know that they know.  But by ignoring them, they keep up the pretense that they are actually doing something productive.  It's Covid theater.

So I guess it will be me who points out what everyone already knows:  The emperor has no clothes.

If I had to label the Amazon Human Resources Department I would call them:  The Keystone Stasi (although I realize one might have to be a certain age to appreciate either reference).  And their apparent job description:  Lower morale and increase turnover.  But I guess that provides them with an extra bit of job security in terms of recruitment and hiring.

Given the large staff, people are on top of each other.  If you were serious about limiting contact, you'd have to cut the staff in half.  And that cannot happen for operations to continue.  But HR has to put on a show and that is what they do.  And that is all that it is...a show.

Instead, they should be focusing on things that actually make sense.  I've never seen anyone actually cleaning those break room plastic pods.  In fact, regardless of what they proclaim, cleaning in the entire building seems incredibly limited.  Even by pre-Covid standards.

The company installed plastic barriers between packing stations.  Again, I have never seen them cleaned and just by looking at them, it's obvious that they've never been cleaned.  They are filthy and literally worse than nothing.  Seriously:  No barriers would be a vast improvement over filthy barriers.  As currently configured, the staff must pass through multiple filthy barriers multiple times during any given shift.   Again, it's a show.  The entire packing area is never ever properly cleaned, much less disinfected.

I think it is worth noting that managerial workstations are not shrouded in plastic.  And the managers work closer together than the packers.  Simply because of the workspace needed to do their jobs, the packers are roughly six feet apart anyway.  So I am not sure what the goal is here, but it is surely not health safety.

Here's an idea:  Instead of paying people to walk around with bullhorns and installing useless plastic, how about we invest in some actual cleaning and disinfecting?

The whole thing is a sham.

After reading this post, a friend points out that companies and governments believe they have to do something.  Anything...other than nothing.  And they have to be seen to do something or risk bad optics among the staff or the public.  It makes no difference whatsoever if what they do is effective.  I guess he is correct.

Staff  Staying, briefly, with the Human Resources Department.  Let me pose a question:  If you have a policy to not check references of incoming employees, what type of people might be attracted to such an employer?  I really think the question answers itself.

The vast majority of people I have met working at Amazon are absolutely wonderful.  And as you might imagine, you meet all types.  I have even met a couple of other real estate brokers.  In 2020, of course I have.  But I have met a few people, who in my judgment, should not be working there.  In fact, they probably should not be working anywhere.  Abrasive is the word that comes to mind, but I've probably not met the worst of them.

No doubt a simple reference check would have brought this to light.  And I get it, the company has done its cost-benefit analysis and decided to save the time and money, and weed these people out later.  Which becomes necessary because these employees are unlikely to quit voluntarily — They are basically unemployable elsewhere and my guess is they know it.

So I am not sure that this is the right decision for the company.  People like this can do incredible damage.  And tolerating people like this, for any necessary period of time for the issues to come to light on their own, and then to the attention of management, and then the time necessary to get rid of them, really sends the wrong message to the staff that you wish to retain.

There is a saying that comes to mind:  Nothing will kill a great employee faster than watching you tolerate a bad one (Perry Belcher).  Seems spot on to me.

Management  I have heard of managers with a staff of six or eight, but I have never heard of a staff member with six direct managers.  Yet, I have six bosses.  I know that some of them report to others; so yes, there is a managerial hierarchy.  But the fact is, at any point, I am reporting to six people.  With that many managers, it's impossible for them to all be on the same page all the time.  For a staff member, this creates a bit of chaos in terms of assignments and responsibilities and expectations.  And they just do not seem to recognize this.  It is a bit odd.

To be clear, that is six managers for just over a hundred people in my department.  Again, I find it strange, but they all seem busy.  In fact, the whole building is teeming with managers who all seem terribly terribly busy.  I am sure they are, but I have absolutely no idea what they all do with themselves.  For a company that stresses productivity and efficiency, this just does not make much sense to me.

Now I have not worked for someone else in roughly thirty years.  I became an entrepreneur to get away from the favoritism and inane policies found in almost all large organizations.  Amazon is no exception.  Like I said, most everyone starts packing boxes, and it's not the greatest job in the world.  It is certainly not the best job in the building.  And the surest way to get moved from packing boxes into another role is to be an attractive female.  Oh, did I not mention?  All of our managers are men.

Other commenters have pointed out that if you excel at packing boxes (are fast at it), the managers have an incentive to leave you in that role.  I have also noticed this — Heck, one of my managers admitted this to me.  The fastest packer in our building is an attractive woman.  The takeaway:  To get moved out of packing, be an attractive woman who packs at an average to slightly above average rate, but not so high that management views you as too valuable to move.

As for our fastest packer, she and I have become friendly, if not exactly friends.  She seems convinced that if she does a great job, the best in the building, that the managers will move her or promote her or something.  Because that would make sense.  And she strikes me as someone who is going to do her best regardless.  It's who she is.  But she is growing frustrated and restless with her lack of progress.  Sadly, I'm just not sure she has the right strategy.

I am am not totally unsupportive of our managers.  By and large, all of them have treated me fairly and have been supportive of me.  And I can see that they treat the other staff members fairly as well.  There are a couple of them, including my de facto direct supervisor, who were promoted out of packing.  And without hesitation, I would say they deserved it.  Nevertheless, in my brief tenure it has become patently obvious who routinely gets moved out of packing into other roles.  This is worth noting when you understand how few opportunities there are for actual promotion.  Staff turnover is high; there are lots of opportunities for movement.  But actual promotion opportunities are much less frequent.  And for promotion, exposure to multiple roles is important.

This state of affairs is not at all surprising to me.  I knew before I applied for this job, or any job, that this is the way it works.  Everywhere.  The problem with large organizations is that the managerial classes are not owners, but they certainly are self-serving.  So their interests and the company's interests are not perfectly aligned.  Even if you give managers incentives based on company goals, say for example production goals, managers will still serve their own interests first.

One might expect, or hope, that Amazon is different.  I assure you, it is not.

Jeff Bezos is famous for his long term vision.  He delayed corporate profits for years, instead investing in Amazon's infrastructure and driving down costs.  If only he could instill this level of managerial integrity in his line managers.

Yes, this post might cost me my job.  I hope not.  It has taken me a couple of months to decide whether I like working there.  And I mostly do...I guess.  But for all of the above reasons, my appreciation is waning.  It really depends on the day.

But hey, it's a chocolate factory — Anything is possible.

Oompa Loompa doompedee doo...

We've got a package coming for you.

Oompa Loompa doompedee dee...

If you are Prime we will ship it for free!

𓐵