Recently, the New York Times ran a front-page story about the conditions for white-collar workers at Amazon. It revealed a workplace where abrupt firings are common, grown men and women cry at their desks, and people are scolded for not responding to e-mails after midnight. The story made clear how much things have changed in the American workforce. Once upon a time, it was taken for granted that the wealthier classes enjoyed a life of leisure on the backs of the proletariat. Today it is people in skilled trades who can most find reasonable hours coupled with good pay; the American professional is among those subject to humiliation and driven like a beast of burden.
No one thought things would be this way. Keynes famously forecast a three-hour workday, and in 1964 Life magazine devoted a two-part series to what it considered a “real threat” facing American society: the coming epidemic of too much leisure time. In “The Emptiness of Too Much Leisure,” it asserted that “some of the middle-of-the-road prophets of what automation is doing to our economy think that we are on the verge of a 30-hour week.” The follow-up was entitled “The Task Ahead: How to Take Life Easy.”
Fifty years later, it’s fair to say that the looming leisure crisis has been licked. The work week at places like law firms, banks, and high-tech companies has steadily increased, to levels considered intolerable by many people. Indeed, in 2006, the top twenty per cent of earners were twice as likely to work more than fifty hours a week than the bottom twenty per cent, a reversal of historic conditions.
Just why this has happened is both a mystery and a paradox. The past fifty years have seen massive gains in productivity, the invention of countless labor-saving devices, and the mass entry of women into the formal workforce. If we assume that there is, to a certain degree, a fixed amount of work necessary for society to function, how can we at once be more productive, have more workers, and yet still be working more hours? Something else must be going on.
The question has proved a source of fascination for economists and writers, such as Brigid Schulte, a Washington Post reporter, who wrote a personal investigation of the question. (She ended up, in large part, blaming her husband, who wasn’t sharing equally in the burden of running their home.) As Elizabeth Kolbert has written, everyone agrees that there is no one simple answer to the question. Some people think that Americans just prefer work to leisure; a strong work ethic, according to this theory, has become a badge of honor for anyone with a college degree. If you’re busy, you seem important. There is also the pride that people can have in their work; they also find love and free food at workplaces, and go to conferences as a form of vacation. Others think the rise in work must somehow be related to inequality: as people at the top of the income ladder earn more money, each hour they work becomes more valuable. And there’s the theory that our needs and desires grow as we consume more, producing an even greater need to work.
What all of these explanations have in common is the idea that the answer comes from examining workers’ decisions and incentives. There’s something missing: the question of whether the American system, by its nature, resists the possibility of too much leisure, even if that’s what people actually want, and even if they have the means to achieve it. In other words, the long hours may be neither the product of what we really want nor the oppression of workers by the ruling class, the old Marxist theory. They may be the byproduct of systems and institutions that have taken on lives of their own and serve no one’s interests. That can happen if some industries have simply become giant make-work projects that trap everyone within them.
What counts as work, in the skilled trades, has some intrinsic limits; once a house or bridge is built, that’s the end of it. But in white-collar jobs, the amount of work can expand infinitely through the generation of false necessities—that is, reasons for driving people as hard as possible that have nothing to do with real social or economic needs. Consider the litigation system, in which the hours worked by lawyers at large law firms are a common complaint. If dispute resolution is the social function of the law, what we have is far from the most efficient way to reach fair or reasonable resolutions. Instead, modern litigation can be understood as a massive, socially unnecessary arms race, wherein lawyers subject each other to torturous amounts of labor just because they can. In older times, the limits of technology and a kind of professionalism created a natural limit to such arms races, but today neither side can stand down, lest it put itself at a competitive disadvantage.
A typical analysis blames greedy partners for crazy hours, but the irony is that the people at the top are often as unhappy and overworked as those at the bottom: it is a system that serves almost no one. Moreover, our many improvements in the technologies of productivity make the arms-race problem worse. The fact that employees are now always reachable eliminates what was once a natural barrier of sorts, the idea that work was something that happened during office hours or at the physical office. With no limits, work becomes like a football game where the whistle is never blown.
Litigation may be an extreme example, but I do not doubt that many other industries have their own arms races that create work that is of dubious necessity. The antidote is simple to prescribe but hard to achieve: it is a return to the goal of efficiency in work—fulfilling whatever needs we have, as a society, with the minimal effort required, while leaving the option of more work as a hobby for those who happen to love it. In this respect, it seems like no little irony that Amazon should be a brutal workplace when its ostensible guiding principle is making people’s lives better. There must be a better way.
而Amazon从根本的文化来讲，就是设计成鼓励赤裸的竞争的。 这是一个从最顶开始 ， 就极端追求以最小的代价， 达到最快的速度和最高的质量， 然后再以上次达到的极端结果作为判断的底线， 要求更快， 更多， 更好， 更便宜。这点大概是公认的事实， 我也就不引用amazon那几句著名的原则了。 经常可以听到的事情就是， team A倾尽全力优化产品性能， 结果悄悄地上头搞了个team B 结果做的更好，直接比拼， 适者生存， team A就傻眼了。
同样的事实也可以用到工程师身上， again, 有的组大概有好的老板和合适的管理， 不是那么赤裸。 很多情况下， manager鼓励直接竞争和data driven的决断, 为什么呢? 因为短期之内出不了最好的结果， 他自己的老板就会对他开刀了， 压力是从最上层传递到底的。 No one is safe, it’s always day one.
评论 ( 21 )
经理带领众人给指定人挖坑，或者众人挖坑为了对抗经理指定某人的工作。或者一群人为你定制传播八卦。所有公司都有，有的为初级，有的重度。亚马逊属于重度。
呃，在西雅图总部某组工作过一段时间。文化匹配问题，我个人不喜欢那里的文化。有点mean，有点假，有点表演，有点恶心。
有个经理辞职去了airbnb，大组举行欢送会，有人念了一首诗，说的感人泪下。假的我都快尿了，这到底是公司还是戏班。
跟找女朋友一样，三观不合，其实没有谁的错。我离开之后，买货还是会去他家买，毕竟他们对顾客还是蛮好的。
“对员工就要像种蘑菇一样，把他们关小黑屋里喂他们吃屎。”
不管是贝索斯、乔布斯，都以压榨员工出名。可以说他们很自私。其他行业也一样。周星驰为了拍好一个镜头，可以让演员拍一百多次。这当然不太人道。王家卫一部电影拍好几年，无数幕后的工作人员拿着低薪玩命工作。当然最后的好名声都是导演的，这种牺牲底层员工利益的做法，是很多领导人在激烈竞争下必然的选择。
其实看多了你会发现所谓“企业文化”大多数情况下并没啥鸟用，不会对公司经营状况等造成实质影响。都是boss和某些部分为了让自己感觉爽。
当然这并不是我一个底层屌丝的观点。几年前某省top3国企老总也说过类似的话（我会说这公司有专门的企业文化部门，天天搞文化么，你们见过改编东方红来歌颂老总宣扬企业文化么？就差喊老总万岁万万岁了）。
公司赚钱了，给的起具有一定优势的工资就有人去，比如大菊花猝死新闻不鲜见，但还不是是无数奋斗逼蜂拥而至？这两年在清北的招人数目比其他公司加起来还多的多，为啥，钱多呗。。。
其实在CS毕业生的语境里，去亚马逊是因为亚马逊面试的bar比Google和Facebook低。我认识太多人随便刷刷题就拿到亚马逊offer的，还有两轮OA连电面和onsite的都没有就发offer的。
为什么亚马逊福利不好工作压力大还有那么多人去？因为那些人面不进Google和Facebook啊。
当然客观地看，在AWS组工作对技术水平的提高还是很明显的。
说亚马逊苛刻对待员工的，你没去过中国其他的公司吗？
让自己成为有价值的人，不爽换东家，用实际行动教育资本家好好对待员工。沉溺在牢骚满腹不思进取的状态有毁前程^ _ ^利益相关，亚马逊的 粉
任何行业发展到极致，都会这样的。生产率越来越高，机器越来越牛，人数的重要性就越来越低。
好的地方，能学到本事，未来雇主喜欢挖。Sales除外，亚马逊中国没有传统意义的销售。毕竟市场上不拿佣金的销售也只有这一家吧。特么的我是去了别的公司才知道原来抽纸公司会提供啊…Jeff就是抠门大仙转世…
zz You Really Don’t Need To Work So Much
Recently, the New York Times ran a front-page story about the conditions for white-collar workers at Amazon. It revealed a workplace where abrupt firings are common, grown men and women cry at their desks, and people are scolded for not responding to e-mails after midnight. The story made clear how much things have changed in the American workforce. Once upon a time, it was taken for granted that the wealthier classes enjoyed a life of leisure on the backs of the proletariat. Today it is people in skilled trades who can most find reasonable hours coupled with good pay; the American professional is among those subject to humiliation and driven like a beast of burden.
No one thought things would be this way. Keynes famously forecast a three-hour workday, and in 1964 Life magazine devoted a two-part series to what it considered a “real threat” facing American society: the coming epidemic of too much leisure time. In “The Emptiness of Too Much Leisure,” it asserted that “some of the middle-of-the-road prophets of what automation is doing to our economy think that we are on the verge of a 30-hour week.” The follow-up was entitled “The Task Ahead: How to Take Life Easy.”
Fifty years later, it’s fair to say that the looming leisure crisis has been licked. The work week at places like law firms, banks, and high-tech companies has steadily increased, to levels considered intolerable by many people. Indeed, in 2006, the top twenty per cent of earners were twice as likely to work more than fifty hours a week than the bottom twenty per cent, a reversal of historic conditions.
Just why this has happened is both a mystery and a paradox. The past fifty years have seen massive gains in productivity, the invention of countless labor-saving devices, and the mass entry of women into the formal workforce. If we assume that there is, to a certain degree, a fixed amount of work necessary for society to function, how can we at once be more productive, have more workers, and yet still be working more hours? Something else must be going on.
The question has proved a source of fascination for economists and writers, such as Brigid Schulte, a Washington Post reporter, who wrote a personal investigation of the question. (She ended up, in large part, blaming her husband, who wasn’t sharing equally in the burden of running their home.) As Elizabeth Kolbert has written, everyone agrees that there is no one simple answer to the question. Some people think that Americans just prefer work to leisure; a strong work ethic, according to this theory, has become a badge of honor for anyone with a college degree. If you’re busy, you seem important. There is also the pride that people can have in their work; they also find love and free food at workplaces, and go to conferences as a form of vacation. Others think the rise in work must somehow be related to inequality: as people at the top of the income ladder earn more money, each hour they work becomes more valuable. And there’s the theory that our needs and desires grow as we consume more, producing an even greater need to work.
What all of these explanations have in common is the idea that the answer comes from examining workers’ decisions and incentives. There’s something missing: the question of whether the American system, by its nature, resists the possibility of too much leisure, even if that’s what people actually want, and even if they have the means to achieve it. In other words, the long hours may be neither the product of what we really want nor the oppression of workers by the ruling class, the old Marxist theory. They may be the byproduct of systems and institutions that have taken on lives of their own and serve no one’s interests. That can happen if some industries have simply become giant make-work projects that trap everyone within them.
What counts as work, in the skilled trades, has some intrinsic limits; once a house or bridge is built, that’s the end of it. But in white-collar jobs, the amount of work can expand infinitely through the generation of false necessities—that is, reasons for driving people as hard as possible that have nothing to do with real social or economic needs. Consider the litigation system, in which the hours worked by lawyers at large law firms are a common complaint. If dispute resolution is the social function of the law, what we have is far from the most efficient way to reach fair or reasonable resolutions. Instead, modern litigation can be understood as a massive, socially unnecessary arms race, wherein lawyers subject each other to torturous amounts of labor just because they can. In older times, the limits of technology and a kind of professionalism created a natural limit to such arms races, but today neither side can stand down, lest it put itself at a competitive disadvantage.
A typical analysis blames greedy partners for crazy hours, but the irony is that the people at the top are often as unhappy and overworked as those at the bottom: it is a system that serves almost no one. Moreover, our many improvements in the technologies of productivity make the arms-race problem worse. The fact that employees are now always reachable eliminates what was once a natural barrier of sorts, the idea that work was something that happened during office hours or at the physical office. With no limits, work becomes like a football game where the whistle is never blown.
Litigation may be an extreme example, but I do not doubt that many other industries have their own arms races that create work that is of dubious necessity. The antidote is simple to prescribe but hard to achieve: it is a return to the goal of efficiency in work—fulfilling whatever needs we have, as a society, with the minimal effort required, while leaving the option of more work as a hobby for those who happen to love it. In this respect, it seems like no little irony that Amazon should be a brutal workplace when its ostensible guiding principle is making people’s lives better. There must be a better way.
在亚马逊工作了快三年半，觉得自己可能有些许资格和义务来回答一下这个问题，以下所有只代表个人观点，也只局限于我自己所能观察到的亚马逊。
1. 我确实见过有同事被老板骂哭，但绝不常见，而且一般都是很极端的情况（比如项目非常重要，而员工所犯错误确实很严重。其实此时员工的心理压力已经很大了，未必是因为老板challenge了TA才掉眼泪的。）
2. 众所周知，亚马逊在中国的生意发展情况不如预期那么理想，所以大家的压力都挺大的，许多部门也确实存在加班情况，但比起我所知道的一些竞争对手公司，亚马逊的加班绝对不算严重。（以我自己为例，一般加班到七点左右就可以走了，极少情况需要到九点。而且晚上加班之后第二天晚点儿来大家都能理解。）
3. 关于怀孕或者休事假回来之后被边缘化或者劝辞的情况，就我所知，在亚马逊大家关注的唯一重点就是你的工作能力和态度，如果真的发生此类情况，我敢说，肯定是与怀孕和休假本身无关的。我们部门有个女孩，一直以来工作表现都不错，生了孩子之后觉得压力非常大，已经想好提离职回家休息一段时间，但是老板建议她先休一个月的假，调整好身体和心态，再回来上班。结果就是这个女孩休了一个月的假之后，就回来上班了。
4. 关于凌晨收发邮件的指控。羞愧地说，这种事儿我也干过。但是这个事情呢，看你怎么看吧。我有段时间常常会凌晨3,4点回邮件，主要是失眠导致的，想不出自己能干点啥，就刷刷朋友圈，刷不出东西，刷刷微博，也刷不出东西了，那就刷刷邮箱吧，哇~太好了，有邮件可以回耶~~~然后就开始精神抖擞地回邮件。。。大概就是这样。。。我不知道其他同事是什么样原因，但我从来没有遇到过有人凌晨等着我回邮件的情况。
话说回来，亚马逊是我所工作过的公司平均人员素质最高的一个，每一个人都很精彩，有自己的爱好，想法和追求。同时，亚马逊也是我见过的最不political的公司，多半是因为太忙了吧。。。总的来说，在亚马逊的这三年半时间，我成长了不少，过得也很开心，认识了很多朋友，还因为朋友的推荐有了更多爱好和乐趣。
就酱~
全在于自己的选择吧。
其实不仅是亚马逊，很多公司也是啊，尤其是现今很多互联网创业公司，员工一天工作十几个小时以上，都很正常。其实就是公司给个人提供了一个平台，然后个人觉得有所得，努力工作，但若累了，也可以选择离开吧。工作是人生方式之一，不必做到被他累死的程度，但确实需要认真对待。
列一个我眼中一万人以上的大公司对新毕业的员工待遇的比较：
和谷歌，脸书比，亚马逊的待遇和福利确实都比不上，人家聪明，能力强，自然能去好的公司享受好的待遇。去不了这两家的，也就只能现在暂时好好努力打怪升级，或许有朝一日就能享受到更好的待遇了。
和隔壁的微软比，我觉得薪资待遇上没有本质区别。每年都有不少亚马逊跳槽到微软的，也有不少微软跳槽到亚马逊的。但是微软福利确实好，很多组工作量确实不大，日子确实悠闲。相比起来，亚马逊很多组确实要忙很多。想要比较有挑战的日子，还是想要比较清闲的日子，就看个人喜好了。
和剩下的公司比，唔，我很少有听说亚马逊员工有跳槽到剩下的大公司的。
当然一万人以下的非大型公司里的环境就又不太一样了。尤其是一些比较热门的初创公司，由于期权实在太诱人，谷歌和脸书的员工每年都有很多跳过去。这就是另一个故事了。
闲的很闲，比如我，忙的很忙，忙死了。生活还是很悠然自得的，起码比国门还是清闲很多。十点左右上班，五六点下班，工资开的也不差，中产水平。
Qualification: 在Amazon呆了刚满五年的工程师, 拿过outstanding performance ratings, launch过大大小小的项目， 做过三次recorded public tech talk(哈希望下次是POA Talk), mentor过大概不下10人，目前正在mentor program 里mentor三人。 大概有小小资格评论两句 – 只说工程师。
这个问题你会看到很多人出来说， 我就在Amazon啊， 我从来没看到有人哭过。 大概全世界都一样, Hackernews和Reddit里也有大批Amazon员工现身说法， 那个LinkedIn上跑出来写了长篇反驳的senior manager就更不用提了。但NYT采访了不下一百人， Hackernews, Reddit上， 绝大多数的现身说法都是负面， 甚至极端负面， 问一问在西雅图周围呆过几年以上的工程师， 大多数提到Amazon对待员工， 都会报以摇头和诡异的微笑。
原因呢， Amazon的文化很独特， 跟它赖以成名的SOA structure一样， 每个部门和组之间相对独立自由， 差距极大， 最关键的区别是senior manager或以上的人的管理风格， 如果你运气好， 遇到好的 人性化的manager, 那么恭喜你， 希望他招到的团队都能和他/她一样， 理解并尊重技术， 理解并尊重工程师， 可以帮工程师阻挡荒唐的deadline, randomization, context switch, politics， 恭喜你， 你中了Amazon里最珍贵的大奖-跟对了组， 特别是跟对了manager. 希望你的manager能够在Amazon生存。希望你不要头脑发热不跟着你的manager走。
那再来说NYT的文章， 私下跟在Amazon许久的老朋友聊， 基本的感觉都是文章是基于事实的， 但是有点选择性(为了戏剧性的效果) 但基本的事实并不离谱。 实际上我也多次跟朋友说过, Amazon极其的cut throat, 完全感觉是适者生存(达尔文主义)越到级别高一点， 利益冲突多一点， 这种赤裸裸的直接竞争和攻击就会越多。
而Amazon从根本的文化来讲，就是设计成鼓励赤裸的竞争的。 这是一个从最顶开始 ， 就极端追求以最小的代价， 达到最快的速度和最高的质量， 然后再以上次达到的极端结果作为判断的底线， 要求更快， 更多， 更好， 更便宜。这点大概是公认的事实， 我也就不引用amazon那几句著名的原则了。 经常可以听到的事情就是， team A倾尽全力优化产品性能， 结果悄悄地上头搞了个team B 结果做的更好，直接比拼， 适者生存， team A就傻眼了。
同样的事实也可以用到工程师身上， again, 有的组大概有好的老板和合适的管理， 不是那么赤裸。 很多情况下， manager鼓励直接竞争和data driven的决断, 为什么呢? 因为短期之内出不了最好的结果， 他自己的老板就会对他开刀了， 压力是从最上层传递到底的。 No one is safe, it’s always day one.
加上每个组的mentor带人参差不齐， 经常有短时间适应不了， 出不了结果(deliver result)的人就悄悄被fire的， 所以被当众羞辱和当众比较大概只是更好的结果。长期以往， 很少有人能受得了那种无尽的精神压力。 就算你做到很好， 你自己也是把自己的bar和expextation设置的更高而已, 当你偶尔低于自己的bar, manager就会有十足的理由来push你了。 这也是为什么NYT的文章里提到， 即使优等生在这里都会感觉自己很差。
所以在这样极端追求最小代价和最好结果的环境下， 听到有人被羞辱的哭， 有人因为短期绩效浮动被开， 实在不是什么惊天动地的新闻。 这五年里上至Director下至junior SDE， 见过太多人被开掉或逼走了。在会议里开骂， 羞辱， 也经常听说， 我自己经历过的极紧张的争论也很多。 Again, 这是系统性的， 文化上设计成这样的。 也只有这样，才能达到最小的成本， 压榨出最大的性能， 不断创新和超越自我啊， 难道用户不是因为这才爱着Amazon么? 呵呵。所以在Amazon能成功的人， 是有一定特点的。
另外一个可以信赖的数据是， Amazon的平均turn over是一年半左右。 这个系统设计的狡诈， Amazon给员工的股票是四年里前两年只有5%和15%(记不太清楚), 就是因为算到大多数人两年以内就走掉了。 而且， 好像现在的规矩是走的快还要把签约费和搬家费和那点股票退给Amazon.
另外一个好玩的隐藏事实， Amazon会算你每年拿到的总额， 假设你某年签约时候的股票终于熬到了， 碰巧你人品大爆发， 拿到了稀有的outstanding 评分， 对不起， 不能给你太多股票了， 因为你今年签约的股票很多要兑现啊， 我们已经给你够多了， 不能再多了， 但是这个封顶HR是一般不会告诉你的。 至于工资涨幅吗， 呵呵， 我自己最好的rating拿到 5%多。 yeah I know:)
至于升职，Amazon的层次极其扁平， SDE1, 2, Senior SDE, Principal SDE(L7 Senior manager level), Senior Principle(Director), Distinguished Engineer(VP), 你问比例吗， 几万员工人里有不到800 Senior SDE, 不到70 Principle SDE。扁平的原因呢， 其一效率更高， 减少官僚， 更重要的一点呢， 鼓励竞争啊。Dog fight的OLR meeting是集大成的体现 (升职和review评审， managers准备好大量的数据和文档， 因为自己的员工要被拿出来直接比拼和相互攻击了)
SDE 1到2比较容易， 基本在一年半到三年以内， 三年升不上， 大概就要进著名的PIP(走人的前夕)。 然后99%的工程师都会卡在SDE2. 至于Principle么, 除非你是业内赫赫有名的大牛。
所以我自己的结论是， 一点不惊讶NYT的报道， 虽然稍有戏剧化， 但不偏颇， 这不是简单的好与坏， 正与邪的问题， 这系统是设计成这样， 来达到最便宜和最佳的最快的结果， 如果你不行， 很快会有20出头的毕业生顶上来 源源不尽。 所以执行起来遇到离谱的manager, 肯定会有各种悲剧。
至于为什么留这么久(五年在Amazon已经够久)， 因为喜欢做的事情， 喜欢Amazon的挑战和影响， 喜欢和信任大部分共事的人吧 许多都是非常好的朋友。 这也是许多喜欢Amazon的人的结论 – 这家公司的创新， 效率，和接近Startup的氛围是很能吸引一批人， 有一些极其聪明和极其喜欢挑战的， 能做事情的人， 工作确实可以带来极大的满足感。
当然， 绿卡和升职当然也是因素之一。事实上， Amazon的许多工程师也是因为升到SDE2才能办绿卡才会呆超过两年的 🙂
现在不说富士康改说亚马逊了？
据香港《文汇报》8月18日报道，网购巨擘亚马逊曾多次传出苛待员工丑闻，《纽约时报》近日访问美国逾百名离职及现任亚马逊员工，揭露他们面对的苛刻工作环境。
有员工称公司人力资源部奉行“汰弱留强”原则，常以排行榜或威胁解雇来鞭策员工，甚至鼓励同事互相揭短，致员工压力爆灯，日日以泪洗脸。有不幸流产或患癌的前员工更声称遭到公司警告，“不应让私人生活影响工作”。
有亚马逊前员工忆述在职期间不幸胎死腹中，结果被公司列入“表现改善项目”中，声称是要“确保她能继续专注工作”，该项目实质是警告员工濒临被炒边缘;另一名患乳癌的女员工也受到相同对待。一名不幸流产的女员工，在手术翌日即被上司要求出外公干，更暗示若不遵从便可能被炒，吓得她只好服从命令。
不少人投诉在亚马逊工作“有开工无收工”，有在Kindle工作过的前员工形容，每周工作长达80小时，若做不到会被视为严重缺点。有员工称即使在下班后、深夜时分或度假时仍经常收到工作电邮或讯息，甚至有人因过劳患上胃溃疡。有员工称见到同事在办公室哭泣是“日常事”，甚至声称“几乎每个人都试过在办公桌前哭”。
亚马逊发言人拒绝直接就报道置评，但透过一名员工的网志反驳报道中个别指控属完全虚构，又称公司知悉员工存在不满。有在职员工也斥责报道错误，力撑公司工作环境理想及具挑战性。
跟着匿名用户歪楼：
如果当年李嘉诚真是那么想的，那他还真厚道啊。
可惜市场难料，或许当年决绝一点，许多工人趁年轻转型干别的或许过得更好？（谁能知道啊）
经济规律就像春华秋实，是客观规律，并不是比李嘉诚或贝索斯等好的老板不存在，只是老板也要考虑企业的生存，更冷酷的BOSS或许更能在市场搏杀中存活？
哪怕跟匿名答案说的不同：大V门能如同工会般影响到企业的决策。但也无法掰得过看不见的手，不然美帝不会有工人自发地打出了”我们要工作，不要工会”的口号。
喊口号什么的都弱爆了好不好？
我以前的公司，早上要举行升！旗！仪！式！ Σ( ° △ °
)︴
然后要唱歌！什么飞得更高啦，我相信啦，追梦赤子心啦。╮(￣▽￣”)╭
每天要布置家！庭！作！业！（╯‵□′）╯︵┴─┴
作业是看漫画！！Σ(●ﾟдﾟ●)
看《那年那兔那些事儿》！Σ(ﾟ∀ﾟﾉ)ﾉ
不但要看！转天早上还！要！考！试！（╯‵□′）╯︵┴─┴
还特么要计分！
分明是想把我这带路党改造成自干五！（╯‵□′）╯︵┴─┴