Homelessness shelters will generally be up against some pretty tight constraints. Their service is non-profit, their staffing is either voluntary or tight and their organization structure will be pushed by fluctuating demand.<p>The constraints on a company participating in a program are quite disproportionate, they&#x27;re looking to fill a seasonal gap and while looking towards a social problem to fill this gap is honourable (and mutually beneficial), they also need to be aware of the duress that mutually beneficial labour can create.<p>This article only attempts to highlight the constraints. Amazon should have better social policy to be deal with the vulnerabilities of the assets they hire in this situation. I&#x27;m sure it&#x27;s a learning experience for the YWCA, but the onus is still on Amazon to be able to better negotiate stable living conditions for the people it employed through such a program. These are people who have the potential to get out of bad situation but are still vulnerable (financially &#x2F; socially &#x2F; mentally), and this vulnerability should be realistically accounted for as the real liability that it is to the company employing.<p>No company needs to embark on such a program, they could fill labour shortages through traditional means, but when they do, it should be with some mutual agreement to work with the organisation and employees to ensure a quality outcome. Anything less is socially negligent.<p>It&#x27;s heartening that Amazon wanted to participate, but I hope they can take on the criticism and help build a better program.