Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#61

Post by throwaway_USD » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #13

advisedwang wrote: post #7

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said. > Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publ…

Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing. I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts. edit: added play

>but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all.

Yes, employment at-will allows both the employer and employee to terminate employment at anytime without cause.

However, it seems pretty clear Amazon did not terminate these employees without cause...you can argue the termination was for violation of a company policy all you want (Amazon certainly will), but the evidence seems to support Amazon fired these employees in retaliation for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.

The employees will sue and Amazon will settle. This is a major win for Amazon because it will be far less costly to pay these employees off rather than make any meaningful change to work conditions.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#62

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #60

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #26

In general, trash talking one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer.

I've reread this comment a few times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's obviously true, but why post something with such a smug and gloating tone? Are you happy about how Amazon warehouse workers are treated and pleased to see people speaking out being fired in the midst of a pandemic?

I didn't read the comment as having a smug and/or gloating tone, just as a piece of useful advice. It is true, even if in an ideal world it shouldn't.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#63

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #41

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing. I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts. edit: added play

I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)

I can't honestly say I disagree with you. There must be a line between you and work and a question where that line is is a valid question.

As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though..

So where is the line for you?

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#64

Post by olefoo » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

It is worth noting that the two individuals were engaging in protected labour organizing activity including the Amazon Walk Out for Climate.

I guess AMZN must be feeling like they are vital infrastructure right now and won't get called on this sort of thing. And under the management of the current President the NLRB may not be able to prosecute such cases as vigorously as they have been known to do.

Whether we realize it or not we've been moving towards a neofeudal world where a large employer will effectively be the government and where individual workers will not have meaningful rights in their employment; and this will be as true of software engineers as it is of warehouse workers.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#65

Post by aabeshou » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

rochester46 wrote: post #19

advisedwang wrote: post #7

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said. > Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publ…

That quote is straight up incorrect. Amazon doesn't restrict, and actually encourages employees to talk about their work conditions, as long as said employee makes sure to say "these opinions are my own and do not represent Amazon's official stance" and that anything you are saying is actually true. You certainly do not need "corporate justification and approval from executives". I am curious where Reuters pulled tha…

as long as they are factual*

* make sure to use corporate-approved facts

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#66

Post by burrows » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

katmannthree wrote: post #57

burrows wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.

>There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws. Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.

Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate.

Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#67

Post by birdyrooster » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #31

gryzzly wrote: post #23

I wonder what their recruiting team thinks about these moves by the company. I know I will not work for Amazon seeing how the manage dissent at the company and I’m sure there are many other people who feel the same.

The cynic in me thinks that for any number of potential candidates who feel the same, there are exponentially more candidates that just want to work there regardless, and the recruiting team knows this.

Literally anyone at Uber, Palantir, or Facebook has got to be on their short list of people to recruit.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#68

Post by notRobot » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

tengbretson wrote: post #22

What exactly does a UX designer know about the working conditions of an Amazon warehouse that they haven't simply read online like the rest of us anyway?

How do you know they haven't been to the warehouses and/or spoken directly to workers of said warehouses?

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#69

Post by aabeshou » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #15

advisedwang wrote: post #7

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said. > Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publ…

The employees certainly knew this could happen, or at least should have been aware what they were getting into. I hope that's the case. Every large company very clearly states, one way or another, that speaking about the company to the public without being a designated spokesperson is seriously grounds for termination.

the point isn't "do companies have the legal power to do this" the point is "is it right?" if you lack the moral imagination to consider how the world could be if not for current oppressive power structures, or you blame whistleblowers because "they should have known there'd be consequences," then you're what some like to call "a bootlicker"

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#70

Post by qppo » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

Noughmad wrote: post #47

alexandercrohde wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)

In that case, people should make it illegal. Like they did in most other countries. The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal.

Without getting into all of the hazards about legislating morality it's impractical in our current climate. I don't think this should be illegal, personally.

I do think that it would be helpful to make the decision making public though. Limited legal liability isn't limited moral liability. Rather than saying "amazon fired" someone they should tell us "Jane Doe a manager at Amazon made the decision to fire."

People shouldn't hide behind the company logo when they do shitty things to other people. And if you want to rationalize it, cool, do it with your name attached so your pastor, spouse, friends, and kids know the things you'll do for a paycheck and you can justify it all you want to your community.