Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 399 posts

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

#71

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

Amazon recruiters are extremely spotty: they seem to be winging it most of the time and some aren't very good at listening to candidates (you are looking for a job in compilers? Hey, join the Alexa team!). Amazon is also known as the more questionable FAANG in terms of employee treatment, but then again I know many Amazonians that say they are actually treated very well.

There isn't a shortage of tech talent looking to work at Amazon.

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

#72

Post by rochester46 »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #61
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

>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), b…

There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. The constitution has nothing to do with this case at all.

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

#74

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #62
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The way it includes unnecessary and imprecise technobabble, and states something obvious as if the author assumes the people who were fired are too stupid to have considered it makes it patronizing and unhelpful.

Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?

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

#75

Post by daenz »

forgotmylogin2 wrote: post #44
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…

> Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions. That's not exactly uncommon in the modern world. Especially with the prevalence of social media, expressing your opinion on anything publicly could cost you your job. Same thing happened to James Damore. If you want to remain employed, you need to be quite cautious about what you post on non-anonymous social media. In fact, I'd advise…

I think the surprise here comes from being fired for expressing an opinion that the tech community generally supports. When Damore did it, the community generally was against him, so firing him was celebrated. The lesson here is that these kinds of policies cut both ways.

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

#76

Post by ghshephard »

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?

Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And maybe it was reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I think the GP was mostly just trying to surface one of the laws of reality - you shit talk your employer - you will likely no longer be employed. And unless you were reporting some illegal activity, (in which case whistle blower laws may afford some level of protection, check with your lawyer first though) - there isn't much you can do about it. Just kind of a law of nature.

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

#77

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rochester46 wrote: post #59
ajross wrote: post #46

I think the real story here is not so much whether or not it's OK to fire troublemakers, but how Amazon got itself into an unrecoverably antagonistic relationship with its own workforce. The flip side to being a general union buster and hard-nosed employer advocate during "peacetime" is that you lose the moral high ground in crisis and have no where to turn to but more employee-alienating policies. I mean, let's be h…

Amazon has nearly a million employees. The gist of your comment is valid, but firing two people (or even two hundred people) out of a million doesn't even come close to meaning that they have an antagonistic relationship with its workforce in general.

These are tech workers, whose relationship with the company is different from warehouse or retail workers, so the number is more like 60-80k.

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

#78

Post by optimiz3 »

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.

Sometimes it can be a negotiating tactic; there's two sides to every story.

Certainly not the same, but I've fired (in my mind unjustifiably) vocally negative customers before. Often said customers realize they need the service a lot more than they thought and end up more willing to work cooperatively to fix problems. Only something you do in extreme cases obviously.

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

#79

Post by katmannthree »

burrows wrote: post #66
katmannthree wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome.

This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.

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

#80

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #74
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The way it includes unnecessary and imprecise technobabble, and states something obvious as if the author assumes the people who were fired are too stupid to have considered it makes it patronizing and unhelpful. Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?

I don't find "inversely proportional" to be techno babble, but then I'm a techie who studied lots of math.

You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.

Post reply on HN