81–90 of 399 posts
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?
> “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
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)
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
> “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
Nobody's questioning the legality. The question is whether it should be condoned.
Private censorship is legal, but IMHO it can be unethical, especially when the balance of power is so far askew. An employer firing or threatening to fire an employee for speaking can have a large chilling effect.
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?
Imagine they can be UX designers for internally used apps, for example in the warehouses; they go there and do user research, guess what they know after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
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…
> “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…
This, on the other hand, is just about Amazon trying to control people to keep their poor treatment of employees hidden. There's nobody at Amazon who's saying, "Man, I'm quitting if those people keep trying to improve worker conditions here."