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

161–170 of 399 posts

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

#161

Post by YokoZar »

cperciva wrote: post #141
YokoZar wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such policies are facially illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees workers the right to engaged in protected concerted activity, such as discussing their working conditions with eachother, the press, and the public. The tweets that got these two fired were explicitly about working conditions. Google had a similar policy and, after losing NLRA cases, had to issue a notice to all employees sayi…

Except they weren't discussing their working conditions. They were discussing other people's working conditions.

Other people who work at the same company. You are attempting to split hairs that the law doesn't have.

Firing designers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing warehouse workers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing designers and warehouse workers for attempting to organize together is illegal.

Firing designers for talking about someone else's working conditions isn't "one weird trick" for avoiding the law here.

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

#162

Post by PopeDotNinja »

pera wrote: post #117
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.

Making requests to improve important safety practices is considered "trash talking"? Such a harsh stance for those working at warehouse during a pandemic from someone probably working from home...

Mostly I was attempting to comment on the fact that I'm not surprised when anyone working at any company gets fired for publicly criticizing the company. If I work for you, I'd expect to get fired for criticizing you in public. As another user "segmondy" pointed out...

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you must talk against your employer in public, better go anonymous, if you have the courage to reveal your real identity, great! but be ready to bear the consequences. It's unfortunate, but most companies will do the same." [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22870053

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

#163

Post by missedthecue »

YokoZar wrote: post #129
Aloha wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I criticized my employer in the national media, I'd expect to be shown the door too.

And depending on how you criticized them (such as by engaging in protected concerted activity like discussing your pay or working conditions), you may be having your legal rights violated and are entitled to remedy under the NLRA.

These workers were not discussing their working conditions or pay.

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

#164

Post by meowface »

systemvoltage wrote: post #137
jgacook wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a form of ethical handwashing of the kind the American justice system is built on. It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes than it is to judge whether the outcomes are fair or just, since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments. "If you do X then you can expect Y" is a tautology built on observation th…

I have a hard time following your comment and logic. Can you expand in plain words what you mean, preferably with an example and concrete details? Specifically: > It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes This statement is too vague. What specific actions and what specific outcomes? > since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and m…

I interpreted their statement as:

"It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions.

That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'."

I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject".

Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American.

They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".

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

#165

Post by jshevek »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #35
jeswin wrote: post #29

I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position. Personally I think we should draw a clear line b…

You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else. Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution.

In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue".

The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.

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

#166

Post by driverdan »

cosmotic wrote: post #105

Amazon employed UX designers?

Assuming this is sarcasm, you think Amazon hasn't optimized its UX? They base everything on sales and test rigorously.

As much as we criticize them for what we see as poor UI and UX they have data supporting their decisions. So long as it drives more revenue they consider it positive.

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

#167

Post by gorgoiler »

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?

It’s an ironic take on employees who bite the hand that feeds them. I wouldn’t try to turn it into taking either side of the debate.

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

#168

Post by WalterBright »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #71
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…

> you are looking for a job in compilers? Hey, join the Alexa team!

Many, many projects could use someone who is good at compilers. Just look at all the terrible code that processes command lines, for example :-/ Or all those miserable config file formats. Or really, any sort of text processing.

Compiler guys also tend to be good at writing fast code, for the simple reasons that compilers have to be fast, and compiler guys know what code is generated from each construct, and will pick the faster ones.

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

#169

Post by TAForObvReasons »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #162
pera wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making requests to improve important safety practices is considered "trash talking"? Such a harsh stance for those working at warehouse during a pandemic from someone probably working from home...

Mostly I was attempting to comment on the fact that I'm not surprised when anyone working at any company gets fired for publicly criticizing the company. If I work for you, I'd expect to get fired for criticizing you in public. As another user "segmondy" pointed out... "Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you must talk against your employer in public, better go anonymous, if you have the courage to reveal your rea…

For what it's worth https://www.whistleblowers.gov/

> You have the right to report if your workplace is unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

> If you have concerns, you have the right to speak up about them without fear of retaliation.

Whether or not Amazon ran afoul of the rules remains to be seen.

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

#170

Post by YokoZar »

reaperducer wrote: post #120
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’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. This has been the policy at every company I've worked for since the 90's. It's usually in the employee handbook, and at a couple of places I had to sign a separate paper acknowledging it. Amazingly, several of those companies were news organizations. It's u…

Yes, these policies are widespread. And often explicitly illegal under the NLRA. You have a legal right, for instance, to discuss your pay and working conditions with anyone you like.

But no one changes the policies until the NLRB requires them to after losing a case, even an easy case. Sometimes all they do is write "except where allowed by law" into the policy, then hope workers don't know what their rights are.

Post reply on HN