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

231–240 of 399 posts

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

#231

Post by burrows »

katmannthree wrote: post #136
burrows wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company. Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.

So your argument has shifted from "if people want something they should negotiate for it instead of involving the government" to "even though the vast majority of people can't actually participate in meaningful negotiations the government still shouldn't intervene?" You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do w…

“meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.

Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.

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

#232

Post by p1necone »

meowface wrote: post #164
systemvoltage wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beli…

- 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'."

Golden, this is a perfect analogy and gave me a chuckle.

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

#233

Post by a1369209993 »

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.

That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.

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

#234

Post by filoleg »

mason55 wrote: post #192
mav3rick wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is an attack on H1bs. Many H1Bs have multiple offers from FAANGS at market rate. Whatever woe you have in your life, please stop blaming immigrants for it.

Just because many H1B's have good job offers doesn't ALSO mean there is rampant H1B abuse happening. Both things can be true and the blame for the latter should be placed on the companies abusing the H1B process and the US government for not doing something about it. I'm all for open borders and immigration. The H1B problem right now is the worst of both worlds though. You have selectively restrictive immigration whi…

Agreed, and I hate how all of those cases get mixed together.

We need to be very clear when talking about it:

There is no abuse of H1Bs at the typical big tech companies we all know, like MSFT/Google/FB/etc. Their H1B employees get paid market rate, same as the US residents working at those companies. Those H1B employees are screwed over big time by the abusers in the category I am about to describe below and by general public who doesn't make the distinction and lumps them all in the second category. Not even mentioning the visa system that ends up screwing them due to that abuse.

Where the real H1B abuse happens is at those giant consulting companies like Accenture, Tata, Wipro, etc. They hire tons of software devs and pay them about $40k/yr, while flooding H1B visa pool and making it way more difficult for people in the first category to obtain a visa due to the sheer number imbalance.

Not only this creates a false image and leads to general public blaming the first group for all the visa abuse stemming from the second group, it makes it really difficult for the people in the first group to get their visas. There is a yearly cap on H1B, and it is much more difficult to obtain it when overwhelming majority of visa applications are filed by the latter group. For a price of one average engineer in big tech (let's say $160k/yr for easier math, even though the real number is very likely higher), a consultancy agency can hire at least 4 engineers and send 4 H1B visa applications respectively.

H1B visa is for "outstanding talent" that is difficult to find locally. This holds absolutely true for tech giants, as hiring a competent person is really difficult, witnessed it myself. But I find it difficult to believe that an "outstanding talent" would go work for a consulting agency and get paid $40k, while they can switch to a big tech company and get paid at least x4 that amount.

Luckily, it seems like the rules are getting tighter for the latter group, with their denial rates skyrocketing, while the usual tech company H1B approval rates are staying as high as usual (close to 100%)[0].

0. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/it-consulti...

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

#235

Post by kelnos »

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 think perhaps it would be nice to apply the principle of charity (as the HN guidelines require of us). I didn't read it as "smug and gloating", more ":facepalm:".

I doubt the parent is happy about the result, but I at least would question why people would do something that would so obviously get them fired during a pandemic.

Amazon workers deserve better treatment, but, if you're a current employee, trying to affect change should be an internal process, not public. If all internal avenues seem to be failing, the smart move would be a public anonymous criticism. Whistleblowing, effectively.

It sucks that these people got fired for speaking out about something important that they felt strongly about, especially during a time of economic upheaval, but that's what you should expect to happen when you publicly criticize your employer and sign your name to it. They should have thought -- even for a second -- before they spoke.

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

#236

Post by Tainnor »

JSavageOne wrote: post #158

The U.S. was founded on the principle of freedom of speech, yet if you are an employee you don't have freedom of speech. This is disturbing, and the only solution is for the government to step in and make it illegal to fire someone without just cause. I believe in many European countries employers aren't allowed to fire their employees unless there is proof of underperformance. It seems that we need to adopt somethin…

That's only half true. Even in a country with strong worker protection laws such as Germany you can get fired for a lot more things than just poor performance. Damaging your employer's reputation can actually be part of it. I don't know enough about the laws to be able to determine whether this would get you in trouble over here, but I certainly would be very cautious doing something like that. I even read that the US has better whistleblowing protection than much of Europe.

It's however true that you can't fire without cause and that courts usually demand strong evidence for such cause. So people would be more likely to sue.

That said, I still find Amazon's behaviour totally shameful, legal or not.

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

#237

Post by graedus »

nomel wrote: post #205
graedus wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine framing your employer as "the hand that feeds you", as if it is generously giving you a gift by paying you your salary in exchange for your labor. Here is a different view: don't expose your most vulnerable and precarious employees to a deadly virus by failing to take the necessary precautions to protect them while they keep your company running.

I'm looking at your first sentence in isolation. > Imagine framing your employer as "the hand that feeds you", as if it is generously giving you a gift by paying you your salary in exchange for your labor. What is your perspective on this? Are you self employed, providing some sort of raw material/product? How is your food, housing, and fun paid for? Have you ever been laid off or otherwise without work? If so, where…

I'm not denying the unfortunate reality that in many/most cases in the US today, the employer holds outsize power relative to employees. If you are precarious - you don't have emergency savings or the ability to quickly find another job - then it is not bad advice in a strictly pragmatic sense to be careful when it comes to criticizing your employer publicly.

I was taking issue with the specific idiom used. "Biting the hand that feeds you" often carries with it a moral dimension, and is usually used in cases where you repay kindness or generosity with some kind of bad behavior. If your employer hires you in exchange for a compensation package, they typically do so because they calculated that your labor would provide them value above and beyond what they are paying you. It's not kindness, it's not a gift, it's not to be compared to a master feeding his/her pet dog because of love.

edit:

I'd again suggest another perspective in response to this sentence:

> Every bit of money, and everything I've bought from it, has been from my employers, from pizza delivery to robotics.

Your skills, your time and your (presumably) hard work were the source of value that you provided to your employer in exchange for money and benefits such as health insurance. I don't know your specific situation, but maybe it's possible that you could choose to provide them to a different employer, maybe for even more money.

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

#238

Post by CaveTech »

epmaybe wrote: post #121
bantunes wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the kind of person that works at Amazon, after all that's been disclosed about worker conditions, is likely to be completely OK with this.

That's not really fair. Jobs are sometimes hard to get, and landing a job at Amazon could make a huge difference in someone's life.

I see no downside of allowing your employer to actively exploit others, simply because they're not (currently) exploiting you. "They've always been good to me", you say, "I never would have expected this."

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

#240

Post by save_ferris »

bavell wrote: post #213
alexandercrohde wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh great... yeah just walk right into the CEO's office and tell them what's wrong... 0% chance of that coming back to affect your career....

With a good CEO, your career might actually get a bump if you give them honest and helpful feedback.

good CEOs create situations that allow people to provide feedback in a safe and supportive way, through things like town halls, anonymous feedback messaging, etc. so employees aren't forced into high-stakes interactions like marching into their office.
Post reply on HN