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

331–340 of 399 posts

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

#331

Post by rochester46 »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #264
rochester46 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true. But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether…

Feel free to point out anywhere the constitution says so. The constitution and/or bill of rights have nothing to do with this situation, as no constitutional rights were broken whatsoever.

>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?

>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?

Yes.

>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.

No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

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

#332

Post by Psyladine »

greedo wrote: post #262
bavell wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the company is larger than 500 people, the CEO doesn't have the bandwidth for this type of feedback. He'll either figure out that his reports (CTO or lower) are not doing their jobs, or that you're a troublemaker. Odds are he has hired the CTO and had significant influence on hiring those below the CTO. So he's invested in that CTO. You, you're some rando coming up talking about stuff that makes you look incompete…

>You, you're some rando coming up talking about stuff that makes you look incompetent.

Or worse, threatening to make his choices look incompetent.

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

#333

Post by jshevek »

missedthecue wrote: post #142
skywhopper wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company as big as Amazon is very different than a small firm with a few employees. There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices. Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like…

So at what headcount does a firm just have to put up with any and all negative remarks made by their employees? Clearly you think a small business should have different rules than Amazon.

I also think that small firms should have different rules than companies like Amazon or Walmart, in many domains. Most people agree, and the law reflects this common opinion.

I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%?

To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.

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

#334

Post by lanstein »

peterangular wrote: post #202
cirno wrote: post #156

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions,” a spokesperson said, “but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies.” What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their working conditions, only actually we don't at all"

"You're welcome to voice your concerns, but we're probably gonna fire you if you do." If anyone is looking a corporate-speak translation here ya go. It's direct signaling to potential dissidents that their employment is not guaranteed if they decide to speak-up, no other way to read this.

You can do whatever you want on your last day at Amazon.

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

#335

Post by [deleted] »

paxys wrote: post #88

This is likely an unpopular opinion among the tech crowd here but I find it very hypocritical to publicly criticize your employer for their practices while expecting to continue enjoying cushy paychecks directly fueled by them. You cannot simultaneously be an activist and a cog in the wheel. Pick a side, and then accept the consequences.

[deleted]

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

#336

Post by smilekzs »

rw2 wrote: post #127

The UX designers never worked in a warehouse, they had no first hand experience. I would find the complaint more valuable from an actual Amazon warehouse workers. The UX designer probably work in a cushy Amazon corporate office with free snacks and drinks, but amazon warehouse roles are probably under more spartan and strict conditions. How does Amazon warehouse work conditions compare to other warehouse work conditi…

> The UX designer probably work in a cushy Amazon corporate office with free snacks and drinks

You might not believe it but Amazon does not offer free snacks or drinks (at least not in HQ)...

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

#337

Post by SaxonRobber »

wilg wrote: post #276
SaxonRobber wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is my experience that everyone who self identifies as a republican or democrat is brainwashed at this point. The worst offenders are those who are so delusional that they mock anyone who avoids political discourse or abstains from voting. They are so high on political fumes that they can’t imagine that there are things more important than our cancerous political process.

Sounds a lot like you're brainwashed!

Probably

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

#338

Post by rochester46 »

danaris wrote: post #311
rochester46 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a fundamental difference between arbitrary disparagement and making public your genuine concerns about poor working conditions within the company.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with any constitutional protections (or lack thereof) about either of those.

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

#339

Post by krapp »

lanstein wrote: post #334
peterangular wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're welcome to voice your concerns, but we're probably gonna fire you if you do." If anyone is looking a corporate-speak translation here ya go. It's direct signaling to potential dissidents that their employment is not guaranteed if they decide to speak-up, no other way to read this.

You can do whatever you want on your last day at Amazon.

Every day is Day One at Amazon, even your last day.

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

#340

Post by a1369209993 »

burrows wrote: post #330
a1369209993 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. How about if they're in some public or abandoned building and the barricader locks or obstructs the exits to the same effect?

It’s analogous to a stranger tackling me and pinning me until I starve to death. The use of wood and nails is immaterial. You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.

> You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this?

That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.

Post reply on HN