Live data from Hacker News

Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

reuters.com

341–350 of 399 posts

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

#341
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost never the right move. The CTO doesn't know you, but he does know the people who report to him.

> It's almost never the right move. The CTO doesn't know you, but he does know the people who report to him. And they will come down on those people HARD! "Why is your employee complaining to me? Why aren't you doing your job?" And down the line it comes crashing down. And meteor lands on your face.

Come down hard on his people? Probably come down hard on your manager.

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

#342
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.

The cynic in me thinks that for any number of potential candidates who feel the same, there are exponentially more candidates that just want to work there regardless, and the recruiting team knows this.

And every year there's a new batch of suckers.

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

#343
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A Townhall meeting is in no way a safe and supportive place to provide feedback. Only anodyne questions are asked as people generally know better than to tell the Emperor he has no clothes...

If you get a survey about your boss always answer positively. Chances are they are using you as a way to get that person out and using you as cover. No matter what your feelings for the boss realize that they usually want to cut the department or reduce the voice of your department. Life will not be better after.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget about working there. Does it stop you from buying their products?

This. It doesn't really matter what Amazon does (see this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22871216 ), the woke crowd has already made up their mind about the company and will criticize them regardless. The only thing that is going to satisfy the woke crowd is Amazon's failure. Their best strategy is to focus on being the most customer centric company so that people like myself and millions upon millions…

Let me guess you worked at Uber and Lyft was the darling?

Not sure treating employees badly makes for a better world. Perhaps more profit at the top makes for a better world for some.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property.

Punching someone is coercion.

Advertising is not coercion.

Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion.

Stealing a wallet is coercion.

Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion.

An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers.

Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.

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

#346
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It doesn't really matter what Amazon does (see this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22871216 ), the woke crowd has already made up their mind about the company and will criticize them regardless. The only thing that is going to satisfy the woke crowd is Amazon's failure. Their best strategy is to focus on being the most customer centric company so that people like myself and millions upon millions…

Let me guess you worked at Uber and Lyft was the darling? Not sure treating employees badly makes for a better world. Perhaps more profit at the top makes for a better world for some.

Nope. I worked at a different company.

This isn't even about people at the top. When everyone is on the same team and owns equity in that collective endeavor, someone that goes outside to publicly bad mouth the team is hurting everyone on their team. That's some Grade-A anti-social behavior. I'm an IC and far from the top, but I never want to work with such people who use righteous indignation to justify their anti-social actions.

These two people are two nobodies who took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of judgement and instead of checking with their colleagues to see if their views were collectively aligned with the consensus of their colleagues. They should be asking themselves "AITA?". If you are whipping up public outrage that hurts your colleagues without validating if there is consensus among your colleagues, the answer to that question is unequivocal "yes".

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” ― Aldous Huxley, Crome Yellow

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

#347
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can always count on someone on Hackernews to defend billion dollar companies in the face of workers abuse "they could always quit!". They clearly don't care if you criticize internally, there is a need to expose those bad practices in the press.

Good luck reading the first part only mate! After you cool down read 4th and 5th paragraph, if you would make it to 3rd maybe you would notice something more...

I didn't keep reading. I found your paragraph structure difficult to want to follow.

You give one line. This draws you in.. 3 then 4 sentences which explains your point and I decide to stop reading. Your third paragraph was bigger than all of the others combined. Your fourth is small followed by a bigger last paragraph.

Beef up 2 that is where you make your key point.

Keep the last line short.

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

#348
post #204
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything wrong about that... Because that is if you don't agree with company policy or whatever company is doing, you should not work there. They should lose all employees and go bust. In practice I understand one would like to disagree and things should change to better. But life is not that simple, so if you can afford quitting please do so (if you are wealthy enough even in their face saying what they…

What if you actually believe in the company and what they do? Does that mean you must support each and every policy that the company instates?

Sounds like that person has been drinking the kool-aid. Believe in what? For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.

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

#349
post #348
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you actually believe in the company and what they do? Does that mean you must support each and every policy that the company instates?

Sounds like that person has been drinking the kool-aid. Believe in what? For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.

> Believe in what?

The idea that using logistics technology to enable fast and efficient delivery of household goods is a nice thing to have in our world?

> For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.

That's just a narrative you are constructing. Obviously it doesn't apply to the whistleblowers in question here or they wouldn't have spoken out in the first place.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property. Punching someone is coercion. Advertising is not coercion. Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion. Stealing a wallet is coercion. Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion. An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers. Mayb…

> I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property.

Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense.

> Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce".

Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.

Post reply on HN