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

361–370 of 399 posts

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

#361

Post by YokoZar »

xenocyon wrote: post #85
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> nor am I condoning this 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.

There are plenty questioning the legality. Workers do have rights in the United States. One of them is to engage in organizing activity for mutual protection, which includes discussing working conditions with the public. Despite the spokesperson's doublespeak, that is exactly what they were fired for.

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

#362

Post by staticassertion »

Retric wrote: post #356
staticassertion wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demograph... 612k engineers. Let's assume that Amazon aims to hire the top 20% (I would expect software engineering skills to follow a power curve), so roughly 100k qualified workers. That's pretty small if you're looking to employ 2-5k of them. That's a lot of competition given that there are likely at least 50 companies making Amazon-type offers. I'm not saying the…

That’s more or less the numbers I was thinking. Amazon does a wide range of software development from robotics, backend AWS, internal software, and front end web development. So, most developers have relevant skills even if some positions are much harder to fill. That said their dev teams have many non programmers like systems administrators and testers etc so I suspect it’s closer to 2k US developers than 5k. As it…

To me, a company that wants 2% of a pool has to be extremely competitive. 2% is a lot.

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

#363

Post by 8note »

burrows wrote: post #345
a1369209993 wrote: post #340

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…

If you heard the statement "manager coerces their employee into sex" things immediately come to mind, either involving withheld promotions or firings, so I don't think that's nearly so cut and dry.

A better definition of coercion is to use power over someone to make them do something you want. Might even be a dictionary definition.

All of the examples could be coercion using this definition, and its clearer how to treat the grey zones:

the punch uses physical power over you; without trying to make you do something it's not coercion though

Advertising might be if they're using tricks to bypass your judgement

Threatening to punch someone is definitely coercion, unless you are stronger than them/they don't have that power

Stealing your wallet definitely is

Firing somebody sometimes is. The big questions are:

- does the company(or manager) have power of the individual? Eg. Can the employee easily replace the company; do they even need a job? Are they on a work visa? - is the company trying to make them do something?

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

#364

Post by cperciva »

YokoZar wrote: post #359
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are attempting to split hairs that the law doesn't have. You are a lawyer and are making this claim as someone who is educated in labor law? Or you have a citation to share with us, or something of that nature? Perhaps the chapter and verse of the law that makes this move illegal? Or a case where it was found that workers have the right to publicly comment on other workers' working conditions as long as they wo…

This large, friendly notice from the government spells it out explicitly: https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EO_Posters/Employee... > Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to: > Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce your hours or change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you join or support a union, or because you engage in co…

Right, and that poster specifically talks about your working conditions. It says nothing about a protected right to talk about other people's working conditions.

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

#365

Post by 8note »

graedus wrote: post #237
nomel wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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 did your income come from?

Notably absent: an answer to these.

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

#366

Post by throw149102 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #62
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #60

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?

I didn't read the comment as having a smug and/or gloating tone, just as a piece of useful advice. It is true, even if in an ideal world it shouldn't.

To me, calling it "Trash-talk" seems to have a smug tone. It seems to imply the designers were insulting Amazon rather than having some sort of constructive criticism.

"In general, criticizing one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer." reads a lot more balanced to me.

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

#367

Post by NotSammyHagar »

malandrew wrote: post #346
wolco wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-s…

I think your view leads to nothing mattering, and big companies should always be saved, preserved, because you'll be hurting some of the people in the company. Can a company do such terrible things that it actually matters? I believe your philosophy leads to an idea that it just doesn't matter.

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

#368

Post by sizzle »

malandrew wrote: post #346
wolco wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-s…

Your post can be summed up with the general truism: "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

"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."

The article stated a thousand Amazon employees accepted the event invite before it was deleted by management, which goes without saying that they had enough group interest internally to warrant the event... which is within the purview of their already established employee interest group.

Source: Amazon Employees For Climate Justice @AMZNforClimate We're a group of Amazon employees who believe it’s our responsibility to ensure our business models don’t contribute to the climate crisis. Views ≠ Amazon.

https://twitter.com/AMZNforclimate

These employees are only guilty of voicing their dissent publicly and running afoul of corporate PR policy. We are all entitled to voicing our opinions and beliefs and rallying around a cause individuals are passionate about e.g. climate change impact, Google ending military/China contracts, etc. The unfortunate way I've seen this play out is that at-will employment means an employer is free to sever your relationship at any time with them and can do so under the cloak of bad performance, violating company policy, etc. and it will be an uphill battle to prove retaliation in court when they have the best legal team money can buy. Best to be prepared to look for employment elsewhere if you are organizing a group event to expose your employer to negative PR when on their payroll.

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

#370

Post by throw_m239339 »

segmondy wrote: post #139

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.

If the "hand that feeds you" could have their way, you'd just be a slave working 24/7 year round with no pay, just food in order for you not to die too quickly. That's slave mentality.

People are not pets that are thrown bread crumbs at.

Post reply on HN