Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bye, Amazon

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Bye, Amazon

#51

Post by chippy »

detaro wrote: post #36
Simon_says wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my read -- that he's accusing Amazon of being biased against hiring white men. But that kind of accusation needs a little bit more evidence behind it, and probably another standalone post.

How do you get that from the article?!

With a bit of satirical imagination you could easily read that from the article.

> I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right?"

"hmm, seems like most people who work in the warehouses must also share the same proportions of race and gender as those fired, meaning there are no white men working there"

To explain the joke a bit further: it's satirical and absurd as it's clear that the intended message is that those working the warehouse are diverse and that there are white men working there too in large numbers and who are also unhappy and that the employer fired them because of racism and sexism. To flip it and say, yes the employer was racist and sexist because theres obviously no white men being employed and therefore sacked is funny because it's absurd.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#52

Post by cameronbrown »

schnischna wrote: post #21
simonhfrost wrote: post #9

> It’s that Amazon treats the humans in the warehouses as fungible units of pick-and-pack potential. Only that’s not just Amazon, it’s how 21st-century capitalism is done. Stung me the most. Capitalism seems to have such an increasingly firm grip on the world that I'm starting to think the only way out is from some drastic worldwide event (Corona?).

What is so bad about treating somebody as someone who can pick and pack your parcels? It's just a job? And what does it have to do with Capitalism. You think under Socialism they would care about your individuality? No they wouldn't - Socialism is a Collectivist ideology, after all. The way to strengthen workers is to increase demand for their work, or find ways to make their (limited) skills more useful, or give the…

[flagged]

Re: Bye, Amazon

#53

Post by bantunes »

wtmt wrote: post #37

I appreciate the candid statement he has made about one of the things that ails Amazon's leadership. > Only that’s not just Amazon, it’s how 21st-century capitalism is done. I wonder if there's any future opportunity for him in the existing set of well known names or large enough companies. I can't think of any widely known tech company that doesn't do "21st-century capitalism" (treating people as disposable cogs). S…

I hear he's 64, so this might not be a big deal for him going forward.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#54

Post by donquichotte »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #18
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers Assuming this is the real true reason (I would trust Tim, but you never know, so just being explicit here), it takes huge balls to do something like this. The economic loss has to be somewhat taken in relation to your total wealth (e.g. if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank, it's not as hard as if you had zero in the bank), but still... V…

I think you can trust that it's the real reason, because either way it's going to make him radioactive for the next gig like this. No large company keeps its hands completely clean. Defense contracts, Chinese censorship, exploiting addiction, anticompetitive behaviour, sexism, the list goes on. Having a public figure at your company that's willing to martyr themselves to push the knife in just a little deeper when yo…

A company that hires him signals that it has nothing to hide, so I think this might just work out fine for him.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#55

Post by bigiain »

Simon_says wrote: post #30
miked85 wrote: post #6

> I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right? Including this bit is interesting. So he is accusing Amazon of being both sexist and racist in addition to treating workers poorly.

That was my read -- that he's accusing Amazon of being biased against hiring white men. But that kind of accusation needs a little bit more evidence behind it, and probably another standalone post.

I don't think that's a particularly valid or accurate "read".

Here's what I understood:

Tim had just just written about 8,700 signatures on an open letter, and 3,000 tech workers participating in the climate strike. Then said "Fast-forward to the Covid-19 era." and "Instead, they just fired the activists."

Then he make the statement under discussion: "I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right?"

Then further down that post, he talks about a 9 hour long youtube video-chat, with workers from three different countries as wel as multiple locations in the US.

It's obvious (to me anyway) that this statement has nothing at all to do with "biased against white men", in fact he's pointing out exactly the opposite. Zero white men got fired for being part of any activism discussed here. 100% of the people who got fired were POC and/or women. He is making it clear that Amazon's worker intimidation policies result in sexist and racist outcomes. Because as he concludes at the end "At the end of the day, it’s all about power balances."

I'm really super curious - what thought process or line of reasoning led you to conclude he was accusing them of "being biased against hiring white men"?

Re: Bye, Amazon

#56

Post by whymauri »

schnischna wrote: post #33
stupidcar wrote: post #20

> At the end of the day, it’s all about power balances. The warehouse workers are weak and getting weaker... Whenever I speak to someone working in a "low-skilled" job, I'm always astonished and embarrassed by how different their work environment sounds to the kind of offices I work in. There seems to be a consistent theme of employees being treated with suspicion, condescension and outright hostility. This gets to t…

That's why people work hard to acquire skills, to be able to work in better jobs. I have never run a warehouse, but I suspect that many of the strange seeming rules are in place because people otherwise try to exploit the system (like getting paid for smoking on the toilet for hours on end). It may seem inhumane, but perhaps it makes it possible to give people jobs who don't deserve automatic trust. Such people exist…

>That's why people work hard to acquire skills, to be able to work in better jobs.

I know it's a common mantra in these circles to 'acquire skills' and 'learn to code!' And by all means, if you are capable go for it - I know I did.

But it's really hard to do this when your priorities are your day-to-day expenses. When your uncertainties are whether you'll have a home or food. It's also hard when traditional means for acquiring skills, like going to college, no longer have the same returns they used to. All of my friends who work at Amazon warehouses have college degrees. So it's not even a call to learn fulfilling skills, it's a call to specifically learn profitable skills.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#57

Post by cat199 »

buboard wrote: post #46
stupidcar wrote: post #20

> At the end of the day, it’s all about power balances. The warehouse workers are weak and getting weaker... Whenever I speak to someone working in a "low-skilled" job, I'm always astonished and embarrassed by how different their work environment sounds to the kind of offices I work in. There seems to be a consistent theme of employees being treated with suspicion, condescension and outright hostility. This gets to t…

IT workers are partly to blame for it. By creating , embracing, extending, normalizing and advertising a culture where companies compete for office perks, they also allowed the creation of the underclass of unwashed workers whose businesses are not awash with cash and thus it's OK to treat them like wage slaves.

pretty sure "the underclass of unwashed workers whose businesses are not awash with cash and thus it's OK to treat them like wage slaves." existed long before computers were ever thought of

Re: Bye, Amazon

#58

Post by chippy »

red_admiral wrote: post #50

This is what being a capital-A Ally looks like. I take my hat off to you, sir.

with the emphasis on Capital (his millions)

The joke being "ally" is a term used by those fighting against the injustices of capitalism, and this dude has millions from literally being the Boss and accrued from exploitation. Of course that doesn't matter as he's now a good guy speaking up for the oppressed. It's quite amusing if you believe in anti-capitalism.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#59

Post by whymauri »

cat199 wrote: post #57
buboard wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IT workers are partly to blame for it. By creating , embracing, extending, normalizing and advertising a culture where companies compete for office perks, they also allowed the creation of the underclass of unwashed workers whose businesses are not awash with cash and thus it's OK to treat them like wage slaves.

pretty sure "the underclass of unwashed workers whose businesses are not awash with cash and thus it's OK to treat them like wage slaves." existed long before computers were ever thought of

I don't think they're saying IT/computers are a root cause, but rather that they might be modern enablers of these power hierarchies.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#60

Post by princekolt »

Simon_says wrote: post #30
miked85 wrote: post #6

> I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right? Including this bit is interesting. So he is accusing Amazon of being both sexist and racist in addition to treating workers poorly.

That was my read -- that he's accusing Amazon of being biased against hiring white men. But that kind of accusation needs a little bit more evidence behind it, and probably another standalone post.

Wow that is the biggest leap in logic I've seen in a long while. You should try pole vaulting.
Post reply on HN