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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Bye, Amazon

#261

Post by AlexandrB »

chrisan wrote: post #108
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…

> There seems to be a consistent theme of employees being treated with suspicion, condescension and outright hostility. I'd suggest working with or managing a place with low-skilled people. They of course aren't all like that but it seems it attracts low-motivation, low-effort, or low-caring. I can only provide 2 anecdotes, but I can see why people get treated this way after time. I highly doubt there are many people…

> I'd suggest working with or managing a place with low-skilled people. They of course aren't all like that but it seems it attracts low-motivation, low-effort, or low-caring.

As often as not, this is a failure of management. Of course no manager wants to admit to this. A great example is the turnaround at the NUMMI GM plant after drastic changes to the manufacturing process[1]. The same employees going from drinking on the job and creating tons of defects to a model of efficient manufacturing in North America.

[1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/403/nummi-2010

Re: Bye, Amazon

#262

Post by zentiggr »

zeveb wrote: post #176
reitzensteinm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No large company keeps its hands completely clean. Defense contracts, Chinese censorship, exploiting addiction, anticompetitive behaviour, sexism, the list goes on. One of these is not like the others. What in the world is dirty about working on national defence? It's a positive thing, IMHO.

Having served, I can say pretty solidly that a huge chunk of the defense budget is pocket lining, contract padding, the DoD version of pork barreling, you name it.

The careful planning to ensure that every possible Congressional district gets a subcontract under the F-35 program is a blatant signal as to how this all operates.

The part of the DoD that actually gets things done despite the red tape, obstructionists, career ass sitters, grifters and outright thieves, has my eternal respect.

That our military manages to project power even though there are ten thousand competing agendas is a miracle of the modern day.

former FT2(SS)

Re: Bye, Amazon

#263

Post by phatfish »

lopis wrote: post #226
cstross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may not be planning on a "next gig" — he's 64, so edging close to retirement. I'm assuming as a corporate VP at that age he's probably got his pension sorted: he probably feels able to make a principled stand in a way that, say, a 34 year old (or a 44 year old) couldn't. Even so, good on him for speaking out.

> he's 64 That definitely puts things in a different perspective. It can't really damage his career much when his career is 20+ years old. At this point, if he doesn't have his own side gig, lots of companies, big and small, would still want him.

It also shows how brave those who were younger and ended up getting fired rather than resigning were.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#264

Post by darkerside »

sulam wrote: post #249
darkerside wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This takes more courage than quitting itself, in my opinion. What if he wrote this letter, sent it to the media, and then worked in good faith within Amazon to change things for the better? That seems like the hardest road, and also the one that might make the most difference.

As he said, you don’t go to the media when you’re a VP at a company. You go through channels. Anything else -would- make you radioactive, because it means you can’t be trusted to work at fixing things that you carry some responsibility for as a senior leader. Caveat: companies where everyone is a VP probably have another title that denotes senior leadership: Managing Director, Partner, etc.

While I see where you're coming from, "that's not how it's done" might not be the right answer when the things that are happening are already crossing ethical boundaries that are more serious than breaking with corporate traditions.

I think I would agree that making media rounds would be a crude move, but there are actions you can take along a continuum before that (like this blog post) that might help apply external pressure while still having access to the internal levers.

It reminds me a bit of Congresspeople who gain the courage to speak honestly after they've left their government roles. Yes, it's still courageous, and there are good reasons not to speak out while you're inside the system, but damn, you've just given up your best chance at making actual change.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#265

Post by querez »

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

This part of the article jumped at me -- If this is true, then I'd have to say "yes, coincidence". No company (let alone one as large as Amazon) would be that stupid in 2020.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#266

Post by eplanit »

emilfihlman wrote: post #217

>I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right? And at that point the author lost my respect. Sad, since otherwise he's making good points with a lot of merit, but if he's making that "argument" I don't even want to know what more vocal "activists" were saying. This comes down purely to cost and slow moving rock on the Amazon side.

I stopped at the mention of Naomi Klein.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#267

Post by lotsofpulp »

tafox wrote: post #256
CalRobert wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the challenge with large mortgages and heath care requirements taking away people's moral agency. Maybe that's the idea.

I had a boss that would try to bully employees into buying expensive cars they couldn't afford, just so they had too much debt and he could exploit them... because they could no longer afford to quit. One might be disappointed how effective this technqiue can be. Now imagine you have car payments, a mortgage, and a family to feed.

That’s also why some people don’t provide steady schedules or part time work, in order to prevent the employee from finding another job.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#268

Post by AlexandrB »

lazyjones wrote: post #252
braythwayt wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make good point, but it can be extraordinarily difficult to change a company's toxic management culture from the inside. You speak out, you lead by example, you ask tough questions... Then you start getting bad reviews. Colleagues speak of you as being "difficult." You are passed over for involvement in important initiatives. You quit in disgust, but now they leak that you are a poor performer who is no longer re…

> You quit in disgust, but now they leak that you are a poor performer who is no longer relevant, and your speaking out about worker conditions is just a poor performer trying to distract everyone from their inability to get things done. I'm not sure this is worse than quitting in disgust and then publishing drama and negative opinions about your past employer. At least the poor performance claim can be countered wit…

I suspect Tim has a pretty good understanding of his ability to influence Amazon's corporate culture:

> At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people.

And it seems that failed. What's left to do at that point? You can "sabotage" - in the sense of refusing to do your job. You can participate in a system you think is heading in the wrong direction (and with the knowledge you can't really change it). Or you can quit.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#269

Post by DagAgren »

gowld wrote: post #195
DagAgren wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In pretty much every case, "virtue signalling" is code for "this person is being virtuous, and I don't like it".

One side uses "virtue signaling" like another uses "Russian bot".

Russian bots are a thing, you know.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#270

Post by abdullahkhalids »

YayamiOmate wrote: post #190
krig wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers. I can only aspire to be as radioactive as possible, then.

Well, this is interesting because, subset of people deciding one is "radioactive" is very small compared to whole society, but in general the society is selforganized. There is no oppression. People have money and power because other people give it to them. I guess people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. I don't see other reason "western" societies…

For anyone wondering why this viewpoint is wrong, recall Nash equilibrium. Society, made of many people, is often stuck in suboptimal Nash equilibrium despite no one actually wanting the global state of things.

The only way out is collective social or legal action (often seeded or inspired by martyrs).

Post reply on HN