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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Bye, Amazon

#901

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

fataliss wrote: post #887

I wish there was of some sort of association or union for people in the Software industry. While we are typically much better treated than basically every single other type of worker out there, we lack the assurance of protection when it comes to challenging our employers. In a country where your healthcare, your retirement and possibly your immigration status are tied to your employment, how can one feel confident t…

Unions are primarily useful for workers who don't have the ability to negotiate their salary before accepting a job. By banding together, they're able to negotiate wages that more closely align with the value of their work. Knowledge workers are expected to do this for themselves on an individual basis as they're not really interchangeable.

I do wish people pushed for more democratic decision-making in their places of work, though. I've read that in Google's early days people were mainly promoted by peer-evaluations, and there was a mechanism to remove a manager from power if they lost the confidence of most of their subordinates.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#902

Post by gffrd »

ses1984 wrote: post #747
pathseeker wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...

Waiting to be frisked is not analogous to commuting at all. If amazon isn't paying for your time in line, they have no incentive to make it fast. They can invest the bare minimum to protect their own interests, and fuck over their worker who have to wait in line. If they had to pay workers for their time then there is an incentive for them to make the line move quickly. I can't imagine a setup that is more hostile to…

I think that reveals the motive: they don't want the line to be fast.

Isn't the purpose of the screens less about catching bad actors and more about cultivating a culture of fear/suspicion, and hopefully getting a few effective informants out of the thing?

If the lines go to 2 minutes, or I get paid while in them, where's my incentive to rat out a coworker?

Re: Bye, Amazon

#903

Post by kortilla »

ashtonkem wrote: post #773
pathseeker wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...

Commute is partially under the control of the worker, where I decide to live has a huge impact on how long my commute is. I can freely decide to trade commute for money, making it my responsibility. Waiting in line to be frisked is something mandated by the employer. They control whether or not I have to do it, and how long the lines are. Since it’s under their control, it’s their financial responsibility.

That’s a bit disingenuous when short commutes are literally not affordable to some of the people we’re talking about.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#904

Post by ssalazar »

hourislate wrote: post #615

Completely anecdotal. It's possible some Amazon Warehouses are run better than others. A friend who recently got a job (5 weeks ago) at one of Amazons warehouses (NJ/NYC area) has only praise for the way things are run. They take his temperature 3 times a day, provide a mask, constantly monitor social distancing, clean washrooms every hour, enforce social distancing in any break rooms, work areas, etc. He says it's n…

Whats completely anecdotal-- your counterargument here?

Re: Bye, Amazon

#905

Post by syshum »

taurath wrote: post #825
syshum wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>there's enough desperate people EVEN WITH FULL EMPLOYMENT to not raise wages as long as none of the other corporations do. There is evidence to the contrary, as these companies have infact (or did pre COVID) raise their wages beyond the minimum wage they were doing. Some of it is in response to Retail raise wages (i.e Walmart when to a $11/12 nation wide min wage) in response most fast food also had to raise their…

I don't disagree that there is some wage pressure - its the fact that wage increases only started to outdistance inflation only have 3 sustained years of basically no unemployment, which is likely a once in a century event, that there are more factors at play holding wages down.

Of course there is more than just the unemployment rate the effects wages but Fast food will always be the lowest paid job in the economy and the idea that work is entitled to a high wage simply because it exists is not something I can get behind

Fast food requires almost no skills, and most likely as wages increase it will simply be automated out of existence completely, given that literally almost any human that is breathing can fill the job there is not going to be much that will push those wages up.

These jobs are not intended to be long term employment where a person would support a family on, hell they are not even jobs that should be filled by people supporting themselves, they are tailored to people for their first jobs normally while they are a dependent of another person

Re: Bye, Amazon

#906

Post by uoaei »

carti wrote: post #900
uoaei wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the next big revolution in political thinking will be the debate over the question of whether money is amoral. If I spend a dollar by giving it to someone, what does that enable them to do? What behaviors does that encourage and reinforce? I think a lot of people would say that at some level money is moral (don't pay terrorist organizations or render services for them) but that distinction blurs as we get clo…

"There's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism" comes to mind. Even if some folks are in a position to spend all of their money in ways that align with their values (which seems impossible given the extent of global supply chains), it's out of reach for the vast majority until systemic change is realized.

Very true. But it's necessary to make the first point explicit so that we can make the jump from "citizens, vote with your wallet" to "citizens, ensure that the government only deploys capital in ways you agree with".

Re: Bye, Amazon

#907

Post by all_blue_chucks »

chc wrote: post #877
smoe wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always think it is a bit odd when a company wins a case like this, but then people blame the company, not the court or the law. Not saying, that you don't disagree with the courts decisions, but I keep getting this feeling especially from the US. Why do people realistically expect a company to not stretch things as far as legally possible? I get why libertarians would see it this way, but everyone else?

You seem to be conflating blameworthiness and predictability. True story: I know a guy who's a real scumbag, just constantly taking advantage of people who don't know better and abusing those who do know better. I fully expect this person to do a lot of contemptible things. My ability to anticipate his behavior doesn't make me like him any more for it. And the fact that the law doesn't punish a particular misbehavior…

A case can be made that making profitable misconduct legal DOES force businesses to misbehave because those that don't take full advantage of the law will be at a disadvantage to those who do.

Furthermore, shaming one company to change its practices voluntarily does little to help workers at other companies subjected to the same thing.

So we really should push to change the law with more urgency than we use to push any give single employer.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#909

Post by jdkee »

softwaredoug wrote: post #779
taurath wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course as he is pointing out, he's in a position where he can afford to do so financially I'd just want to point out that the workers who are in the middle are the ones who can afford to do so financially and have the power to make management change things. If you're a programmer and make decent money, consider not putting yourself in a position where you must compromise your morals, such as accepting the compan…

Also why a FAANG anticompetitive stranglehold on tech is so horrifying. If you speak out against Amazon, will another tech giant hire you? Probably not...

The DoJ needs to bring it's antitrust division to bear on Amazon.

https://www.justice.gov/atr

Re: Bye, Amazon

#910

Post by Aunche »

uselesstech wrote: post #651
jhwang5 wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, so are the incidents that are reported by NYTimes. Amazon has hundreds of fulfillment centers around the world, and it's possible that the sufferings of some workers are exceptions, not the norm.

If that were the case, you would think that Amazon would address the issues raised my employees instead of firing them. By firing them, they discourage others from coming forward so it’s not really possible to get a good picture of the situation.

How many activists are really get fired? It sounds like there are hundreds of protestors, but only a few people got fired. Should protesting making you immune to being fired?
Post reply on HN