Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#31

Post by slibhb » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #9

merpnderp wrote: post #5

I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…

There's 2 quotes from an Amazon spokesperson there: “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, all of which are lawful,” said Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokeswoman. “We terminated these employees not for talking publicly about working conditions, safety or sustainability but, rather, for repeatedly vio…

Right. But it would interesting to hear how Amazon claims these employees violated internal policies. That seems newsworthy.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#32

Post by monocasa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #27

monocasa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.

In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disp…

The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#33

Post by capableweb » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #20

vsareto wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We’ve got you covered* >*Applies to regular full-time employees. >Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? I've seen better propaganda for EVE Online and most people are doing that as a joke

Nobody ever accused HR of being overburdened with creativity.

This is worst than what people from HR could come up with. At least HR at companies sometimes interact with normal workers as they are at the intersection between the company and its workers.

This website seems to be done by some corporate team that has never actually interacted with a blue collar worker. Hardly surprising coming from Amazon but considering the amount of money they earn, I would have thought they would have given it a better try than that.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#34

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #19

vsareto wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We’ve got you covered* >*Applies to regular full-time employees. >Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? I've seen better propaganda for EVE Online and most people are doing that as a joke

I am actually curious to see the EVE Online propaganda. Do you have any links?

"Little Bees (X for POS Destruction)" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-m-0RlqMHM

Most stuff doesn't spill over onto the wider internet from forums, but this looks like a selection: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tgLJi7F4ozM

And a talk about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=irjx80_jnyM

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#35

Post by monocasa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #18

monocasa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?

So it's your point of view that the NYT's shouldn't be doing journalism, but advocacy? Readers don't get to make up their minds, but get spoon fed just what they need to know as determined by their betters? It's a brave new world you're creating.

The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters. Amazon's legal theories no longer hold weight.

Do you expect the NYT to publish every failed, specious motion filed in standard court cases in the name of "both sides" after the case has been decided? No, you take statements from both sides, and report what the legal system has decided.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#36

Post by elliekelly » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #17

monocasa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?

Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for…

> Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made.

Since they’re a public institution their decisions are published for anyone to look up, read, and understand the rationale behind their decision.

It seems NYT got the scoop on this particular case but you can expect the decision to be posted on the NLRB site when it’s finalized. I suspect the NYT (and the person who tipped them off) does not yet know the reason for the Board’s decision. It’s very likely no one involved in this article has read the document yet and, for now, they’ve only been informed as to the outcome. NYT, Amazon, and the aggrieved parties will probably have to wait to read the Board’s written decision along with the rest of us.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#37

Post by lkrubner » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #6

The labor laws in place violate the freedom of association and are terrible for social welfare. There is a reason why unionization is associated with enterprise decline, and why shareholders oppose it. Amazon is doing immense good for US quality of life and raising US export revenue, and there is no benefit in jeopardizing that to give a select group of workers a monopoly over the jobs it offers.

Germany has much stronger labor unions than the USA, a legal requirement we forced on them when they finalized the constitution (Basic Law) of 1949. Since that time, compare the fate of the American auto companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler and American Motors) to German auto companies (Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, BMW). The American companies ruled the world, and then lost market ground, one went bankrupt, another was bought. The German companies pulled themselves out of the ruins of WW II and became international powerhouses.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#38

Post by bhupy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #32

bhupy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disp…

The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.

Correct, and it's accountable to voters, it isn't some opaque black box (or rather, it shouldn't be). The whole point is that, in a democracy, the press (NYT et al) is responsible for fully reporting on the workings of the government (NLRB). The GP commenter is pointing out that the NYT hasn't adequately done that, and I tend to agree.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#39

Post by brightstep » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

baloney1 wrote: post #7

merpnderp wrote: post #5

I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…

NYT is clearly left leaning and usually does not provide both sides.

Maybe socially, but NYT leans right economically.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#40

Post by MereInterest » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #9

merpnderp wrote: post #5

I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…

There's 2 quotes from an Amazon spokesperson there: “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, all of which are lawful,” said Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokeswoman. “We terminated these employees not for talking publicly about working conditions, safety or sustainability but, rather, for repeatedly vio…

There's also a response to one of those reasons.

> After Amazon told them that they had violated its external communications policy by speaking publicly about the business, their group organized 400 employees to also speak out, purposely violating the policy to make a point.

So, Amazon fired then for publicly speaking about the business. Their statement saying that it was for violating internal policy seems deliberately misleading, because the internal policy that was broken was to not speak publicly. That Amazon had a policy against speaking publicly is not a point in Amazon's favor.