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

Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 416 posts

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#91

Post by goatinaboat »

FireBeyond wrote: post #85
goatinaboat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Look up the British car industry, specifically the antics of "Red Robbo" at British Leyland. Carmaking is a viable industry in the UK and is doing well now that it is all foreign-owned with minimal union interference. There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM…

> There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM, we import coal now. While they certainly didn't play an innocent role in the demise (planned, expected or otherwise) of the coal mining industry, to lay blame squarely at the union's feet ignores the _other_ 800lb gorilla in the room. The mines would have and were becoming less economically viable. But the Thatcher government made a poi…

But the Thatcher government made a point of starting the closures at the worst possible time, "effective immediately", and then made a point of pointedly ignoring the economic collapse of entire towns and districts whose lifeblood had been the coal mines.

That is true, but the context at the time was the Winter Of Discontent. The unions had squandered all the goodwill the voters might otherwise have had.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#92

Post by tyingq »

seoaeu wrote: post #78
tyingq wrote: post #2

"The agency told Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Costa that it would accuse Amazon of unfair labor practices if the company did not settle the case, according to correspondence that Ms. Cunningham shared with The New York Times." That's a pretty nice piece of leverage to have in hand while negotiating a settlement. Edit: They were both UX/Design folks with Amazon, fired on April 10th, 2020. Costa was Amazon's first ever Princ…

> That's a pretty nice piece of leverage to have in hand while negotiating a settlement. Isn't that how things usually work? If one party does something illegal, then the other can offer a settlement using the threat of other legal action as leverage?

I think it's a pretty unusual situation in an unlawful termination negotiation, yes. That is: having a piece of paper in hand, from the Federal government, undeniably saying government intervention will happen if a settlement isn't reached.

I believe this particular settlement, especially the one for Costa (based on Principal title and 15 years tenure), is going to be a very big number. It's also terrible timing for Amazon with all the anti-trust sentiment and gaffes in the warehouse union situation. I imagine they really want this to go away.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#93

Post by ineedasername »

dan-robertson wrote: post #49
tyingq wrote: post #2

"The agency told Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Costa that it would accuse Amazon of unfair labor practices if the company did not settle the case, according to correspondence that Ms. Cunningham shared with The New York Times." That's a pretty nice piece of leverage to have in hand while negotiating a settlement. Edit: They were both UX/Design folks with Amazon, fired on April 10th, 2020. Costa was Amazon's first ever Princ…

Is settlement actually a bad deal for Amazon or similar companies like Google? Sure they have to spend a bit of money on the settlement but they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. This cycle (labour organisation attempt -> leaders fired -> settlement for leaders -> leaders go off to some media job/retirement/academia) happens again and again. Presumably the compan…

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if you try to fight it you'll spend years just to get a settlement.

From here on out everyone will be thinking "is this worth losing my job over, especially when I may have similarly serious concers about any employer I work for?"

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#94

Post by nemo44x »

stcredzero wrote: post #77
dan-robertson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is settlement actually a bad deal for Amazon or similar companies like Google? Sure they have to spend a bit of money on the settlement but they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. This cycle (labour organisation attempt -> leaders fired -> settlement for leaders -> leaders go off to some media job/retirement/academia) happens again and again. Presumably the compan…

they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. Activists often get a free pass. So long as they're saying the "right thing," the press covers for them. Since anyone can just put out their slate and become an "activist," this creates a situation where random people people are given enough power to abuse and basically no oversight. What if we had a society where Doctors go…

I fully expect it. With “other ways of knowing” becoming not only a slogan but effectively being applied to our learning institutions, it is only a matter of time for restricting medical practice to credentialed medical doctors to be labeled as “white supremacy”.

The exam isn’t fair so we should believe someone who has a lived experience that makes them a doctor (with a claim to insurance/government payments to their practice) or something like that.

Meanwhile, kids in China are learning the skills to invent the actual, real future.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#95

Post by twoquestions »

quintdamage wrote: post #80

If I'm to be honest, I'm a little surprised at the responses I'm seeing posted. This site is probably >80% men, many of whom are college educated and far more wealthy than most Americans, but are still somewhat anti-Amazon?

What Amazon (among other corporate titans) can do to others, they can do to us eventually, and it won't be the first time even well-off white working men have been screwed over by those who own for a living rather than work for a living.

This shit won't stop until we stand up to them.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#96

Post by throwaway2048 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #89
goatinaboat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any example where a unionized labor force killed a viable industry (or even a single company). Look up the British car industry, specifically the antics of "Red Robbo" at British Leyland. Carmaking is a viable industry in the UK and is doing well now that it is all foreign-owned with minimal union interference. There would probably still be coal mining in the UK if it were not for the NUM…

Nah, bentley, aston martin, and the other british car companies simply make bad cars in comparison to competitors. It wasn't unions that killed them

its especially ridiculous when they got out competed by even more heavily unionized German auto firms.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#97

Post by circumvent123 »

quintdamage wrote: post #80

If I'm to be honest, I'm a little surprised at the responses I'm seeing posted. This site is probably >80% men, many of whom are college educated and far more wealthy than most Americans, but are still somewhat anti-Amazon?

It's possible and healthy to empathize with people not in your own demographic.

Some people also have principles that are not based purely in self-interest.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#98

Post by skj »

quintdamage wrote: post #80

If I'm to be honest, I'm a little surprised at the responses I'm seeing posted. This site is probably >80% men, many of whom are college educated and far more wealthy than most Americans, but are still somewhat anti-Amazon?

Not clear what stereotype you're invoking here.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#99

Post by rantwasp »

ineedasername wrote: post #93
dan-robertson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is settlement actually a bad deal for Amazon or similar companies like Google? Sure they have to spend a bit of money on the settlement but they have still succeeded at their actual objective of getting rid of the activist employees. This cycle (labour organisation attempt -> leaders fired -> settlement for leaders -> leaders go off to some media job/retirement/academia) happens again and again. Presumably the compan…

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if you try to fight it you'll spend years just to get a settlement. From here on out everyone will be thinking "is this worth losing my job over, especially when I may have similarly serious concers about any employer I work for?"

nah. a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures). what i think amazon is going to do is put the workers that try this stunt into positions that are so crappy or the demands are so unrealistic that they’re gonna quit.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#100

Post by throwawaysea »

ceejayoz wrote: post #87
throwawayboise wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That Amazon had a policy against speaking publicly is not a point in Amazon's favor. Not to defend Amazon, but on this point, every job I've ever had included a policy that amounted to "do not speak publicly about the business." Do others think this is unusual?

There are specific rights in this regard. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-you-terminate-emplo... > In a memo released on April 15, the agency evaluated a case where a company maintained a policy that prohibited employees from speaking to the media at any time. The NLRB found this rule to be unlawful and explained: “Employees have a statutory right to speak publically about their complaints or concerns with t…

But these two were not speaking about the “terms and conditions” of their employment. They were broadly criticizing the company on other matters ranging from climate change to more directly political issues. I feel like the scope of the NLRA is extending to include just about everything.
Post reply on HN