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

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#141

Post by nerdponx » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

tekromancr wrote: post #136

peytn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to keep business and charity separated. Mixing the two, in my opinion, simply adds a layer of indirection for the bastards to hide behind. Besides, if you’re in a working environment where people throw around terms like “total comp” and have mortgages denominated in millions of dollars, the self-interest ship has kinda sailed.

> I like to keep business and charity separated. I don't know if that really tracks, tho. You still have ethical obligations in your day-to-day business. As an extreme example; if your business is "I sell fentinyl laced heroin to elementary school children" isn't really something you can make up with any amount charitable giving. But aside from that, I was making the self-interested argument that even complete sociop…

I recently saw a post (maybe here on HN?) about a study where participants had the ability to choose between a strict-no-cheating game environment and a mostly-cheating-allowed game environment. Cheaters self-selected into the latter because it allowed them to cheat, even though they knew that others were also trying to cheat.

Hopefully I'm paraphrasing/remembering correctly.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#142

Post by themaninthedark » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #70

MereInterest wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 deliberat…

> 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?

That depends, is the policy:

a) As an employee, you are not allowed to make statements about internal matters on behalf of the company.

b) As an employee, you are not allowed to talk about internal matters outside the company.

If A, then I have no problem. Companies have PR teams and random employee #13554 might not have all the information about an issue.

If B, I have a huge problem as the first amendment is a thing that exists.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#143

Post by srswtf123 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #66

pow_pp_-1_v wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had provided good benefits and working condition, the workers will not be incentivized to form unions, right? Why are they not doing that?

You don't get to be a billionaire by treating your workers well. Pay and benefits will always be worse at a non-union workplace because the workers have no leverage.

Agreed; human resources are the same as natural resources: fodder for exploitation.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#144

Post by danaliv » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #67

_huayra_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and without too much effort one can also just shop online at other retailers (in case one lives way out in a rural area). Maybe free 2-day shipping won't happen at other places, but free shipping and equivalent prices are easy to find.

I have also stopped buying from Amazon. I rarely got two day delivery from Amazon anyway.

Same here. Between their garbage labor practices and the fact that everything on Amazon had become, well, garbage, it was an easy call to make.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#145

Post by burnished » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #100

ceejayoz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? It sounds like you are implying that you need your employers permission to speak your mind, broadly, on any topic?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#146

Post by eropple » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #128

jwineinger wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be considered constructive dismissal, and still subject to this sort of action?

Yes, but awfully hard to prove.

Constructive dismissal is difficult to prove, but generally less so in the context of sabotage of labor activism.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#147

Post by marcod » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #4

blinding-streak wrote: post #3

The original site seems to be offline now, but for reference, Amazon's anti-union propaganda website: https://web.archive.org/web/20210301090641/https://www.doitw...

>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

Also, in "right-to-work" states, you do not HAVE to pay union dues, i.e. Alabama.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#148

Post by danaliv » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #48

boomboomsubban wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their spokesperson did not wish to say what policies they claim were violated. They were presented an opportunity to state their side, and chose not to.

Maybe an intrepid journalist could find out... Perhaps, in doing so, that journalist would discover that Amazon had no real argument for any internal policy being violated at all. Or perhaps they would discover that these employees did, in fact, violate some internal policy, whether or not their firing violated their rights.

I generally don't like the New York Times either, but you're grasping at straws here.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#149

Post by door101 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

tracer4201 wrote: post #73

> 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. I get that Amazon and big tech hate posts are a daily thing on HN these days, but this seems simple enough to me. They broke Amazons policies and organized other employees to also break policy.…

> If I was a business owner, I would have done the same thing.

But you're not. Why take the side of a class of people that you don't belong to that don't share your interests (owners) instead of the class you do belong to and do share your interests (workers)?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#150

Post by jcranmer » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #108

jcranmer wrote: post #30

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). Even when I think of the cases where unions hurt the viability of the company, the primary cause of decline was poor strategy and decision-making on the part of the owners. Blaming unions for those cases seems to be a rather sleazy way for the owners to avoid any liability for their faults.

The US auto industry was extremely successful before the UAW took over. It's not a coincidence that all three of the Big Three auto makers got taken over by the UAW in the 1950s and 60s, and saw decline in the 70s. For another example, Bombardier in Canada was a successful airplane manufacturer, and the demands of its unions gradually sapped its international competitiveness. For yet another example, all the passenge…

Ooh boy, those are some great examples of what I mean by people blaming unions for corporate (or government) failure.

> For yet another example, all the passenger rail services in the US went bankrupt after they were forced into collective bargaining with unions.

Yeah, no. The railroad industry is famously boom-and-bust cycle, with virtually every major railroad overexpanding during boom years and going bankrupt in any economic downturn, this happening both before and after unionization. Passenger rail itself was killed not by union featherbedding but by competition with the automobile and airplane--and government regulation that prohibited railroads from being able to cull unprofitable routes (as you needed government permission to cut a route, which it was disinclined to give even after the railroads were in poor health.)

> For another example, Bombardier in Canada was a successful airplane manufacturer, and the demands of its unions gradually sapped its international competitiveness.

Bombardier's troubles (to my understanding) largely originated from its attempts to push up into larger aircraft, bringing it competition against the Boeing/Airbus duopoly, who did not look kindly to a new entrant and brought expensive cases against Bombardier, which forced Bombardier into a partnership to survive.

My sibling comment already tackles the US auto industry one, so I won't cover that.