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

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#151

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

CryptoPunk wrote: post #104

lkrubner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It should be noted that Germany's wage/GDP growth has been quite stagnant since the 1970s as well. Its auto industry has been successful, but that can be attributed to numerous other factors, like its effective education system, which puts a much heavier emphasis on vocational training, its engineering culture, and government policy focused on promoting auto manufacturing, all of which can counter-act the negative ef…

Another point to consider is that Germany also has/had access to cheaper labor through people moving there from the east. And later the euro allows them to export heavily while not skyrocketing the price of their currency, because other euro countries somewhat balance it out.

It might be that unions are the reason why German car companies are doing well, but there are definitely other factors at play too.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#152

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

nerdponx wrote: post #139

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.

Unfortunately it's not physically possible to be neutral on this issue. It's not analogous to never giving people change on the street because you donate to soup kitchens and mutual aid orgs (or whatever). If you don't support unionization, you are effectively undermining it. This isn't meant to be some kind of woke purity test. It's just the facts of how a market operates. Every individual that is willing to work wi…

Absolutely not. Not increasing its power is not undermining it. It's neutrality. Stop changing definitions to suit your political goals.

We have enough "with us or against us" going on driving violence to let more slide.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#153

Post by confusion123 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

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…

I remember their advocacy from internal mailing lists. They were staunch critics of Amazon's effect on the climate and environment. I don't recall either of them calling for a union, but I do remember them as passionate, eloquent, and consistent advocates of the environment, and I was very sad to see them be fired.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#154

Post by Judgmentality » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #139

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.

Unfortunately it's not physically possible to be neutral on this issue. It's not analogous to never giving people change on the street because you donate to soup kitchens and mutual aid orgs (or whatever). If you don't support unionization, you are effectively undermining it. This isn't meant to be some kind of woke purity test. It's just the facts of how a market operates. Every individual that is willing to work wi…

JFC talk about a "you're with us or against us" mentality. I tend to be somewhat neutral on unions (depending on the context I think they're sometimes good and sometimes bad), but your rhetoric has pushed me further towards unions being bad.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#155

Post by aksss » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #142

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?

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…

You limited B to internal matters, which generally means company confidential. Unless the matters concern legal violations (a different conversation about whistleblower regulation and protection), why on earth would you have “a huge problem” with confidentiality agreements and NDAs? Especially when you sign those agreements as a condition of employment?

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#156

Post by LordDragonfang » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

peytn wrote: post #133

tekromancr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do have leverage, and you don't use said leverage to help those that don't; then you are a bastard. And having policies ensures that your company, at high levels is ONLY staffed with bastards because people who are not bastards won't want to work there. Granted, that might be exactly what Amazon et al are selecting for; but at some point, a company being anti-union will be a signal to prospective high-level em…

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.

That sounds like a fancy way of saying, "I don't have an ethical responsibility to others."

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#157

Post by LordDragonfang » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

rantwasp wrote: post #99

ineedasername wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures)

When you're a company that makes 11 figures, spending 7 figures for a 1% increase in profits is a hundredfold ROI. They're not expensive, they're a bargain.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#158

Post by aksss » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #45

slibhb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Which is why these things shouldn’t be decided in a court of public opinion. If you’ve ever been involved in the employment dispute world, you know there is a lot of liability for employers talking about internal investigation matters publicly. It’s not realistic to expect Amazon or any employer to talk openly with the press about an ongoing dispute with an employee in detail. Meanwhile, an individual fighting the company has every incentive to air everything (as they understand it) and little liability for doing so. Consequently, news stories are seldom going to give you a full accounting of facts.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#159

Post by SauciestGNU » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

thedevelopnik wrote: post #63

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?

Because they’re betting, with a good deal of historical justification, that they can have their cake and eat it too. US has unfortunately been union-unfriendly since Reagan.

The US has been union unfriendly since the 19th century when union leaders were regularly assassinated, and in the 20th century when striking workers were aerially bombarded and killed.

Re: Amazon illegally fired activist workers, Labor Board finds

#160

Post by ericd » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:21 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…

Using these false equivalences and “you’re for us or against us” type reasoning might rule up people who’re already convinced, but it likely makes those who aren’t on a side more suspicious of what you’re pushing, because it feels like you’re trying to trick or coerce.