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

Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#121

Post by pessimizer »

pkaler wrote: post #112

Isn't this a good thing? If the workers were fed up enough with conditions that they formed a union, doesn't that imply the managers were terrible? Shouldn't terrible managers be fired? For example, my wife is a unionized nurse. The best thing that could happen at her work is for her manager to be fired. The union has no power in that. I'm an engineering manager at a software company. I get performance reviews twice…

You don't need a terrible manager to have a union. A union isn't an attack, it's a bunch of peers caucusing. That's anti-union rhetoric, the idea that if there's good management you don't need a union, and that having a union is some kind of insult.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#122

Post by pessimizer »

fallingknife wrote: post #115
klyrs wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem being that the ones interested in scrapping them aren't interested in replacing them.

Why do we need legislation? Formation of unions is protected by freedom of association in the 1st amendment. Not sure why we need another federal bureaucracy to intervene in the negotiating process. Not sure why we need the whole all or nothing union voting process. What if 33% of employees want to join the union? What if managers want to join? Why can't they just join?

Because after WWII, when the US workforce had a lot of leverage and the power of unions was high, the US criminalized a bunch of things that unions do in exchange for a few token concessions.

Freedom of association isn't a serious right in the US. Every town has "gang member" registries. At least we don't criminalize political parties like the UK or the rest of Europe.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#123

Post by lamontcg »

vmception wrote: post #113
tpmx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: Where do you feel the SWE people they churn through generally end up? I'm a bit concerned about this one guy on one of my previous teams who moved from Europe to US to work on AWS. I don't think he was aware of the company culture.

they end up at other companies of similar size, its part of the circuit, colloquially called FAANGs.

a lot of them head to startups or smaller companies.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#124

Post by avgcorrection »

darkerside wrote: post #117
xmprt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If GP is correct Only the Amazon higher ups will know this. Managers will see the correlation between unionizing and getting fired and connect the dots.

This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag? Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?

Their mandate would be to avoid unionization. So obviously the “ruling through fear” option.

I don’t see how optical illusions have anything to do with it except muddying the waters.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#125

Post by oneepic »

tpmx wrote: post #104
mynameisash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I left Amazon (as an SWE), with about 11mo of tenure, I was apparently at about median longevity. Yes, some of it is their growth, but a significant reason is also that they churn through people unnecessary. It's ridiculous to me that a big tech company treats people so terribly and continues to get away with it.

Curious: Where do you feel the SWE people they churn through generally end up? I'm a bit concerned about this one guy on one of my previous teams who moved from Europe to US to work on AWS. I don't think he was aware of the company culture.

If one starts in Seattle, I'd expect them to end up at Microsoft, Expedia, other FANGs maybe, among other co's. Assuming they're not burned out.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#126

Post by pc86 »

pessimizer wrote: post #121
pkaler wrote: post #112

Isn't this a good thing? If the workers were fed up enough with conditions that they formed a union, doesn't that imply the managers were terrible? Shouldn't terrible managers be fired? For example, my wife is a unionized nurse. The best thing that could happen at her work is for her manager to be fired. The union has no power in that. I'm an engineering manager at a software company. I get performance reviews twice…

You don't need a terrible manager to have a union. A union isn't an attack, it's a bunch of peers caucusing. That's anti-union rhetoric, the idea that if there's good management you don't need a union, and that having a union is some kind of insult.

It's not "anti-union rhetoric," come on.

When is the last time a union has been formed in a workplace where everyone is happy, well paid, has great WLB, etc?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#127

Post by WalterBright »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

> to go as low as possible

On the other hand, it could be to not give the workers a reason to unionize.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#128

Post by kqr »

darkerside wrote: post #117
xmprt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If GP is correct Only the Amazon higher ups will know this. Managers will see the correlation between unionizing and getting fired and connect the dots.

This seems like one of those optical illusions that can look either way. Duck or rabbit? What color is the dress? Young lady or old hag? Managers are obviously fired because the union was formed. They shouldn't let another form. Are they expected to respond by creating a trustful and inclusive environment, or by ruling through fear?

I see your point except a "truthful and inclusive environment" would be positive (or at least neutral) to unionization.

So, clearly the latter.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#129

Post by CPLX »

fallingknife wrote: post #115
klyrs wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem being that the ones interested in scrapping them aren't interested in replacing them.

Why do we need legislation? Formation of unions is protected by freedom of association in the 1st amendment. Not sure why we need another federal bureaucracy to intervene in the negotiating process. Not sure why we need the whole all or nothing union voting process. What if 33% of employees want to join the union? What if managers want to join? Why can't they just join?

Because ever since the industrial era began corporate power has been the largest threat to individual liberty.

We need a mechanism to restrain corporate power over labor just as much as we need courts to retrain police powers.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#130

Post by SrslyJosh »

WalterBright wrote: post #127
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

> to go as low as possible On the other hand, it could be to not give the workers a reason to unionize.

LOL, LMAO
Post reply on HN