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

Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 399 posts

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#141

Post by cperciva »

YokoZar wrote: post #123
alehul wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is firing them for commenting publicly on its business. If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?

Such policies are facially illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees workers the right to engaged in protected concerted activity, such as discussing their working conditions with eachother, the press, and the public. The tweets that got these two fired were explicitly about working conditions. Google had a similar policy and, after losing NLRA cases, had to issue a notice to all employees sayi…

Except they weren't discussing their working conditions. They were discussing other people's working conditions.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#142

Post by missedthecue »

skywhopper wrote: post #122
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't honestly say I disagree with you. There must be a line between you and work and a question where that line is is a valid question. As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices,…

A company as big as Amazon is very different than a small firm with a few employees. There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices. Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like…

So at what headcount does a firm just have to put up with any and all negative remarks made by their employees? Clearly you think a small business should have different rules than Amazon.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#143

Post by evgen »

birdyrooster wrote: post #67
stronglikedan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cynic in me thinks that for any number of potential candidates who feel the same, there are exponentially more candidates that just want to work there regardless, and the recruiting team knows this.

Literally anyone at Uber, Palantir, or Facebook has got to be on their short list of people to recruit.

Sorry to break it to you, but anyone who is still at Facebook at this point thinks they are at the top of the heap and a lateral move to maybe Google, Apple, or Microsoft would be worth considering if it included a bump in grade. Amazon is a place Facebook recruits from, it does not go in the other direction. [FB and Amazon have the same moral issues if you work there but the environment at FB is an order of magnitude better, particularly for mid-level engineers.]

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#144

Post by qppo »

brewdad wrote: post #116
qppo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without getting into all of the hazards about legislating morality it's impractical in our current climate. I don't think this should be illegal, personally. I do think that it would be helpful to make the decision making public though. Limited legal liability isn't limited moral liability. Rather than saying "amazon fired" someone they should tell us "Jane Doe a manager at Amazon made the decision to fire." People s…

In a company the size of Amazon, the decision to fire probably didn't come from Jane Doe. She gets stuck delivering the message though. Should we just say Jeff Bezos fired these employees? We don't know if he played a role here but surely he could have prevented their firing if he so desired.

In a company the size of Amazon, no one gets fired without paperwork, and termination has a process. Someone initiated that process and made the decision to follow a policy.

I don't know what the policy is explicitly or if it's justified, but there should be visibility into that kind of decision making from the outside. It's in the lack of visibility that we see bad shit happen with hiring and firing.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#145

Post by syshum »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #41
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing. I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts. edit: added play

I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)

I 100% agree with you, however this seems to be only an outrage because these people happen to have Left leaning political views

Right leaning people are fired all the time for their views on social issues, and no one seems to have a problem with that normally.

Further if these employees would have been fired to taking a counter view I bet there would have been cheers for their firing

no the outrage here is not really because " people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them" no it is more "I agree with these employee opinions and am outraged they were fired for an opinion I share"

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#146

Post by YokoZar »

zozbot234 wrote: post #125
YokoZar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity by the NLRB. Firing workers for that is explicitly illegal. You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.

> Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity Didn't help that Google guy. The NLRB itself even issued some sort of opinion stating that he had violated corporate policy and that his firing was thus justified.

If by "that Google guy" you mean Damore he did dozens of things wrong simultaneously.

If by "that Google guy" you mean the one who got fired for posting critical memes about pay on Facebook, I'm pretty sure they were ordered reinstated and the notice was issued.

The Amazon folks fired here did nothing more than say they were concerned about working conditions on Twitter. It's hard to have a more explicitly protected activity.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#147

Post by missedthecue »

tehjoker wrote: post #100
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing. I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts. edit: added play

Of course the powerful can use their powers for evil, we have to criticise them for it.

I don't think discontinuing employment should be categorized as 'evil'. Amazon doesn't owe them a job, and if the seller of labour crossed a line that the buyer doesn't like and that has been clearly spelled out prior to the work beginning, no one should force the buyer to continue buying labour from the seller. That would be closer to evil than the former option.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#148

Post by sct202 »

rw2 wrote: post #127

The UX designers never worked in a warehouse, they had no first hand experience. I would find the complaint more valuable from an actual Amazon warehouse workers. The UX designer probably work in a cushy Amazon corporate office with free snacks and drinks, but amazon warehouse roles are probably under more spartan and strict conditions. How does Amazon warehouse work conditions compare to other warehouse work conditi…

The 2 UX designers retweeted complaints from the warehouse workers and offered a little monetary support; it's hardly like they were trying to lead a revolt.

And then this is besides the point, but Amazon doesn't give out free food and drink like Google does.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#149

Post by graedus »

segmondy wrote: post #139

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you must talk against your employer in public, better go anonymous, if you have the courage to reveal your real identity, great! but be ready to bear the consequences. It's unfortunate, but most companies will do the same.

Imagine framing your employer as "the hand that feeds you", as if it is generously giving you a gift by paying you your salary in exchange for your labor.

Here is a different view: don't expose your most vulnerable and precarious employees to a deadly virus by failing to take the necessary precautions to protect them while they keep your company running.

Re: Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

#150

Post by WalterBright »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #80
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way it includes unnecessary and imprecise technobabble, and states something obvious as if the author assumes the people who were fired are too stupid to have considered it makes it patronizing and unhelpful. Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?

I don't find "inversely proportional" to be techno babble, but then I'm a techie who studied lots of math. You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.

> You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.

As an older developer, I am ashamed at many of the things I said at work when younger, and wonder why I didn't realize how stupid they were. It's amazing I wasn't fired for some of them.

Post reply on HN