Live data from Hacker News

Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

reuters.com

391–399 of 399 posts

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

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right. To take this view might arbitrarily limit one's ability to analyze the nature and impact of the censorship being done by social media.

> Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right. I agree. Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22873029 What is your framework for analyzing natural rights violations?

I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency). I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'. Both are invented concepts. In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

Edit: In some cases 'ought to have' is nothing more than 'want to have'.

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

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right. I agree. Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22873029 What is your framework for analyzing natural rights violations?

I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency). I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'. Both are invented concepts. In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased f…

> I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency).

Agreed. Describe your thought process for deciding whether someone’s natural rights have been violated.

> I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'.

Group A uses the ‘ought to have’ framework to rationalize co-opting the state in their conspiracy to plunder group B.

> Both are invented concepts.

All concepts are invented. I choose to use concepts that most accurately map “non-invented” reality.

> In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

I agree with this analysis, but it’s not how I arrive at the ethical imperative to protect natural rights.

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

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to understand 1st Amendment Law and protections; contract law; nor employment law. >This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so. Yes, at will employment gives the parties the right to terminate the employment...but, Amazon can not terminate an employee for any reason. For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their rac…

edit: in the interest of being less combative I've reworded this entire comment. The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government , but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities. >For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not r…

>The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities.

This is generally true but there are exceptions, which funny enough you acknowledge one of them in your comment.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives private-sector employees the right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.” They can share information about pay, benefits, safety and other work-related issues — and they can do it in the break room, at happy hour or on social media (such as Facebook and Twitter).

Real-world example of workplace freedom of speech:

Situation: A group of employees who worked for a retail store in San Francisco were concerned about their safety due to their store’s closing an hour later than other nearby stores. After unsuccessful discussions with the manager and later, the owner, the employees posted their frustrations on Facebook. An employee who saw the posts showed them to the owner, and subsequently, the other three employees were fired.

Ruling: The National Labor Relations Board reviewed the Facebook posts and determined they were acceptable. The employees were discussing the store’s legitimate safety concerns, so the posts were considered protected under the NLRA. It was determined that the employer committed an unfair labor practice by firing the employees.

What is otherwise not protected speech becomes protected speech.

>Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

Amazon published a press release on the matter acknowledging they fired the employees for their posts about safety in the work place...it doesn't matter Amazon claims the post violated company policy, these employees have legal right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.”

As you may or may not know the NLRA protections come from the Constitutional Right to association, which is an essential part of freedom of speech. While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

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

#394
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason I feel that I should be honest about downvoting your comment just because of the insane number of sentences mentioning 'woke' and . I just tend to zone out when commenters bore the shit out of me mentioning some kind of 'woke' adversary. It should be beneath all of us.

> It should be beneath all of us. He said, while commenting down-thread with very rational-debate-provoking labels of "Trumpian America" and "Right-wing Brazilians who don't care about the society and the situation in their country".

Yeah, fair enough. Sometimes I just get angry and I know it doesn't help.

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

#395
post #156

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions,” a spokesperson said, “but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies.” What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their working conditions, only actually we don't at all"

"Sovereign is he who decides the exception"[1]. It's a classic authoritarian/totalitarian posture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#Political_Theolog...

All sovereign governments are exceptional in Schmitt's view. Our constitution grants that power to Congress specifically.

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

#396

Amazon employed UX designers?

Assuming this is sarcasm, you think Amazon hasn't optimized its UX? They base everything on sales and test rigorously. As much as we criticize them for what we see as poor UI and UX they have data supporting their decisions. So long as it drives more revenue they consider it positive.

What you describe sounds more like someone that exploits usability and not someone whom enhances it.

The data might also settle on local maximums.

I mean consider a simple sort by rating. It's an explicitly exposed, well test feature. It may behave as designed, and may behave in a way that maximizes profits, but it does NOT behave the way a user expects it to behave nor would prefer it behave.

User experience designers should be ethically bound to do no harm to the user like doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath.

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

#397
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually the law, though? If so, I'd be happy to see Amazon get slapped hard for this. If it's not, then this is just an unsurprising consequence of airing your employer's dirty laundry in public.

Really? Your reaction is, "If there's a law protecting whistleblowers, that's great! Protect them and hurt Amazon for doing bad things! But if there's no law, pff, what idiots, they deserve whatever's coming to them."?? Like...you know legality and morality are not the same thing, right?

Wow, that's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote.

I'm not saying they're idiots, and I'm not saying companies should fire employees for airing grievances... but publicly reporting on bad things your employer is doing isn't a good idea if you want to keep your job. I'm not sure why that's surprising to anyone, including the people who got fired.

Clearly Amazon is being a bad actor here overall, both in how they've been not caring about their warehouse workers' health, and how they fired these employees for making a stink about it. But, in general, I don't blame a company for firing employees who trash talk them in public. It's just... kinda common sense that this would happen? But in the specific case of a company doing something like Amazon is doing now, I really want there to be legal protections, because employees should feel safe from retaliation if there's something whistleblower-worthy going on.

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

#398
post #377
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post can be summed up with the general truism: "don't bite the hand that feeds you". "These two people are two nobodies who took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of judgement and instead of checking with their colleagues to see if their views were collectively aligned with the consensus of their colleagues." The article stated a thousand Amazon employees accepted the event invite before it was deleted by ma…

you're replying to what I've marked as a right-wing brazilian. In my experience these types glorify even the Trumpian America and don't have any awareness of their local issues because they're 'middle class' and never have to interact with any brazilians beneath them, as all those other brazilians just never put in the effort. I'd love to be proven wrong though. FWIW: my experience with Brazilian Google-employees is…

I don't live in Brazil anymore and haven't in years and I voted for João Amoedo. Bolsonaro and the PT are both awful.

Lastly, the ad hominems have no place on HN.

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

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems rather authoritarian to totally shred the relationship over mild dissent. How weak and pathetic is the Amazon leadership that they cannot tolerate criticism?

I don't think Amazon tries very hard to silence criticism. If you need proof, there are plenty of WaPo op-eds shitting on Amazon. I don't think it is absurd not to want to employ someone who is an activist against you.

I don't think it is absurd to exile someone critical of the country's administration.
Post reply on HN