zlacker

[return to "Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions"]
1. advise+ce[view] [source] 2020-04-14 17:39:54
>>claude+(OP)
> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said.

> Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publicly disparage or misrepresent the company.”

Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions. Amazon isn't even claiming they lied, or pretend to speak officially, or any other reason.

◧◩
2. A4ET8a+kf[view] [source] 2020-04-14 17:45:35
>>advise+ce
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

◧◩◪
3. alexan+Ej[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:02:39
>>A4ET8a+kf
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)

◧◩◪◨
4. burrow+ol[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:10:52
>>alexan+Ej
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. katman+5m[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:14:12
>>burrow+ol
>There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.

Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. burrow+qn[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:20:28
>>katman+5m
Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate.

Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. katman+Qo[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:26:27
>>burrow+qn
You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome.

This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. burrow+Dp[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:30:08
>>katman+Qo
That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company.

Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. katman+yv[view] [source] 2020-04-14 18:58:45
>>burrow+Dp
So your argument has shifted from "if people want something they should negotiate for it instead of involving the government" to "even though the vast majority of people can't actually participate in meaningful negotiations the government still shouldn't intervene?"

You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. burrow+AF[view] [source] 2020-04-14 19:51:39
>>katman+yv
“meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.

Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. 8note+Tw1[view] [source] 2020-04-15 02:44:40
>>burrow+AF
They should also unionize, so that they have proper leverage for the negotiation
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. burrow+Py2[view] [source] 2020-04-15 14:14:20
>>8note+Tw1
Does the union have special privileges granted by the state, or is it simply a group freely contracted between laborers?
[go to top]