zlacker

>what goes through the head of somebody who posts a comment siding with management in a situation like this?

They identify with management, because they want to be there one day. They see themselves on "the side" of the managers and those in control, and try to view things from that perspective.

It's the same reason you have poor voters who support tax cuts for the rich, even if those tax cuts mean the government can materially do less for them. They don't perceive themselves as users of the welfare state, but as soon-to-be wealthy folks.

>>superh+(OP)
HN is full of owners, founders, board members, executives, and managers.

Their view is well represented here.

>>superh+(OP)
I don't see how you can take any other view when we showed up to work after being put under quarantine. From the article it doesn't seem like he disputes the claim, he just implies that they wouldn't have fired him if he wasn't organizing a strike. If you're running a massive shipping operation with hundreds of thousands of employees and millions of customers you should be taking steps to guarantee their safety. Beyond Amazon, the US could not afford to have the company shut down because of a COVID-19 infection spreading through their fulfillment centers. It seems ridiculous to say that he could show up to work despite being put on quarantine. Maybe there are missing facts in the case, but with that information I think most people would defend Amazon's actions.

>>pmoria+m1
That must be the case. Because otherwise it would be sad and pathetic to have a whole forum full of wannabes sitting around playing pretend running companies and worrying about equity dilution and gossiping about minutia in the lives of wealthy venture capitalists. That would be just unbelievably tragic, right?

>>nv-vn+A3
They ordered him under quarantine more than two weeks after he was exposed (outside of guidelines), and days after he stated he would be leading a strike.

It's not like the guy was violating a reasonable quarantine; he was violating a retaliatory silencing "quarantine" outside of guidelines.

>>superh+(OP)
> It's the same reason you have poor voters who support tax cuts for the rich, even if those tax cuts mean the government can materially do less for them. They don't perceive themselves as users of the welfare state, but as soon-to-be wealthy folks.

FWIW, this is a really patronizing view of poor people. An alternative hypothesis is that some people vote based on principles, whether it personally benefits them or not.

>>toaste+wi
I don't know that it's necessarily a patronizing view. I know a lot of people that do sincerely believe that they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires, despite all facts pointing to the idea that they are not.

>>sudosy+ox
So rich people in favor of higher taxes are voting against their own interests why?

There are many people that don't see the government as an ATM machine, and think that its role should be limited.