I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts.
edit: added play
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
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)
But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.
The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal.
This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority.
I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.
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.
Yes, employment at-will allows both the employer and employee to terminate employment at anytime without cause.
However, it seems pretty clear Amazon did not terminate these employees without cause...you can argue the termination was for violation of a company policy all you want (Amazon certainly will), but the evidence seems to support Amazon fired these employees in retaliation for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.
The employees will sue and Amazon will settle. This is a major win for Amazon because it will be far less costly to pay these employees off rather than make any meaningful change to work conditions.
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, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though..
So where is the line for you?
Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
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 shouldn't hide behind the company logo when they do shitty things to other people. And if you want to rationalize it, cool, do it with your name attached so your pastor, spouse, friends, and kids know the things you'll do for a paycheck and you can justify it all you want to your community.
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.
Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
Nobody's questioning the legality. The question is whether it should be condoned.
Private censorship is legal, but IMHO it can be unethical, especially when the balance of power is so far askew. An employer firing or threatening to fire an employee for speaking can have a large chilling effect.
My favorite which would work in much of the US is "We'll fire anybody who registers with the Republican party." (Or Democratic, if you prefer.) Especially in a state where registration is required in order to participate in the primary. It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone.
This is not true in my experience. Many people on the left, particularly under 35, earnestly believe that their political opponents are by definition racist and evil. In a manner similar to how I would not want a literal neo-nazi on my company's payroll, they do not want a registered Republican on the company's payroll.
Edit: In other words, this kind of bigotry is actually acceptable to a disturbingly large number of people.
edit: corrected fallacy to argument
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.
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 they know they are doing something wrong.
Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.
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.
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.
It's pretty telling to me that I'm being downvoted for saying that I think people should own up to their decisions in the workplace that impact other people and are questionable ethically. Removing any kind of moral liability for those decisions is how we wind up with businesses that employ good people that do shitty things to other good people.
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.
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"
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.
We are in absolute agreement. Frankly, I have argued before that they are already too big.
"There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices."
I am not sure I agree with that statement. Would you feel the same if the employee publicly criticized a company for using non recycled paper AND they have to change course now and use recycled paper; afterwards the story "went viral" and employee got fired for that specific action. Is employee justified in doing that without any repercussions? It is genuinely hard for me to argue for the employee here.
"Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case."
To you it may be clear, but clearly not to everyone since we are having this discussion. Whether the pendulum should swing ( it should ) is a worthwhile conversation to have.
"If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong."
I don't know if I buy this argument. HR does not like troublemakers seems like more plausible explanation.
Let me further clarify my statement: While shit talking your employer, you must be very careful not to step outside the bounds of what is legally protected. And with attention comes scrutiny.
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.
That's patently false. Plenty of people want to make those unethical things illegal, it's just that the people who engage in those unethical things have had the political power to thwart many of those efforts so far.
Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true.
But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it.
>Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.
There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be?
In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns.
>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.
Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.
Imagine you are an engineering manager running a team of 10. You got an email from your boss that the project revenue is way lower than projected, so the funding is getting cut and you need to get rid of one of your worst performers, but you have to pick who it is yourself, as your boss probably doesn't even know the actual people on your team. You have to fire them, even though you personally don't want to, because they are performing fine, just worse than all your other engineers.
Whose fault is this? Is it your boss' fault? They don't even pick the person and neither do they know any of them. Is it your fault? You've made the decision to fire that person, even though you don't want to fire them.
1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.
2. Start your own company.
3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.
> There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns“
I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.
> In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money.
A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.
> My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do.
From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.
I absolutely agree about the importance politics at local level. In fact, this is likely where regular citizens have biggest chance to actually influence an outcome.
I don't think it is absurd not to want to employ someone who is an activist against you.
I used to have a condescending attitude towards people who took sports 'way too seriously', but now I wonder if it is a net gain for society to give people a comparatively harmless outlet for these tendencies. Real harm is done when our policy discussions are dominated by the kind of tribalism, ideological intolerance, and rush-seeking engagement that seems to happen when people bring these tendencies to politics.
That's not particularly non-sensical, at all. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.
"We'll fire anybody who plays a game" would qualify as "absurd".
>1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.
Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.
>2. Start your own company.
Not everyone can do that, and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.
>3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.
There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.
>I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.
Coercion is the opposite of freedom, and in general coercion describes a party "forcing" another party to act in some way contrary to their preference either by force, implied force, or some form of a threat. As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.
>>In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. >A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.
Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die? How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?
>>My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.
>From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.
Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off? Are children worse off now that they're required to stay in schools instead of working in mines or textile mills?
Even in the case of this hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause, how exactly would it leave people worse off?
Most people will have to make major concessions to negotiate a clause like this into their contract. I am fine with this.
Do I think a hypothetical works where all employers guaranteed this power to laborers is an improvement over the current one? Maybe, but I am morally imposed to creating this world thru government intervention.
> I'm not claiming that this particular "freedom" to openly criticize your employer deserves government intervention
Noted.
> Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.
It takes hard work to get a better job with more money and benefits, but this is being human. This situation pleases me.
> Not everyone can do that [start a company], and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.
So prioritize learning these skills over starting a family or whatever else.
> There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.
I am suspicious of this because there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. People at the top of their field create new wealth.
> As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.
Children make the issue confusing. Let’s say that a man wants to use the WiFi at Starbucks, but he can’t get the password until he purchases something. This isn’t coercion. Starbucks is selling a service, the man can accept or deny the contract. If men with guns force him to buy the coffee, then it’s coercion.
(Edited)
> Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die?
Yes.
> How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?
If the government forces me to add this clause to employment contracts, then my right to free association has been violated.
> Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off?
Slavery is evil. I don’t know enough about American abolition to address the specific point. But it is certainly possible to do something evil while intending to resolve some other evil.
>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?
>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?
Yes.
>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.
I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%?
To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.
Tribalism in America goes deep, and you're right: rooting for a sports team is fairly harmless, and rooting for a political party is probably harmful, but I'd argue it's not nearly as harmful as as rooting blindly for an ideology. If you want your party to succeed, you should be engaged in your local politics, talk to people from the other side, listen honestly to their concerns, be willing to change your own opinion on specific policies, and push for those sensible policy changes to be adopted as part of your local party's platform. That's how you win people over, that's how you win elections, and how you enact real change that affects people's lives. Anything else is just yelling into your echo chamber, or getting into bar fights with the guys wearing the "wrong" jerseys.
Ideologies form the axes of socioeconomic space, they're not an ideal point, and the push toward an "us versus them" mentality in politics is embarrassing. It's a quirk that's arisen out of new media, an easily exploitable bug, and the sooner people see through the bullshit and we outgrow this, the better.
>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 race, or religion, or sexual preference. You may want to Google "workplace retaliation cases", because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.
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 retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.
Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.
There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.
The people who stole the land are dead. The people who were stolen from are dead.
The point is moot.
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.