
Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions - claudeganon
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-amazon-com-warehou/amazon-fires-two-employees-critical-of-warehouse-working-conditions-idUSKCN21W0UI
======
cirno
> “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"

~~~
jasode
_> What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their
working conditions, only actually we don't at all"_

Without seeing the actual policy, my guess is that "criticizing" is something
employees can do _internally_ within the company. However, you can't post
_public_ tweets about it.

In other words, _" don't air dirty laundry"_.

This type of distinction is very common in typical employee policies.
Likewise, it's common for a CEO for VP to say to the employees _" I have an
open door policy so if you see something wrong, tell me."_ \-- but common
sense should tell you that the CEO does not mean for the employee to post an
"open letter to the CEO" on Twitter or NYTimes for the public read as well.

I know of no well-known company that _encourages_ employees to _publicly_
criticize their workplace.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Uh great... yeah just walk right into the CEO's office and tell them what's
wrong... 0% chance of that coming back to affect your career....

~~~
lnsru
Did exactly this! Just it wasn’t CEO, only a Vice President. I mentioned bugs
and lack of testing in a polite way, also offered how test system could be
designed to automate testing. There was a committee created to do inspection
of my code and to analyze, why I do so many bugs. I’ll never tell anybody, how
to operate better after this “incident”. The months were hell and I am pretty
sure, I’ll be fired during next downsizing round.

~~~
S_A_P
First, good on you for trying to make a difference. Second, without painting
with too broad of a brush here I would say that depending on the size of your
organization this is the exact wrong layer to complain to. The VPs can be in
the spot where they want to be perceived as running the show so the C levels
can take care of the vision. If there was a CTO at your company that _may_
have been the better move.

Either way, Im sorry to hear that things went south after complaining and it
sounds like it just got bruised egos involved.

~~~
oblio
It's almost never the right move. The CTO doesn't know you, but he does know
the people who report to him.

~~~
outworlder
> It's almost never the right move. The CTO doesn't know you, but he does know
> the people who report to him.

And they will come down on those people HARD! "Why is your employee
complaining to me? Why aren't you doing your job?"

And down the line it comes crashing down. And meteor lands on your face.

~~~
wolco
Come down hard on his people? Probably come down hard on your manager.

------
advisedwang
> “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.

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
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

~~~
alexandercrohde
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)

~~~
burrows
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s
no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.

~~~
katmannthree
>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.

~~~
burrows
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.

~~~
katmannthree
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.

~~~
burrows
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.

~~~
katmannthree
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.

~~~
burrows
“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.

~~~
katmannthree
>“meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me.

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.

~~~
burrows
> 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.

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.

~~~
8note
For the roof though, at least in the US, the property it's on is based on men
taking it with guns from the natives. Everything since then where you're
keeping people off "your" property is a continuation of that coercion.

~~~
burrows
Assume the land was stolen.

The people who stole the land are dead. The people who were stolen from are
dead.

The point is moot.

------
PopeDotNinja
In general, trash talking one's employer in public is usually inversely
proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer.

~~~
sfkdjf9j3j
I've reread this comment a few times and I'm still not sure what to make of
it. It's obviously true, but why post something with such a smug and gloating
tone? Are you happy about how Amazon warehouse workers are treated and pleased
to see people speaking out being fired in the midst of a pandemic?

~~~
ghshephard
Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit
of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was
blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's
employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And
maybe it _was_ reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I
think the GP was mostly just trying to surface one of the laws of reality -
you shit talk your employer - you will likely no longer be employed. And
unless you were reporting some illegal activity, (in which case whistle blower
laws may afford some level of protection, check with your lawyer first though)
- there isn't much you can do about it. Just kind of a law of nature.

~~~
Aloha
I think all of us learned these lessons the hard way, what's amazing is how
much _resistance_ I've encountered when I try to share this wisdom with folks
in their early 20's. I guess the old adage is true, people like to learn their
own lessons.

~~~
burkaman
The resistance you're finding is not people disbelieving you, it's them trying
to get you to understand that this is a Bad Thing we should want to change,
even though it is true right now.

~~~
bartread
Well, hold on: do you think it's really a "Bad Thing", and by your
capitalisation I'm guessing you mean universally a bad thing to experience
negative consequences for publicly trash-talking about your employer?

Sure, if you're whistleblowing something systemically unethical - as may well
be the case here - then you should be able to do the right thing without fear
of negative consequence. I.e., your employer, Amazon in this case, can't fire
you.

However, speaking in more general terms, some people just love to whine and
complain about things that simply aren't that important: I've worked with
plenty (none at the moment, I hasten to add).

For example, and flipping it around: is it a Good Thing for you to trash talk
your employer just because you don't happen to like your boss very much? No, I
don't think it is, and I think it's entirely reasonable for you to get into
trouble if you do.

Is it a Good Thing to trash talk a potential employer because you didn't like
their hiring process? No. If other potential employers read what you've said
they might choose not to interview you even if your concerns are legitimate.
You can stand on principle if you want but of all the issues in the world you
could stand on principle about, is this one really worth it? I'd say not but
you may disagree.

Getting more serious: what about if your boss is a bully? Should you publicly
trash talk them? No! Are you out of your mind?!?? You should do some research
and find out how to deal with it _effectively_ and in a way that doesn't
damage your future career prospects, either at your current company (which may
be a lost cause) or elsewhere, which may include getting _and following_ legal
advice.

Certainly for these serious issues: bullying, sexual harassment,
discrimination, and so on, if the issues are with a specific individual,
rather than a systemic or cultural problem, whistleblowing is probably not the
way to go. Note that for certain safety issues, or breaches relating to
personally identifiable information, you may have a legal obligation to notify
even for isolated incidents, depending on your jurisdiction (IANAL).

The problem with trash-talking your employer, or even former employers, is
that you risk sending a signal to potential future employers that you are a
troublemaker. In some cases this is not an illegitimate concern, and because
of this employers tend to be cautious, which can harm your prospects.

Let me reiterate that I'm talking about trash talking in general, not the
specific case of these Amazon employees, and very much not whistleblower
activities involving systemic ethical failings by an employer or organisation.

~~~
burkaman
> you mean universally a bad thing to experience negative consequences for
> publicly trash-talking about your employer?

That is not what I mean. This conversation is about the accepted "law of
nature" that if you say bad things about your employer you will probably be
fired. As you point out, sometimes there are good reasons to publicly say bad
things about your employer. Therefore, it is bad that firing is the accepted
consequence regardless of the situation, and we should seek to change this
status quo.

~~~
bartread
Cool. I think we might be in violent agreement.

------
gryzzly
I wonder what their recruiting team thinks about these moves by the company. I
know I will not work for Amazon seeing how the manage dissent at the company
and I’m sure there are many other people who feel the same.

~~~
stronglikedan
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.

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

~~~
evgen
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.]

~~~
filoleg
Can confirm, Amazon in Seattle is literally just a testing ground for people
who couldn't get into Google/Apple/FB/Microsoft/etc. on the first try.

Amazon becomes their best available option, and once they work there for a
year or two, improve their skills, get some experience, and get tired of
dealing with hell that is working at Amazon, they get hired at all those
companies they couldn't initially get into. No one says Amazon is incompetent
at tech, quite the opposite. There is a lot people can learn while working
there, and all those other competing tech giants know it.

I've heard of very few moves the other way around, and in every single such
scenario I personally witnessed, there was a lot of very specific
circumstances for the person that lead them to that point.

------
rw2
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 conditions. That's the better comparable.

If any programmer was thrown into a construction or blue collar work
environment they probably won't like the work conditions. But for cost reasons
they can't extend the same benefits for people who sort packages the same as
people who write code or design screens.

The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. As UX designers
who made it into Amazon they probably have other choices.

~~~
sct202
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.

------
olefoo
It is worth noting that the two individuals were engaging in protected labour
organizing activity including the Amazon Walk Out for Climate.

I guess AMZN must be feeling like they are vital infrastructure right now and
won't get called on this sort of thing. And under the management of the
current President the NLRB may not be able to prosecute such cases as
vigorously as they have been known to do.

Whether we realize it or not we've been moving towards a neofeudal world where
a large employer will effectively be the government and where individual
workers will not have meaningful rights in their employment; and this will be
as true of software engineers as it is of warehouse workers.

------
_bxg1
A few months ago I was in the job market and got a call from a recruiter at
Amazon. I flatly told them that I wasn't interested in working for Amazon on
ethical grounds.

At the time it was purely out of principle, but apparently it was a good
decision for my self-interest as well.

I wonder how long they can keep this stuff up before they start seriously
damaging their desirability as a workplace, the way Facebook has?

~~~
aj_g
Props to you.

I am incredibly far away from the world of SV/FAANG, so tell me, is FB really
becoming a less desirable place to work? It seems to me like it's a pretty
small minority of people that would refuse a $1XX,000 paycheck on grounds of
being a ethically dubious snowflake in the avalanche that is Facebook.

~~~
mav3rick
Don't gauge the real.world based on Hacker News. 99% of keyboard warriors will
sign 250k USD+ total comp offers in a jiffy.

~~~
_bxg1
The way I see it, in the right city somebody with our skillset can step
outside and trip over an offer with a very comfortable salary. In that
context, I don't think there's much excuse for going out and choosing to make
the world a worse place, even if you'd get paid 2x that very comfortable
salary.

~~~
mav3rick
People always want more.

~~~
_bxg1
I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying it's morally unjustifiable.

------
lexiebrn
They were fired in response to putting on an internal event getting warehouse
workers to speak directly with tech workers, then Amazon then deleted all
emails and invites to the event.

[https://twitter.com/AMZNforClimate/status/125013592573822566...](https://twitter.com/AMZNforClimate/status/1250135925738225664)

------
tracker1
If you plan to speak out publicly regarding your employer, I would suggest you
try to stay anonymous.

1\. get a burner phone 2\. get a cheap laptop and put linux on it 3\. setup a
non-domestic vpn on the device 4\. don't use this equipment with any accounts
tied to use 5\. use the burner phone via vpn in order to establish social
media accounts. 6\. use these social media accounts over vpn to make your
statements...

~~~
thih9
> 5\. use the burner phone via vpn in order to establish social media
> accounts.

This often doesn't work or is much more difficult than it sounds.

Many social networks don't allow anonymity and they detect attempts to stay
anonymous.

In an extreme case your account might be blocked soon after creation and you
might be asked to upload a photo or ID scan.

~~~
tracker1
If you're in a larger city, you may be able to use the phone as a hotspot to
create an account... just do it in a busier area (down town cafe, etc), which
is more difficult right now than typically.

Even then, as long as you aren't working for the social network in question,
it's less of a risk... highest risk is using the devices you have signed on
with your work accounts, or using your real name.

------
kitotik
Welcome to the post-corona era of (even more blatant) corporate empowerment.

With the oncoming onslaught of unemployment, they will only get more brazen in
the reduction of workers rights and baseline dignity.

------
paxys
This is likely an unpopular opinion among the tech crowd here but I find it
very hypocritical to publicly criticize your employer for their practices
while expecting to continue enjoying cushy paychecks directly fueled by them.
You cannot simultaneously be an activist and a cog in the wheel. Pick a side,
and then accept the consequences.

~~~
bambataa
Who does that approach ultimately favour? Isn't it a good thing that people
can speak out about things they think their company is doing wrong and try to
improve it?

I have some sympathy with your view but doesn't that end up marginalising
people who stand up for things?

~~~
paxys
It's great to have opinions about how things are/should be done, but the right
place to express them isn't a public press conference.

~~~
chacha2
If it needs to be said the right place to express it is where it will be
heard.

------
joshstrange
> (This story corrects second paragraph to say Christian Smalls was fired for
> violating paid quarantine, not for raising health and safety concerns.)

I'm I misremembering or was that story "fired for violating paid quarantine"
proven to be iffy at best? I'm looking for confirmation.

Edit: Found what I think I was looking for [0]

> Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March
> 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the
> weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after
> his 5 min exposure. From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like
> retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of
> quarantine to cover it up. Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet
> again, why you never 100% believe a company's PR response when they're
> trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to
> intentionally mislead.

> [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-
> strik...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-strik..).

>> According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in
question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day,
a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon
as 25 March.

>> Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until 28 March, three weeks after
the exposure.

>> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person
worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.

>> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was
around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.

>> According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering
legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739059)

------
alistairSH
No details on what those employees actually did? Lacking that, this is just
clickbait.

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
WP reported Amazon stated they violated company policies. That is probably
true too ( talking to media or some such ).

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-
workers-fired/)

------
cosmotic
Amazon employed UX designers?

~~~
driverdan
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.

~~~
cosmotic
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.

------
claudeganon
Additional context/reporting here:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-
workers-fired/)

~~~
adequateness
Note that WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos.

edit: This is mentioned half way through the article.

------
jb775
It's about time for unions to make a comeback.

------
JSavageOne
The U.S. was founded on the principle of freedom of speech, yet if you are an
employee you don't have freedom of speech.

This is disturbing, and the only solution is for the government to step in and
make it illegal to fire someone without just cause.

I believe in many European countries employers aren't allowed to fire their
employees unless there is proof of underperformance. It seems that we need to
adopt something similar. It's already illegal to discriminate against someone
based on their race, I don't see the problem with making it illegal to fire
someone over their opinions on working conditions and politics. Corporations
should not be running the country.

~~~
Tainnor
That's only half true. Even in a country with strong worker protection laws
such as Germany you can get fired for a lot more things than just poor
performance. Damaging your employer's reputation can actually be part of it. I
don't know enough about the laws to be able to determine whether this would
get you in trouble over here, but I certainly would be very cautious doing
something like that. I even read that the US has better whistleblowing
protection than much of Europe.

It's however true that you can't fire without cause and that courts usually
demand strong evidence for such cause. So people would be more likely to sue.

That said, I still find Amazon's behaviour totally shameful, legal or not.

------
drngdds
It will never cease to amaze me that people (outside the media, politics,
etc.) use their real name to post controversial things on social media,
especially about their own employer.

~~~
broahmed
I admire them. They're braver than me.

Whether you agree with their stance or not, I think it's admirable that they
stand up for others who are presumably lower on the employment pole, at the
risk of their own jobs, especially given the current economic situation.

------
alephnan
These individuals spoke at a news conference apparently

------
ajross
I think the real story here is not so much whether or not it's OK to fire
troublemakers, but how Amazon got itself into an unrecoverably antagonistic
relationship with its own workforce.

The flip side to being a general union buster and hard-nosed employer advocate
during "peacetime" is that you lose the moral high ground in crisis and have
no where to turn to but more employee-alienating policies. I mean, let's be
honest: Amazon's warehouse workers look like heroes right now. And they need
stuff, that they don't need under normal circumstances. And the public, on the
whole, wants to give it to them. Yet without an existing healthy relationship,
the only tool in the union's box is to threaten work stoppage. And the only
tool Bezos has is to fire people trying to keep a lid on the thing.

And now we've seen that it's metastasized, and he's having to fire tech
workers now too. Needless to say, this isn't where Amazon management would
have wanted to be.

So folks: the next time a union calls up and wants to sort out a deal, talk
with them and work something out. In the current world, it's hard to see
anything but good guys and bad guys. And the workers are the good guys.

~~~
rochester46
Amazon has nearly a million employees. The gist of your comment is valid, but
firing two people (or even two hundred people) out of a million doesn't even
come close to meaning that they have an antagonistic relationship with its
workforce in general.

~~~
ajross
Normally tech employers don't fire people for complaining about company
policies, and it's almost always news when they do. A general sense of shared
cause and cameraderie is part of the way the industry is "supposed" to work,
and part of that is a culture of reasonably open discussion of this stuff.

But Amazon can't have that now, because the only resolution that they can see
here is either victory or complete capitulation to a hostile union. And in the
process their alienating their engineering class too.

~~~
rochester46
You're speaking broadly about how a lot of stuff _should_ be while ignoring
how stuff actually is.

>Normally tech employers don't fire people for complaining about company
policies

I've worked in tech for a long time, at a lot of different companies, and
consulted for many more. Tech employers fire people all the time for
complaining about company policies. You just don't hear about it because...

>and it's almost always news when they do

No, it's really not. When some 20 person startup lets someone go because of a
disagreement, it doesn't appear in WaPo. It does happen whenever Amazon or FB
or Google are involved because those are big names. But just because you don't
see it in the news when every other tech company does it, does not mean it
isn't happening.

>A general sense of shared cause and cameraderie is part of the way the
industry is "supposed" to work, and part of that is a culture of reasonably
open discussion of this stuff.

This sounds wonderful and ideal, but I've never experienced this at any of the
tech companies I've worked at, even the big name Silicon Valley ones.

>But Amazon can't have that now, because the only resolution that they can see
here is either victory or complete capitulation to a hostile union.

The world isn't this black and white. I assure you from talking with my
friends at Amazon that there is plenty of open discussion about the working
environment, while also plenty of satisfaction and happiness with their job.
And a couple of particularly outspoken people being fired hasn't changed that
in the past, and I strongly doubt will change it now.

------
ipsocannibal
Amazon's product selection can be quite hypocritical.

[https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-
STICKER...](https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-
STICKER/dp/B00NTDEBRS)

------
jeswin
I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for
exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's
the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company
property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her
access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position.

Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of
actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech.

~~~
AdrianB1
You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment
protects the free speech from the government, nothing else.

Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a
confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

~~~
a1369209993
That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First
Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human
right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about
a particular legal establishment of it.

~~~
burrows
Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free
speech isn’t violated.

~~~
a1369209993
So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no
longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to
burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't
qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively
initiating or assisting such attacks?

(Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral
principles you're applying here.)

~~~
burrows
Government ought to have a force monopoly.

Government ought to be “small” (functionally and structurally limited).

Government ought to defend the natural rights of its citizens from physical
force initiated by criminals and international aggressors.

A government that does not fulfill these duties is evil. The Constitution
clearly prevents the government from using guns to break my free speech. Does
it also require the government to use its guns to protect my free speech from
criminals? Ethically, this is the government’s duty. If the government isn’t
doing this, it lacks a legitimate purpose.

Private entities do not have a duty to protect man’s natural rights. But, it
is immoral for them to violate a man’s natural rights. Amazon didn’t violate
anyone’s natural rights by cancelling a private contract because of public
comments.

------
hypersoar
IANAL, but this sure looks like illegal (and immoral) retaliation to me. At-
will employment isn't a magic spell. "Because company policy" is not a good
enough reason to fire someone if that company policy violates the law.

From the NLRB's page defining protected concerted action[1] (emphasis mine):

"A single employee may also engage in protected concerted activity if he or
she is...trying to induce group action, or seeking to prepare for group
action. However, you can lose protection by saying or doing something
egregiously offensive or knowingly and maliciously false, or by publicly
disparaging your employer's __products or services __without relating your
complaints to any labor controversy. "

So, let's say an Amazon employee were to simply tweet "Amazon is shit. Don't
buy from them." and got fired for it. Then they couldn't defend themselves by
coming back and saying "Well, actually, I was talking about working conditions
for Amazon's warehouse employees." Fair enough.

With that in mind, here's what allegedly got them fired:

Emily Cunningham tweeted a thread[2] that begins:

"I'm matching donations up to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse worker
colleagues. "The lack of safe and sanitary working conditions" puts them and
the public at risk.

It's bad ya'll...".

The thread then goes into detail on that point. It could not be more clearly
about working conditions.

Maren Costa tweeted[3]:

"I am matching donations to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse colleagues and
their communities, while they struggle to get consistent, sufficient
protections and procedures from our employer. DM or comment for match.
[https://chuffed.org/project/help-amazon-warehouse-workers-
ex...](https://chuffed.org/project/help-amazon-warehouse-workers-exposed-to-
covid-19) # via @Chuffed"

...and that's it. Again, it's very clearly about working conditions.

Amazon doesn't get to make a policy against employees criticizing the way they
treat their workers. That's how protections for labor organization work.

[1] [https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
law/em...](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
law/employees/concerted-activity?page=8)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/emahlee/status/1243441985173651456](https://twitter.com/emahlee/status/1243441985173651456)

[3]
[https://twitter.com/marencosta/status/1243585580736237568](https://twitter.com/marencosta/status/1243585580736237568)

------
krick
Well, we all know what Amazon is. It's not like next time you'll need
something you'll stop yourself from buying it on Amazon for ethical reasons,
right? Alexa, who is online on Twitch?..

------
beastman82
employment is at-will, Amazon can fire people for many different reasons and
you have no right to free speech whatsoever

------
vkaku
Can they file unlawful termination claims?

------
0x262d
A sharp reminder that “free speech” under capitalism effectually doesn’t apply
to your job, ie the thing that you spend nearly half your waking hours on and
your primary way of contributing to the functioning of society. Some employers
might be more lenient but Amazon is big and successful because it is ruthless
in this and all other things. This is yet another reason I think we
desperately need to democratically plan our economy; which is another way of
saying we need to extend democracy into the workplace and the sphere of
production.

------
segmondy
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.

~~~
graedus
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.

~~~
nomel
I'm looking at your first sentence in isolation.

> 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.

What is your perspective on this? Are you self employed, providing some sort
of raw material/product? How is your food, housing, and fun paid for? Have you
ever been laid off or otherwise without work? If so, where did your income
come from?

I don't have any side-gigs, so 100% of my income comes from my career. I can't
imagine my situation is that rare. If I stopped working or were fired, I would
have to immediately find a new job, otherwise my family would become dependent
on the government programs (other peoples money/taxes from their hard work)
and my own savings.

Every bit of money, and everything I've bought from it, has been from my
employers, from pizza delivery to robotics.

Where should we be getting our money from?

~~~
graedus
I'm not denying the unfortunate reality that in many/most cases in the US
today, the employer holds outsize power relative to employees. If you are
precarious - you don't have emergency savings or the ability to quickly find
another job - then it is not bad advice in a strictly pragmatic sense to be
careful when it comes to criticizing your employer publicly.

I was taking issue with the specific idiom used. "Biting the hand that feeds
you" often carries with it a moral dimension, and is usually used in cases
where you repay kindness or generosity with some kind of bad behavior. If your
employer hires you in exchange for a compensation package, they typically do
so because they calculated that your labor would provide them value above and
beyond what they are paying you. It's not kindness, it's not a gift, it's not
to be compared to a master feeding his/her pet dog because of love.

edit:

I'd again suggest another perspective in response to this sentence:

> Every bit of money, and everything I've bought from it, has been from my
> employers, from pizza delivery to robotics.

Your skills, your time and your (presumably) hard work were the source of
value that you provided to your employer in exchange for money and benefits
such as health insurance. I don't know your specific situation, but maybe it's
possible that you could choose to provide them to a different employer, maybe
for even more money.

~~~
8note
> What is your perspective on this? Are you self employed, providing some sort
> of raw material/product? How is your food, housing, and fun paid for? Have
> you ever been laid off or otherwise without work? If so, where did your
> income come from?

Notably absent: an answer to these.

------
tengbretson
What exactly does a UX designer know about the working conditions of an Amazon
warehouse that they haven't simply read online like the rest of us anyway?

~~~
AdrianB1
Imagine they can be UX designers for internally used apps, for example in the
warehouses; they go there and do user research, guess what they know after
that.

~~~
tengbretson
Could be. I find it more likely that bored tech workers in a cushy desk job
are looking for somewhere to direct their indignation.

