This is a really cool and refreshing idea on paper, but in reality it fails miserably. If one chooses the three nonmanager workers to be on the jury, they can l

This is a really cool and refreshing idea on paper, but in reality it fails miserably. If one chooses the three nonmanager workers to be on the jury, they can lean towards the "support the working man" idealogy and strongly favor retaining worker jobs. On the other hand, managers might tend to favor corporate interests, and be more likely to reject appeals. The article mentioned that these employees who appeal can look at lists of potential jury people for them so they can select who would best sympathize with them. Employees literally get to select which bias' they want in their jury lineup. Not to mention the vast resource cost of these programs. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of employees, what if every single employee that was set to be fired made an appeal? How many thousands of man hours would that chew up? Lastly, and probably the most important is that lasting tension with boss figures. If an employee challenges a boss and they win, that boss is going to forever have a grudge against them. I'd think that could be fixed by if you win an appeal, you are automatically transferred under a new boss that isn't allowed to view your previous work history at the company. Again this is good in theory, but changes would need to be made for this to be an effective system. Bravo on Amazon for installing this type of plan though. As much hate as Amazon gets for running what are basically sweat shops in their warehouses(I know, I've been in them, it's soul crushing), at least they are in some small part giving employees a voice. Then again, this could be a rigged system for all we know and it's just to save face.