7 ms·

And in the UK this would be an automatic lose in court - even if say the employee was found bang to rights. And best practice is to have an appeal stage so you

And in the UK this would be an automatic lose in court - even if say the employee was found bang to rights. And best practice is to have an appeal stage so you can appeal the verdict to a manger completely outside of your reporting chain.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
This is the United States. One of our two political parties is vehemently opposed to workers rights on the claim that it inhibits profit/greed.
- jstanley 8y ago
  That's a complete strawman. Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money. People are claiming that workers' rights should be limited to the same extent that employers' rights are limited (i.e. that either party can end the relationship at any time and without any specific reason) so as to avoid giving excess power to one party or the other.
  - prolikewhoa 8y ago
    Who does all of the work? That's right, the workers. The workers should have the excess of power in all circumstances. The only reason we have weekends and the "40" hour work week is because of workers and left wing movements. Corporations would have never let such happen, and are historically against the worker & only in favor of raking in profit at the expense of labor. Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      > Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation. There is plenty of room for disagreement among people who accept that workers should have rights -- for example, what should the rights be, how should those rights be balanced against the rights of management, etc.
      - lovich 8y ago
        There is room for disagreement but there is certainly a strong anti labor sentiment on this board. There's a strong pro labor group as well, but I have seen people on here state outright that unions are inherently immoral and not just that unions as they have turned on in specific situations are bad.
  - hackbinary 8y ago
    The employer inherently has more power than the employee. That is why worker's rights are important.
    - adventured 8y ago
      The business belongs to the employer typically, they should have far more power over their own business than an average employee does. Inverting that is crazy. I take a job at your 30 year old business that you've run for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over it than you do, all because I took a job = perpetual stagnation ala France.
      - lazyasciiart 8y ago
        Ok, now do "I took a job at a huge multinational that you've worked at for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over your job than you do, all because I graduated with a minor in HR last month".
        bena 8y ago
        And? That's the decision of the person who owns the business. Not yours, and not the HR person's. The person who owns the business has decided that this is the process by which he wants employees vetted because they do not have the time to personally oversee every decision. See, you've actually moved the goalposts here and you may not have realized it.
        lazyasciiart 8y ago
        I'm not sure if you read the comment I was responding to, but it sounds like if you had, you would agree that it was presenting a totally irrelevant argument.
        bena 8y ago
        No it's not. He was talking about the owner losing power over his own business due to hiring an employee. That is not comparable to two employees with different responsibilities.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money." I mean, no one would come right out and say that, because it's a pretty stupid thing to say. There are, however, plenty of actions that have that outcome, without having the optics of coming right out and saying that you're favoring employers over employees. Being friendly to "job creators" and all that.
- prolikewhoa 8y ago
  Hacker News is not a place to come to talk about labor, labor rights, or left wing ideas. It's very hostile to non-right wing ideas as most of the people here are working cushy remote & wfh jobs making oodles of money and don't live in any type of labor reality. I voted you up, but people are not very logical about politics & labor rights here.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    > don't live in any type of labor reality If we are living this, it must be some type of reality, right? I mean, if something is the reality for lots of people, you can't just claim it is not a reality. I think it weakens the argument to ignore the kinds of work lots of people are actually doing when discussing this stuff; it needs to be incorporated into the intellectual structure of the philosophy if it is meant to be useful.
duxup 8y ago
In the US it could be too. While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" that doesn't mean ANY reason or any process. If the company has a process that isn't fair, an employee could potentially sue over that. Granted other factors come into play but if a company sets up a system like this they still have to do it fairly, a judge could potentially decide the process is unfair.
- jasode 8y ago
  >While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may unintentionally overstate what Amazon's appeal process is actually appealing. Based on the text, Amazon's "appeal process" is to challenge the status of being put on PIP - the Performance Improvement Plan. It isn't to appeal a firing. (Although I understand that some see that as no difference if a PIP is ~99% equivalent to getting fired eventually.) If the employee wants to keep working (at least temporarily) for Amazon, he/she doesn't need to appeal. What a successful appeal does is let them work without PIP targets hanging over their head.
  - mikeryan 8y ago
    PIPs are basically a nice opportunity to look for another job while still at your current one.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I've had to explain this to coworkers in the past, kinda awkward but at the same time I wanted them to not be surprised....
      - erric 8y ago
        PIPs, at least from what I’ve seen in 12 years at DoE, are a way for managers to retaliate against employees without raising the ire of the (completely useless) union.
inopinatus 8y ago
In my country this procedure could be deemed a tribunal. Tribunals, like many legal objects, are duck typed and don't have to be created by legislation; any extrajudicial arbitration process that has the form of a tribunal may qualify. Under such circumstances the rules of natural justice must still be observed: most significantly, a fair hearing with rights of reply, and an unbiased adjudicator. Failure to adhere to those rules is the basis of an appeal to a real court.
- aerotwelve 8y ago
  If we had a similar setup in the United States, we'd have much fewer wrongful termination tort lawsuits. In the long term, it would be cheaper in almost every respect. The problem with a system like Amazon's (or internal appeal processes other private companies use) is that they are often so blatantly biased towards management that their results would be legally meaningless in the context of a trial. It makes me wonder why they bother at all.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

This is the United States. One of our two political parties is vehemently opposed to workers rights on the claim that it inhibits profit/greed.

jstanley 8y ago
That's a complete strawman. Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money. People are claiming that workers' rights should be limited to the same extent that employers' rights are limited (i.e. that either party can end the relationship at any time and without any specific reason) so as to avoid giving excess power to one party or the other.
- prolikewhoa 8y ago
  Who does all of the work? That's right, the workers. The workers should have the excess of power in all circumstances. The only reason we have weekends and the "40" hour work week is because of workers and left wing movements. Corporations would have never let such happen, and are historically against the worker & only in favor of raking in profit at the expense of labor. Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation. There is plenty of room for disagreement among people who accept that workers should have rights -- for example, what should the rights be, how should those rights be balanced against the rights of management, etc.
    - lovich 8y ago
      There is room for disagreement but there is certainly a strong anti labor sentiment on this board. There's a strong pro labor group as well, but I have seen people on here state outright that unions are inherently immoral and not just that unions as they have turned on in specific situations are bad.
- hackbinary 8y ago
  The employer inherently has more power than the employee. That is why worker's rights are important.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The business belongs to the employer typically, they should have far more power over their own business than an average employee does. Inverting that is crazy. I take a job at your 30 year old business that you've run for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over it than you do, all because I took a job = perpetual stagnation ala France.
    - lazyasciiart 8y ago
      Ok, now do "I took a job at a huge multinational that you've worked at for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over your job than you do, all because I graduated with a minor in HR last month".
      - bena 8y ago
        And? That's the decision of the person who owns the business. Not yours, and not the HR person's. The person who owns the business has decided that this is the process by which he wants employees vetted because they do not have the time to personally oversee every decision. See, you've actually moved the goalposts here and you may not have realized it.
        lazyasciiart 8y ago
        I'm not sure if you read the comment I was responding to, but it sounds like if you had, you would agree that it was presenting a totally irrelevant argument.
        bena 8y ago
        No it's not. He was talking about the owner losing power over his own business due to hiring an employee. That is not comparable to two employees with different responsibilities.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money." I mean, no one would come right out and say that, because it's a pretty stupid thing to say. There are, however, plenty of actions that have that outcome, without having the optics of coming right out and saying that you're favoring employers over employees. Being friendly to "job creators" and all that.
prolikewhoa 8y ago
Hacker News is not a place to come to talk about labor, labor rights, or left wing ideas. It's very hostile to non-right wing ideas as most of the people here are working cushy remote & wfh jobs making oodles of money and don't live in any type of labor reality. I voted you up, but people are not very logical about politics & labor rights here.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  > don't live in any type of labor reality If we are living this, it must be some type of reality, right? I mean, if something is the reality for lots of people, you can't just claim it is not a reality. I think it weakens the argument to ignore the kinds of work lots of people are actually doing when discussing this stuff; it needs to be incorporated into the intellectual structure of the philosophy if it is meant to be useful.

duxup 8y ago

In the US it could be too. While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" that doesn't mean ANY reason or any process. If the company has a process that isn't fair, an employee could potentially sue over that. Granted other factors come into play but if a company sets up a system like this they still have to do it fairly, a judge could potentially decide the process is unfair.

jasode 8y ago
>While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may unintentionally overstate what Amazon's appeal process is actually appealing. Based on the text, Amazon's "appeal process" is to challenge the status of being put on PIP - the Performance Improvement Plan. It isn't to appeal a firing. (Although I understand that some see that as no difference if a PIP is ~99% equivalent to getting fired eventually.) If the employee wants to keep working (at least temporarily) for Amazon, he/she doesn't need to appeal. What a successful appeal does is let them work without PIP targets hanging over their head.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  PIPs are basically a nice opportunity to look for another job while still at your current one.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I've had to explain this to coworkers in the past, kinda awkward but at the same time I wanted them to not be surprised....
    - erric 8y ago
      PIPs, at least from what I’ve seen in 12 years at DoE, are a way for managers to retaliate against employees without raising the ire of the (completely useless) union.

inopinatus 8y ago

In my country this procedure could be deemed a tribunal. Tribunals, like many legal objects, are duck typed and don't have to be created by legislation; any extrajudicial arbitration process that has the form of a tribunal may qualify. Under such circumstances the rules of natural justice must still be observed: most significantly, a fair hearing with rights of reply, and an unbiased adjudicator. Failure to adhere to those rules is the basis of an appeal to a real court.

aerotwelve 8y ago
If we had a similar setup in the United States, we'd have much fewer wrongful termination tort lawsuits. In the long term, it would be cheaper in almost every respect. The problem with a system like Amazon's (or internal appeal processes other private companies use) is that they are often so blatantly biased towards management that their results would be legally meaningless in the context of a trial. It makes me wonder why they bother at all.