8 ms·

This is such a poor implementation of what has proven to be a very robust mechanism. Since the employee is being fired (deprived of something), they are "the a

This is such a poor implementation of what has proven to be a very robust mechanism. Since the employee is being fired (deprived of something), they are "the accused" and "the burden of proof lies with the accuser". All the charges that are presented must be presented in such a way as to be challenged. Allowing the manager the last word -- and not allowing the employee to even be aware of what was said -- indicates that accusations are being made without being challenged. The selection of jurors -- three non-managers or one manager -- seems strange in part because it recognizes a hierarchy of people and in part because it involves such a small number of people. The validity of a jury hinges in part on a certain notion of the equality of people -- we don't have juries of 12 ordinary people or 2 senators in the United States because we don't expect that senators are "more just" than ordinary people. It's hard to see why expecting managers to be "more just" is any more reasonable.

zajd 8y ago
> It's hard to see why expecting managers to be "more just" is any more reasonable. The purpose of the stated policy isn't to be "more just" it's to ensure management can control the outcome.
microcolonel 8y ago
> Since the employee is being fired (deprived of something) Well, the employee is depriving the employer of something as well. That's why they are in this arrangement: they believe it to be mutually beneficial, and thus agree to deprive themselves of something good, in exchange for something better. The problem this system seems to attempt to solve is where the employer is not aware of what they're getting in return for being deprived of that employee's compensation.
- workinthehead 8y ago
  > Well, the employee is depriving the employer of something as well. Given that the employer is trying to get rid of the employee, this assertion seems questionable.
  - mcny 8y ago
    The whole premise of "right to work" is questionable because the employer and the employee are not equals. All else being equal, the employer has a big upper hand in any negotiation.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  The sense in which I meant it was: in the course of a termination, the employee is being deprived, by another person, of something. The latter person sets in motion the process. That's one way to figure out who is the accuser and who is the accused, because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong. Employment is not a right, and a job not the possession of the employee (it's rather the other way around,) and employers in the US can in most cases terminate an employee without demonstrating any cause at all. This isn't a "real" court and jury system, so the rules of that framework don't actually matter here. The purpose of this is not to find fact and arbitrate fairly, it's to discourage employees from engaging in lawsuits against Amazon.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      > Employment is not a right, Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
      - krapp 8y ago
        Fair enough. Employment at any specific business is not a right.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago
- brandonjm 8y ago
  > the employer is not aware of what they're getting in return for being deprived of that employee's compensation. This would make sense except this article suggests that employees are not given a proper chance to actually present what they do give in return. Rather they spend the whole process defending accusations from their manager. > She wasn’t invited to watch her boss’s presentation, and he got the last word. In court, the accused does not get kicked out whenever the accuser is speaking. They should at least have the right to hear what is being said about them and be given the same time to both give a rebuttal and present their achievements and contributions.
pishpash 8y ago
Corporations are anti-democratic by design so having a show trial is something to expect.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Although this seems like a reasonable idea at first, in fact, rule of law and effective courts preceded representative democracy in Europe by several hundred years. One reason for this is that the big thief at the top -- the king -- benefitted by limiting the take of all the intermediary little thieves. The other reason is that the king had more to tax when the commercial sector was bustling and efficient -- but this meant contracts needed to be honored and private property respected. Would Bezos benefit from justice at the level of rank and file management? Even if all that resulted was higher retention, then yes. Justice and rule of law doesn't have to extend to every level of an organization to make a difference.
- noobermin 8y ago
  This is something. For a country where certain elements have even called for "bringing democracy" to other countries at the worst or at least being a shining city on the hill at best, the one place democracy has not taken root is where its own people spend most of their life: in the workplace.
  - extralego 8y ago
    If Karl Marx (democracy absolutist) could have you take one thing from his work, it would be your observation. Of course, before the US decided it were the home of democracy, Europe actually was. Marx devoted his life to understanding the challenge of crossing the threshold of the workplace. For everyone interested, I recommend Capital: Volume I.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      you can already do this - start a co-operative.
ignoramous 8y ago
This isn't all. Sometimes, even when you're not a _fire-worthy employee_ (for lack of a better term), just to fuck you up, the manager could choose to mark you as "least effective" in the year-end / mid-year review and not really put you up for a PIP... Now... even though you performed good enough, there's no jury to appeal to. What happens next is that the manager could then systematically deprive you of quality work and come year-end / mid-year review, s/he has a solid case to PIP you and throw you out. Note that, being marked "least effective" essentially means that one can't transfer internally to other teams unless someone wayy higher up the management chain approves of the transfer. I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple people across multiple Amazon development centers. This place is toxic and puts way too much power in the hands of the managers, and the net result is that the managers have their favourites, and that the engineers are nothing but puppets, and that engineers are busy back-biting each other, and the managers enjoy the shit show from the sidelines. Despite not having any moral high-ground, all managers in an org review every reportee in that org with absolutely zero fairness, there's no integrity whatsoever, from what I've heard. And I'd be lying if I said this _thinking_ didn't take it roots right at the very top of the management hierarchy (...according to employees I've spoken to).
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  >Note that, being marked "least effective" essentially means that one can't transfer internally to other teams unless someone wayy higher up the management chain approves of the transfer. What a hilariously counterproductive policy, obviously people that just barely exceed the incompetent-enough-to-fire low water mark are going to be given glowing reviews, then pawned off on some other team.
- paulsutter 8y ago
  Why do you stay? > I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple people across multiple Amazon development centers.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    I've asked this question to multiple Amazonians who have worked there for 4 years or more, and I've yet to hear a decent answer. There are many companies that have sub-40hr work weeks that will pay you as much as Amazon (plus stock grants), but yet most won't make the time for an interview. All the people I know at Amazon in Seattle consistently get home after 7pm most nights, and a handful of those people come in on the weekends for 10 to 12hrs to fix mundane bugs that aren't in need of immediate fixing. Amazon's high pressure work culture encourages this terrible practice of burning the candle from both ends, but Amazon definitely doesn't create quality products on the first try in part due to this.
_pmf_ 8y ago
> The selection of jurors -- three non-managers or one manager Like Sharia law, where a man is worth 3 or 5 women.
- codeonfire 8y ago
  I think you are thinking about the US consitution and the 3-5ths compromise. Slaves were only considered 3/5ths of a person. At Amazon though non-managers are considered 0/5ths. You are stupid if you work there as a non-manager or you need the money.
  - sakarisson 8y ago
    I'd guess that most people who work anywhere need the money.
    - _pmf_ 8y ago
      "Work with us if you want to change the world to be a better place, 345 packages of cheap knockoffs a day."
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  I dont see the connection between amazon firing people and sharia law?

zajd 8y ago

> It's hard to see why expecting managers to be "more just" is any more reasonable. The purpose of the stated policy isn't to be "more just" it's to ensure management can control the outcome.

microcolonel 8y ago

> Since the employee is being fired (deprived of something) Well, the employee is depriving the employer of something as well. That's why they are in this arrangement: they believe it to be mutually beneficial, and thus agree to deprive themselves of something good, in exchange for something better. The problem this system seems to attempt to solve is where the employer is not aware of what they're getting in return for being deprived of that employee's compensation.

workinthehead 8y ago
> Well, the employee is depriving the employer of something as well. Given that the employer is trying to get rid of the employee, this assertion seems questionable.
- mcny 8y ago
  The whole premise of "right to work" is questionable because the employer and the employee are not equals. All else being equal, the employer has a big upper hand in any negotiation.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
The sense in which I meant it was: in the course of a termination, the employee is being deprived, by another person, of something. The latter person sets in motion the process. That's one way to figure out who is the accuser and who is the accused, because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.
- krapp 8y ago
  >because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong. Employment is not a right, and a job not the possession of the employee (it's rather the other way around,) and employers in the US can in most cases terminate an employee without demonstrating any cause at all. This isn't a "real" court and jury system, so the rules of that framework don't actually matter here. The purpose of this is not to find fact and arbitrate fairly, it's to discourage employees from engaging in lawsuits against Amazon.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > Employment is not a right, Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Fair enough. Employment at any specific business is not a right.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8y ago
brandonjm 8y ago
> the employer is not aware of what they're getting in return for being deprived of that employee's compensation. This would make sense except this article suggests that employees are not given a proper chance to actually present what they do give in return. Rather they spend the whole process defending accusations from their manager. > She wasn’t invited to watch her boss’s presentation, and he got the last word. In court, the accused does not get kicked out whenever the accuser is speaking. They should at least have the right to hear what is being said about them and be given the same time to both give a rebuttal and present their achievements and contributions.

pishpash 8y ago

Corporations are anti-democratic by design so having a show trial is something to expect.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Although this seems like a reasonable idea at first, in fact, rule of law and effective courts preceded representative democracy in Europe by several hundred years. One reason for this is that the big thief at the top -- the king -- benefitted by limiting the take of all the intermediary little thieves. The other reason is that the king had more to tax when the commercial sector was bustling and efficient -- but this meant contracts needed to be honored and private property respected. Would Bezos benefit from justice at the level of rank and file management? Even if all that resulted was higher retention, then yes. Justice and rule of law doesn't have to extend to every level of an organization to make a difference.
noobermin 8y ago
This is something. For a country where certain elements have even called for "bringing democracy" to other countries at the worst or at least being a shining city on the hill at best, the one place democracy has not taken root is where its own people spend most of their life: in the workplace.
- extralego 8y ago
  If Karl Marx (democracy absolutist) could have you take one thing from his work, it would be your observation. Of course, before the US decided it were the home of democracy, Europe actually was. Marx devoted his life to understanding the challenge of crossing the threshold of the workplace. For everyone interested, I recommend Capital: Volume I.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    you can already do this - start a co-operative.

ignoramous 8y ago

This isn't all. Sometimes, even when you're not a _fire-worthy employee_ (for lack of a better term), just to fuck you up, the manager could choose to mark you as "least effective" in the year-end / mid-year review and not really put you up for a PIP... Now... even though you performed good enough, there's no jury to appeal to. What happens next is that the manager could then systematically deprive you of quality work and come year-end / mid-year review, s/he has a solid case to PIP you and throw you out. Note that, being marked "least effective" essentially means that one can't transfer internally to other teams unless someone wayy higher up the management chain approves of the transfer. I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple people across multiple Amazon development centers. This place is toxic and puts way too much power in the hands of the managers, and the net result is that the managers have their favourites, and that the engineers are nothing but puppets, and that engineers are busy back-biting each other, and the managers enjoy the shit show from the sidelines. Despite not having any moral high-ground, all managers in an org review every reportee in that org with absolutely zero fairness, there's no integrity whatsoever, from what I've heard. And I'd be lying if I said this _thinking_ didn't take it roots right at the very top of the management hierarchy (...according to employees I've spoken to).

throwaway2048 8y ago
>Note that, being marked "least effective" essentially means that one can't transfer internally to other teams unless someone wayy higher up the management chain approves of the transfer. What a hilariously counterproductive policy, obviously people that just barely exceed the incompetent-enough-to-fire low water mark are going to be given glowing reviews, then pawned off on some other team.
paulsutter 8y ago
Why do you stay? > I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple people across multiple Amazon development centers.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  I've asked this question to multiple Amazonians who have worked there for 4 years or more, and I've yet to hear a decent answer. There are many companies that have sub-40hr work weeks that will pay you as much as Amazon (plus stock grants), but yet most won't make the time for an interview. All the people I know at Amazon in Seattle consistently get home after 7pm most nights, and a handful of those people come in on the weekends for 10 to 12hrs to fix mundane bugs that aren't in need of immediate fixing. Amazon's high pressure work culture encourages this terrible practice of burning the candle from both ends, but Amazon definitely doesn't create quality products on the first try in part due to this.

_pmf_ 8y ago

> The selection of jurors -- three non-managers or one manager Like Sharia law, where a man is worth 3 or 5 women.

codeonfire 8y ago
I think you are thinking about the US consitution and the 3-5ths compromise. Slaves were only considered 3/5ths of a person. At Amazon though non-managers are considered 0/5ths. You are stupid if you work there as a non-manager or you need the money.
- sakarisson 8y ago
  I'd guess that most people who work anywhere need the money.
  - _pmf_ 8y ago
    "Work with us if you want to change the world to be a better place, 345 packages of cheap knockoffs a day."
thecatspaw 8y ago
I dont see the connection between amazon firing people and sharia law?