6 ms·

This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.

by uoaei 7y ago

tengbretson 7y ago
There are proper channels for affecting change internally at a company. It's clear that these channels are working to some degree since an internal faction just pressured the company into adopting an aggressive climate pledge. My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.
- uoaei 7y ago
  This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument. Appeals to authority all the way down.
  - tengbretson 7y ago
    Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - uoaei 7y ago
      The concept of "decorum" has historically been used as suppression from above of deviations from the status quo. Particularly to shut up women's movements, branding them as "hysterical" and "bitchy".
    - deogeo 7y ago
      And corporations are those who decide what the "agreed upon decorum" is.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Right, that's part of working in a large organization. Sometimes the rest of the organization doesn't want to do what you'd prefer, and you need to either disagree and commit or disagree and leave. The idea that you have to get your way, that any strategy becomes appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, is incredibly toxic.
    - uoaei 7y ago
      The rest of the organization, comprised almost entirely of workers, has almost no say in what is written in the "explicit company policy", so I don't see how your point is relevant.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        I don't agree. Company policies are definitely influenced, although not fully determined, by what employees think the company policies ought to be.
        uoaei 7y ago
        In an era where everyone must earn wages to survive, employees sign on to companies' terms. Not so much the other way around, unless you're counting empty platitudes. If US history is any indication, the only way to reverse this trend is to enact laws protecting laborers.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Is it not toxic to allow a company to treat workers in the way that some firms do? Is it not toxic to defer to a corporation's actions over that of citizens? It feels like the word "toxic" is used in this context to whitewash degenerate status quo corporate behavior as acceptable. Sometimes, any strategy does become appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, depending on the issue at hand. At some point, being reasonable may no longer be an effective strategy.
      - deleted 7y ago
xenocyon 7y ago
Interestingly, if Amazon did have a union, it would be obvious that being openly critical of the company wouldn't be grounds for firing (else no union leader could ever retain their job). The only reason we're debating the employees' right to criticize is because we don't have unions.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Any efforts to unionize Amazon employees in progress? If not, why not (considering labor organization is a federally protected activity)?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  A principal designer like Costa would almost surely be considered a supervisor, and thus not be protected by or allowed to join the union.
  - BrandoElFollito 7y ago
    Is the ability to join a union limited in the US?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Most people in the US can be fired at will. Part of the US's basic labor law (the Wagner Act) is a provision that you can't be fired for unionizing, but the Wagner Act doesn't cover people in supervisory roles. So supervisors technically could join a union, but can also be easily fired for doing it. Legal obstacles aside, though, it would be pretty clearly inappropriate in this case. If I'm an entry-level SWE looking to unionize, the principal designers are by any reasonable metric management; they're the ones who go around telling me what I should do and how I should do it, often more so than the person I actually report to in the org chart. I don't think any union representing line employees would let those employees' managers join.
      - BrandoElFollito 7y ago
tidepod12 7y ago
This implies that there is something wrong with this argument. In cases where strikes are illegal, they are made so because voters have determined that it is in society's best interest to make them so. If you disagree with that, fine, but that is your opinion and is not universal. If your stance is that Amazon's policy regarding public speaking is wrong, then that again is your opinion. I reached out to a friend who knows about Amazon's public speaking policy. The policy does not prevent employees from speaking to the press, nor does it prevent employees from speaking negatively about Amazon. It actually even says that talking publicly about an employee's experience working at Amazon is encouraged as long as you say that "this opinion is my own and not my company's". The policy does also say that employees must get prior approval before speaking publicly on behalf of the company or before sharing confidential information. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with this policy, and the employee in question definitely violated that. She explicitly identifies herself as "an Amazon insider" in her interview with TechCrunch where she then goes on to talk about Amazon's effort regarding climate change. If I had to guess, I would say that this phrase is probably what got her into trouble. No company would be happy if one of their employees, without prior approval, represented themselves as an "insider" giving special information to the press, and I don't blame the company for that or see anything wrong with enforcing policies against that (except in cases of actual whistleblowing, which this is not).
- uoaei 7y ago
  The "appeal to authority" fallacy is one of the fallacies most commonly recognized as such. Usually arguments based on fallacies are classified as "wrong" because no alternate, valid support is given. > In cases where strikes are illegal, they are made so because voters have determined that it is in society's best interest to make them so. Laws are seldom (never?) passed by popular vote, and I highly doubt this hypothetical outcome would occur if the question was ever presented to the people. Citizens have little say in legislative matters except when given a choice between 2-3 representatives, the winner of which gets the power to vote in their stead. This obviously makes it easier to influence the legislative process, since you only need to influence the representative and not all their constituents. The representatives are completely unaccountable until they're up for re-election, which occurs every 2-6 years. Passing a law can be done in much less time with zero input from citizens. So using the law as a basis for social approval of policy is obviously moot. Another point: she never claims to speak for Amazon. Being an Amazon insider doesn't automatically imply that they are a spokesperson for Amazon, it just means they have access to information which does not exist outside Amazon. Your reading of this seems quite charitable to Amazon's case for seemingly no good reason. Lastly, "confidential information" is often dubiously and vaguely defined to capture all information classified by laws as confidential, but also a lot more than that based on what the company thinks is bad PR. Take for instance the Google controversies last year regarding Search in China and image processing for military drones. When you give a single company the power to both define and enforce what falls under that umbrella, you can't expect them to do anything but use it to benefit the bottom line. This is the reason we have oversight bodies at all.

This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.

by uoaei 7y ago

This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.

There are proper channels for affecting change internally at a company. It's clear that these channels are working to some degree since an internal faction just pressured the company into adopting an aggressive climate pledge. My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.

uoaei 7y ago
This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument. Appeals to authority all the way down.
- tengbretson 7y ago
  Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - uoaei 7y ago
    The concept of "decorum" has historically been used as suppression from above of deviations from the status quo. Particularly to shut up women's movements, branding them as "hysterical" and "bitchy".
  - deogeo 7y ago
    And corporations are those who decide what the "agreed upon decorum" is.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Right, that's part of working in a large organization. Sometimes the rest of the organization doesn't want to do what you'd prefer, and you need to either disagree and commit or disagree and leave. The idea that you have to get your way, that any strategy becomes appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, is incredibly toxic.
  - uoaei 7y ago
    The rest of the organization, comprised almost entirely of workers, has almost no say in what is written in the "explicit company policy", so I don't see how your point is relevant.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't agree. Company policies are definitely influenced, although not fully determined, by what employees think the company policies ought to be.
      - uoaei 7y ago
        In an era where everyone must earn wages to survive, employees sign on to companies' terms. Not so much the other way around, unless you're counting empty platitudes. If US history is any indication, the only way to reverse this trend is to enact laws protecting laborers.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Is it not toxic to allow a company to treat workers in the way that some firms do? Is it not toxic to defer to a corporation's actions over that of citizens? It feels like the word "toxic" is used in this context to whitewash degenerate status quo corporate behavior as acceptable. Sometimes, any strategy does become appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, depending on the issue at hand. At some point, being reasonable may no longer be an effective strategy.
    - deleted 7y ago

xenocyon 7y ago

Interestingly, if Amazon did have a union, it would be obvious that being openly critical of the company wouldn't be grounds for firing (else no union leader could ever retain their job). The only reason we're debating the employees' right to criticize is because we don't have unions.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Any efforts to unionize Amazon employees in progress? If not, why not (considering labor organization is a federally protected activity)?
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
A principal designer like Costa would almost surely be considered a supervisor, and thus not be protected by or allowed to join the union.
- BrandoElFollito 7y ago
  Is the ability to join a union limited in the US?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Most people in the US can be fired at will. Part of the US's basic labor law (the Wagner Act) is a provision that you can't be fired for unionizing, but the Wagner Act doesn't cover people in supervisory roles. So supervisors technically could join a union, but can also be easily fired for doing it. Legal obstacles aside, though, it would be pretty clearly inappropriate in this case. If I'm an entry-level SWE looking to unionize, the principal designers are by any reasonable metric management; they're the ones who go around telling me what I should do and how I should do it, often more so than the person I actually report to in the org chart. I don't think any union representing line employees would let those employees' managers join.
    - BrandoElFollito 7y ago

tidepod12 7y ago

This implies that there is something wrong with this argument. In cases where strikes are illegal, they are made so because voters have determined that it is in society's best interest to make them so. If you disagree with that, fine, but that is your opinion and is not universal. If your stance is that Amazon's policy regarding public speaking is wrong, then that again is your opinion. I reached out to a friend who knows about Amazon's public speaking policy. The policy does not prevent employees from speaking to the press, nor does it prevent employees from speaking negatively about Amazon. It actually even says that talking publicly about an employee's experience working at Amazon is encouraged as long as you say that "this opinion is my own and not my company's". The policy does also say that employees must get prior approval before speaking publicly on behalf of the company or before sharing confidential information. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with this policy, and the employee in question definitely violated that. She explicitly identifies herself as "an Amazon insider" in her interview with TechCrunch where she then goes on to talk about Amazon's effort regarding climate change. If I had to guess, I would say that this phrase is probably what got her into trouble. No company would be happy if one of their employees, without prior approval, represented themselves as an "insider" giving special information to the press, and I don't blame the company for that or see anything wrong with enforcing policies against that (except in cases of actual whistleblowing, which this is not).

uoaei 7y ago
The "appeal to authority" fallacy is one of the fallacies most commonly recognized as such. Usually arguments based on fallacies are classified as "wrong" because no alternate, valid support is given. > In cases where strikes are illegal, they are made so because voters have determined that it is in society's best interest to make them so. Laws are seldom (never?) passed by popular vote, and I highly doubt this hypothetical outcome would occur if the question was ever presented to the people. Citizens have little say in legislative matters except when given a choice between 2-3 representatives, the winner of which gets the power to vote in their stead. This obviously makes it easier to influence the legislative process, since you only need to influence the representative and not all their constituents. The representatives are completely unaccountable until they're up for re-election, which occurs every 2-6 years. Passing a law can be done in much less time with zero input from citizens. So using the law as a basis for social approval of policy is obviously moot. Another point: she never claims to speak for Amazon. Being an Amazon insider doesn't automatically imply that they are a spokesperson for Amazon, it just means they have access to information which does not exist outside Amazon. Your reading of this seems quite charitable to Amazon's case for seemingly no good reason. Lastly, "confidential information" is often dubiously and vaguely defined to capture all information classified by laws as confidential, but also a lot more than that based on what the company thinks is bad PR. Take for instance the Google controversies last year regarding Search in China and image processing for military drones. When you give a single company the power to both define and enforce what falls under that umbrella, you can't expect them to do anything but use it to benefit the bottom line. This is the reason we have oversight bodies at all.