21 ms·

Amazon fires two UX designers critical of warehouse working conditions

265 points by claudeganon 7y ago

krick 7y ago
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?..
alistairSH 7y ago
No details on what those employees actually did? Lacking that, this is just clickbait.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  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-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...
  - kenforthewin 7y ago
    I wonder why the Washington Post would want to stress that they violated company policies. Not sure since it's behind a paywall.
    - AimForTheBushes 7y ago
      They don't want to feel Bezos wrath.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The WaPo article is unfavorable to Amazon, puts "violated company policies" in quotes, buries the detail in the end of the article, and gives the employees quotes to rebut Amazon's policies. These kinds of superficial dismissive comments crud up the threads. You should at least read the article --- you say you didn't, due to the paywall --- before writing like this.
      - kenforthewin 7y ago
        My comment was a bit on the nose but the point is valid, there's no good reason to trust an article that's critical of Amazon when the paper is owned by Bezos.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Don't you feel a little...silly...making accusations about something that you haven't even looked at? WaPo did not "stress that they violated company policies". There are two short sentences in the middle of the article about Amazon's reason for firing, followed by a disclaimer that Bezos owns WaPo. Much more of the article is devoted to the fired employees belief that she was fired for her climate change activism, and not for violating Amazon policies. Including a heart breaking "I'm doing it all for you, kiddo" scene.
      - kenforthewin 7y ago
        I think it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos. There are plenty of other sources on the topic including the Reuters article above, which is not behind a paywall.
        rochester46 7y ago
        It's not totally unreasonable to be skeptical of WaPo in this story, but you are failing to recognize that the entire reason people are posting the WaPo article to begin with is that it includes much more details about this story than the Reuters article does. There aren't "plenty of other sources on the topic", since those other sources don't include the same info, and especially since all of the other sources reporting on it (Reuters, for example) are getting their info from the WaPo anyway.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        > it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos That wasn't the question. The fact is that you felt comfortable asserting a certain tone in the article that you admittedly didn't even read, and then the article didn't even have that tone. You're moving the goalposts now by just saying you should blanket not accept any WaPo reporting about Amazon. Which is fine. But that wasn't your original claim.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    Newspapers owned by Bezos are not a reliable or non-laughable source on this story. Also the paywall stuff is getting old, posting paywall links is just spam.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      I also tire of paywalled links, as they stratify the community by ease of access. In case this helps anyone, Brave is able to view the article just by toggling 'block scripts' Edit: Presumably Firefox with a script blocking add-on would also work.
claudeganon 7y ago
Additional context/reporting here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...
- adequateness 7y ago
  Note that WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. edit: This is mentioned half way through the article.
advisedwang 7y ago
> “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.
- influx 7y ago
  Amazon is very clear when you're hired that you're not allowed to represent the company or it's positions on social media or anywhere publicly without getting permission. You can agree or disagree with that policy, but it's not new. Source: first heard of this policy when I was hired at Amazon in 2007.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    Also: whether you like it or not, this is pretty standard policy almost everywhere.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    They weren't "representing the company" which means speaking its behalf. They were criticising some of it's policies.
  - elicash 7y ago
    The policy could also be in violation of law. Hard to see without looking at the policy and also without looking at the substance of the comments. But there are federal laws protecting certain worker activity and a policy doesn't overrule that. It depends on the specifics of this case.
- alehul 7y ago
  Amazon is firing them for commenting publicly on its business. If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?
tengbretson 7y ago
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?
- deusexepsilon 7y ago
  I was introduced to the concept of team design and development that leads the creation and implementation of high profile, long-term team member status and an open, real world to the public. I knew from a good manager's perspective that an important piece of software is the product.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    Could be. I find it more likely that bored tech workers in a cushy desk job are looking for somewhere to direct their indignation.
- notRobot 7y ago
  How do you know they haven't been to the warehouses and/or spoken directly to workers of said warehouses?
  - tengbretson 7y ago
    How do I know they haven't been moonlighting as undercover warehouse workers the whole time?
- gshdg 7y ago
  What does that have to do with anything?
  - 7y ago
gryzzly 7y ago
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.
- epicureanideal 7y ago
  Not to worry, they'll simply say they have a "talent shortage" and ask the government to help supply them with workers whose situations are so desperate they won't think about the company's business practices. (Note, this is not actually a jab at Amazon in particular.)
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    I know this is an attack on H1bs. Many H1Bs have multiple offers from FAANGS at market rate. Whatever woe you have in your life, please stop blaming immigrants for it.
    - beastman82 7y ago
      I assure you they're below market rate. That's the whole point
    - mason55 7y ago
      Just because many H1B's have good job offers doesn't ALSO mean there is rampant H1B abuse happening. Both things can be true and the blame for the latter should be placed on the companies abusing the H1B process and the US government for not doing something about it. I'm all for open borders and immigration. The H1B problem right now is the worst of both worlds though. You have selectively restrictive immigration which means that if you're lucky enough to get an H1B you'll go through a lot to stay. More open borders would help the situation as people would have more labor mobility. Cracking down on H1B abuse would also help the situation and the only entity that can crack down is the Government because it's a tragedy-of-the-commons problem.
      - 7y ago
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
In general, trash talking one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer.
- sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
  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?
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I didn't read the comment as having a smug and/or gloating tone, just as a piece of useful advice. It is true, even if in an ideal world it shouldn't.
    - sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
      The way it includes unnecessary and imprecise technobabble, and states something obvious as if the author assumes the people who were fired are too stupid to have considered it makes it patronizing and unhelpful. Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        I don't find "inversely proportional" to be techno babble, but then I'm a techie who studied lots of math. You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.
        Aloha 7y ago
        I'm someone who has not studied much math, and I'd agree with you.
jeswin 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution. In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue". The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    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.
alephnan 7y ago
These individuals spoke at a news conference apparently
ajross 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    These are tech workers, whose relationship with the company is different from warehouse or retail workers, so the number is more like 60-80k.
  - ajross 7y ago
    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.
olefoo 7y ago
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.
paxys 7y ago
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.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  That's why we need labor unions. When you are alone, speaking up gets you fired and maybe also persecuted by the company. When you are together, a company has a much tougher time dismissing your concerns.
  - burrows 7y ago
    And the state shouldn’t prevent companies from discriminating against laborers in labor unions. Unless the union has a private contract with the company.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Also, as pointed out elsewhere, people (or the general sentiment) on these discussions seemed to be all in favor of firing those who hold unpopular / conservative personal opinions, but now disagree with firing those with liberal opinions. If that's not viewpoint discrimination, I don't know what is.
  - heyitsguay 7y ago
    Nobody's getting fired for suggesting the top marginal tax rate should be lower, or expressing the value of hard work and individual responsibility. The apparent phenomenon you allude to is the result of the normalization of sexist, racist, and xenophobic beliefs within the "conservative" sphere over the past few decades. Those beliefs are incompatible with being a member of a pluralistic workforce.
    - supernova87a 7y ago
joshstrange 7y ago
> (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
cosmotic 7y ago
Amazon employed UX designers?
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  Can you imagine tackling the task at hand better? They were given a shit sandwich. Every Amazon product has infinite feature creep with thousands of engineers and I can't imagine trying to jumble all of that into great interfaces.
- driverdan 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
rw2 7y ago
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.
- JSavageOne 7y ago
  > The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. No, the best way to protest an employer is to speak out. "Not working" for a company like Amazon where there is an endless supply of people desperate for work does absolutely nothing. Remaining silent is what keeps the status quo going. The rest of your comment reads like something a paid shill for Amazon would write.
- sct202 7y ago
  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.
- driverdan 7y ago
  > 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. That's not why. Salaries are largely driven by supply and demand. If there are enough people willing to be employed at a low pay level there's no incentive to increase it.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  > The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. Sorry but this is totally ineffectual compared to speaking out and organizing people on the job. Also quitting in protest doesn’t exactly make it easy to get the next job.
segmondy 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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?
    - triceratops 7y ago
      I think it's the sentiment that's objectionable. Your employer isn't a feudal lord providing sustenance to you out of noblesse oblige. It's a corporation with whom you have a business relationship - you provide skills and they compensate you for them. If you withdrew your labor from them, the cost of hiring labor increases ever so slightly for them due to the shrinking of the labor pool. It may be an asymmetrical relationship but it's not built on charity in either direction.
drngdds 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
- totalZero 7y ago
  It's almost as surprising as that time that John Hancock used his real name to sign a controversial letter to his own king. Putting your name, reputation, and economic security on the line -- especially in a world where anonymity is easy -- is a sign of backbone and reinforces the message that you are delivering.
cirno 7y ago
> “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"
- AQuantized 7y ago
  Standard corporate Newspeak. Make knowing exactly what you "can" say such a landmine ridden pursuit you stay silent, while avoiding contradiction of federal law.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  Strange is standard these days.
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ > You have the right to report if your workplace is unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amazon has to create the appearance that they aren't violating federal law
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ozim 7y ago
  I don't see anything wrong about that... Because that is if you don't agree with company policy or whatever company is doing, you should not work there. They should lose all employees and go bust. In practice I understand one would like to disagree and things should change to better. But life is not that simple, so if you can afford quitting please do so (if you are wealthy enough even in their face saying what they should do better), if you somehow cannot afford that, for the sake of your close ones really put your head down and work your way through... there is nothing bad I could say about such person, those are just circumstances. That said - for all those assholes that should say something because they have their comfortable position in a company ... fuck them really bad! That is why I highly regard Snowden, he had comfortable position, yet he went against all of that. If he would be someone oppressed and making barely living wage that would be just a normal thing that someone would like to fight for a better life ....
JSavageOne 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
hypersoar 7y ago
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-exposed-to-covid-19 https://chuffed.org/project/help-amazon-warehouse-workers-ex... # 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/employees/concerted-activity?page=8 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [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
_bxg1 7y ago
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?
- kitanata 7y ago
  I've turned down Amazon with a "hard no" twice citing exactly these reasons. As technology workers we have an ethical responsibility to not work for such a company. When enough of us boycott working at Amazon and organize in solidarity with our fellow workers they will be forced to listen. We run the world, folks. We need to start understanding the power we have in the workplace and use our voices to effect the right kind of change. We need to form a union.
- folkhack 7y ago
  I've shot down both Facebook and Walmart citing ethics - I'm surprised it didn't get me on a blackout list because FB keeps hitting me up bi-weekly even with COVID. I think this is going to get more popular as time goes on... I'd rather work for a company that's not abusing it's workers/the government.
- tren-hard 7y ago
  I quit Amazon last year on ethical grounds. I stayed for 3years. After year 1 I was miserable but stayed because tech interviews are something awful (what a crazy sentence to even write). The thing is, as long as you're on dat kooliad diet it's easy to look past all of Amazon's transgressions and unlawful, unethical, behavior because it's happening somewhere else so it's easy to rationalize why Amazon would act the way they did. Most employees that I worked with cared about one thing, the money, and the stock is hitting ATHs in a global pandemic. So how long can they keep it up? Pretty damn long and I don't expect anything to change unfortunately. PS, Remember, it isn't a faceless corporation, it's full of HN readers
- aj_g 7y ago
  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.
lexiebrn 7y ago
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/1250135925738225664 https://twitter.com/AMZNforClimate/status/125013592573822566...
kitotik 7y ago
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.
jb775 7y ago
It's about time for unions to make a comeback.
0x262d 7y ago
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.
beastman82 7y ago
employment is at-will, Amazon can fire people for many different reasons and you have no right to free speech whatsoever
tracker1 7y ago
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...
- tracker1 7y ago
  While the above isn't ALL you can do, and may still have flaws, I'd consider it the baseline for actually remaining anonymous... In addition, you may want to stow the prepaid phone and laptop in a place that you don't own, such as a public locker, etc... and/or use it only away from home.
- thih9 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    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.
ipsocannibal 7y ago
Amazon's product selection can be quite hypocritical. https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-STICKER/dp/B00NTDEBRS https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-STICKER...
vkaku 7y ago
Can they file unlawful termination claims?

265 points by claudeganon 7y ago

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?..

alistairSH 7y ago

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

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
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-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...
- kenforthewin 7y ago
  I wonder why the Washington Post would want to stress that they violated company policies. Not sure since it's behind a paywall.
  - AimForTheBushes 7y ago
    They don't want to feel Bezos wrath.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The WaPo article is unfavorable to Amazon, puts "violated company policies" in quotes, buries the detail in the end of the article, and gives the employees quotes to rebut Amazon's policies. These kinds of superficial dismissive comments crud up the threads. You should at least read the article --- you say you didn't, due to the paywall --- before writing like this.
    - kenforthewin 7y ago
      My comment was a bit on the nose but the point is valid, there's no good reason to trust an article that's critical of Amazon when the paper is owned by Bezos.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Don't you feel a little...silly...making accusations about something that you haven't even looked at? WaPo did not "stress that they violated company policies". There are two short sentences in the middle of the article about Amazon's reason for firing, followed by a disclaimer that Bezos owns WaPo. Much more of the article is devoted to the fired employees belief that she was fired for her climate change activism, and not for violating Amazon policies. Including a heart breaking "I'm doing it all for you, kiddo" scene.
    - kenforthewin 7y ago
      I think it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos. There are plenty of other sources on the topic including the Reuters article above, which is not behind a paywall.
      - rochester46 7y ago
        It's not totally unreasonable to be skeptical of WaPo in this story, but you are failing to recognize that the entire reason people are posting the WaPo article to begin with is that it includes much more details about this story than the Reuters article does. There aren't "plenty of other sources on the topic", since those other sources don't include the same info, and especially since all of the other sources reporting on it (Reuters, for example) are getting their info from the WaPo anyway.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        > it's a little silly to take an article that's critical of Amazon seriously when the paper is owned by Jeff Bezos That wasn't the question. The fact is that you felt comfortable asserting a certain tone in the article that you admittedly didn't even read, and then the article didn't even have that tone. You're moving the goalposts now by just saying you should blanket not accept any WaPo reporting about Amazon. Which is fine. But that wasn't your original claim.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Newspapers owned by Bezos are not a reliable or non-laughable source on this story. Also the paywall stuff is getting old, posting paywall links is just spam.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I also tire of paywalled links, as they stratify the community by ease of access. In case this helps anyone, Brave is able to view the article just by toggling 'block scripts' Edit: Presumably Firefox with a script blocking add-on would also work.

claudeganon 7y ago

Additional context/reporting here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...

adequateness 7y ago
Note that WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. edit: This is mentioned half way through the article.

advisedwang 7y ago

> “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.

influx 7y ago
Amazon is very clear when you're hired that you're not allowed to represent the company or it's positions on social media or anywhere publicly without getting permission. You can agree or disagree with that policy, but it's not new. Source: first heard of this policy when I was hired at Amazon in 2007.
- oefrha 7y ago
  Also: whether you like it or not, this is pretty standard policy almost everywhere.
- Angostura 7y ago
  They weren't "representing the company" which means speaking its behalf. They were criticising some of it's policies.
- elicash 7y ago
  The policy could also be in violation of law. Hard to see without looking at the policy and also without looking at the substance of the comments. But there are federal laws protecting certain worker activity and a policy doesn't overrule that. It depends on the specifics of this case.
alehul 7y ago
Amazon is firing them for commenting publicly on its business. If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?

tengbretson 7y ago

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?

deusexepsilon 7y ago
I was introduced to the concept of team design and development that leads the creation and implementation of high profile, long-term team member status and an open, real world to the public. I knew from a good manager's perspective that an important piece of software is the product.
AdrianB1 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Could be. I find it more likely that bored tech workers in a cushy desk job are looking for somewhere to direct their indignation.
notRobot 7y ago
How do you know they haven't been to the warehouses and/or spoken directly to workers of said warehouses?
- tengbretson 7y ago
  How do I know they haven't been moonlighting as undercover warehouse workers the whole time?
gshdg 7y ago
What does that have to do with anything?
- 7y ago

gryzzly 7y ago

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.

epicureanideal 7y ago
Not to worry, they'll simply say they have a "talent shortage" and ask the government to help supply them with workers whose situations are so desperate they won't think about the company's business practices. (Note, this is not actually a jab at Amazon in particular.)
- mav3rick 7y ago
  I know this is an attack on H1bs. Many H1Bs have multiple offers from FAANGS at market rate. Whatever woe you have in your life, please stop blaming immigrants for it.
  - beastman82 7y ago
    I assure you they're below market rate. That's the whole point
  - mason55 7y ago
    Just because many H1B's have good job offers doesn't ALSO mean there is rampant H1B abuse happening. Both things can be true and the blame for the latter should be placed on the companies abusing the H1B process and the US government for not doing something about it. I'm all for open borders and immigration. The H1B problem right now is the worst of both worlds though. You have selectively restrictive immigration which means that if you're lucky enough to get an H1B you'll go through a lot to stay. More open borders would help the situation as people would have more labor mobility. Cracking down on H1B abuse would also help the situation and the only entity that can crack down is the Government because it's a tragedy-of-the-commons problem.
    - 7y ago

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

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

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
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?
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  I didn't read the comment as having a smug and/or gloating tone, just as a piece of useful advice. It is true, even if in an ideal world it shouldn't.
  - sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
    The way it includes unnecessary and imprecise technobabble, and states something obvious as if the author assumes the people who were fired are too stupid to have considered it makes it patronizing and unhelpful. Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I don't find "inversely proportional" to be techno babble, but then I'm a techie who studied lots of math. You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.
      - Aloha 7y ago
        I'm someone who has not studied much math, and I'd agree with you.

jeswin 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Like you, I find myself arguing on a 'side' that I disagree with. I don't agree with the parent you replied to, but they would not be wrong to speak of a right to free speech detached from the US constitution. Maybe they should pre-emptively clarify this, but the notion of a moral right to freedom of speech is different from the legal protections afforded by one country's constitution. In other words, you are wrong to say "there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else". You would be right if you inserted "constitutional" or "legal" before "free speech issue". The real substance of the issue is found in 'what kind of repercussions do you see as acceptable for exercising free speech', to which there are, in my opinion, many valid answers.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  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.

alephnan 7y ago

These individuals spoke at a news conference apparently

ajross 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  These are tech workers, whose relationship with the company is different from warehouse or retail workers, so the number is more like 60-80k.
- ajross 7y ago
  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.

olefoo 7y ago

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.

paxys 7y ago

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.

tehjoker 7y ago
That's why we need labor unions. When you are alone, speaking up gets you fired and maybe also persecuted by the company. When you are together, a company has a much tougher time dismissing your concerns.
- burrows 7y ago
  And the state shouldn’t prevent companies from discriminating against laborers in labor unions. Unless the union has a private contract with the company.
supernova87a 7y ago
Also, as pointed out elsewhere, people (or the general sentiment) on these discussions seemed to be all in favor of firing those who hold unpopular / conservative personal opinions, but now disagree with firing those with liberal opinions. If that's not viewpoint discrimination, I don't know what is.
- heyitsguay 7y ago
  Nobody's getting fired for suggesting the top marginal tax rate should be lower, or expressing the value of hard work and individual responsibility. The apparent phenomenon you allude to is the result of the normalization of sexist, racist, and xenophobic beliefs within the "conservative" sphere over the past few decades. Those beliefs are incompatible with being a member of a pluralistic workforce.
  - supernova87a 7y ago

joshstrange 7y ago

> (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

cosmotic 7y ago

Amazon employed UX designers?

birdyrooster 7y ago
Can you imagine tackling the task at hand better? They were given a shit sandwich. Every Amazon product has infinite feature creep with thousands of engineers and I can't imagine trying to jumble all of that into great interfaces.
driverdan 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.

rw2 7y ago

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.

JSavageOne 7y ago
> The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. No, the best way to protest an employer is to speak out. "Not working" for a company like Amazon where there is an endless supply of people desperate for work does absolutely nothing. Remaining silent is what keeps the status quo going. The rest of your comment reads like something a paid shill for Amazon would write.
sct202 7y ago
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.
driverdan 7y ago
> 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. That's not why. Salaries are largely driven by supply and demand. If there are enough people willing to be employed at a low pay level there's no incentive to increase it.
0x262d 7y ago
> The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. Sorry but this is totally ineffectual compared to speaking out and organizing people on the job. Also quitting in protest doesn’t exactly make it easy to get the next job.

segmondy 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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?
  - triceratops 7y ago
    I think it's the sentiment that's objectionable. Your employer isn't a feudal lord providing sustenance to you out of noblesse oblige. It's a corporation with whom you have a business relationship - you provide skills and they compensate you for them. If you withdrew your labor from them, the cost of hiring labor increases ever so slightly for them due to the shrinking of the labor pool. It may be an asymmetrical relationship but it's not built on charity in either direction.

drngdds 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
totalZero 7y ago
It's almost as surprising as that time that John Hancock used his real name to sign a controversial letter to his own king. Putting your name, reputation, and economic security on the line -- especially in a world where anonymity is easy -- is a sign of backbone and reinforces the message that you are delivering.

cirno 7y ago

> “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"

AQuantized 7y ago
Standard corporate Newspeak. Make knowing exactly what you "can" say such a landmine ridden pursuit you stay silent, while avoiding contradiction of federal law.
mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
Strange is standard these days.
TAForObvReasons 7y ago
https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ > You have the right to report if your workplace is unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amazon has to create the appearance that they aren't violating federal law
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ozim 7y ago
I don't see anything wrong about that... Because that is if you don't agree with company policy or whatever company is doing, you should not work there. They should lose all employees and go bust. In practice I understand one would like to disagree and things should change to better. But life is not that simple, so if you can afford quitting please do so (if you are wealthy enough even in their face saying what they should do better), if you somehow cannot afford that, for the sake of your close ones really put your head down and work your way through... there is nothing bad I could say about such person, those are just circumstances. That said - for all those assholes that should say something because they have their comfortable position in a company ... fuck them really bad! That is why I highly regard Snowden, he had comfortable position, yet he went against all of that. If he would be someone oppressed and making barely living wage that would be just a normal thing that someone would like to fight for a better life ....

JSavageOne 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.

hypersoar 7y ago

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-exposed-to-covid-19 https://chuffed.org/project/help-amazon-warehouse-workers-ex... # 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/employees/concerted-activity?page=8 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [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

_bxg1 7y ago

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?

kitanata 7y ago
I've turned down Amazon with a "hard no" twice citing exactly these reasons. As technology workers we have an ethical responsibility to not work for such a company. When enough of us boycott working at Amazon and organize in solidarity with our fellow workers they will be forced to listen. We run the world, folks. We need to start understanding the power we have in the workplace and use our voices to effect the right kind of change. We need to form a union.
folkhack 7y ago
I've shot down both Facebook and Walmart citing ethics - I'm surprised it didn't get me on a blackout list because FB keeps hitting me up bi-weekly even with COVID. I think this is going to get more popular as time goes on... I'd rather work for a company that's not abusing it's workers/the government.
tren-hard 7y ago
I quit Amazon last year on ethical grounds. I stayed for 3years. After year 1 I was miserable but stayed because tech interviews are something awful (what a crazy sentence to even write). The thing is, as long as you're on dat kooliad diet it's easy to look past all of Amazon's transgressions and unlawful, unethical, behavior because it's happening somewhere else so it's easy to rationalize why Amazon would act the way they did. Most employees that I worked with cared about one thing, the money, and the stock is hitting ATHs in a global pandemic. So how long can they keep it up? Pretty damn long and I don't expect anything to change unfortunately. PS, Remember, it isn't a faceless corporation, it's full of HN readers
aj_g 7y ago
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.

lexiebrn 7y ago

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/1250135925738225664 https://twitter.com/AMZNforClimate/status/125013592573822566...

kitotik 7y ago

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.

jb775 7y ago

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

0x262d 7y ago

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.

beastman82 7y ago

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

tracker1 7y ago

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...

tracker1 7y ago
While the above isn't ALL you can do, and may still have flaws, I'd consider it the baseline for actually remaining anonymous... In addition, you may want to stow the prepaid phone and laptop in a place that you don't own, such as a public locker, etc... and/or use it only away from home.
thih9 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  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.

ipsocannibal 7y ago

Amazon's product selection can be quite hypocritical. https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-STICKER/dp/B00NTDEBRS https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-BARGAIN-DIVIDED-BUMPER-STICKER...

vkaku 7y ago

Can they file unlawful termination claims?