5 ms·

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?

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.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      > You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious. It's only obvious if you've accepted the status quo ("at will employment", no worker protections). Many other developed countries have substantial worker protections [1], and I see questioning this as work towards progress in having those same worker protections in the US. Young folks haven't been ground down long enough by "The System" to accept that what is wrong is what will always be, which is awesome! If your employer can fire you, and you have no recourse, for illustrating their abusive work environment (Amazon warehouses, in this case), that's a problem! What's more shocking (IMHO) are those who publicly comment that this is acceptable in a developed nation. The house is on fire, don't snicker at those trying to put the fire out. [1] https://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the https://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the (New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world’s worst countries for workers) The ITUC Global Rights Index rates countries from one to five according to 97 indicators, with an overall score placing countries in one to five rankings. 1 – Irregular violations of rights: 18 countries including Denmark and Uruguay 2 – Repeated violations of rights: 26 countries including Japan and Switzerland 3 – Regular violations of rights: 33 countries including Chile and Ghana 4 – Systematic violations of rights: 30 countries including Kenya and the USA <-- We are here, ranked below 77 other countries
      - kelnos 7y ago
        > It's only obvious if you've accepted the status quo ("at will employment", no worker protections). If you live in the US, and you haven't accepted that, then you live in a fantasy world. It's great to know what the other possibilities are, and work to make them a reality, but acting as if the current reality isn't in force... well, that's just foolish, and these two Amazon UX designers are receiving a harsh lesson in reality. Being idealistic is genuinely awesome, and I wish more people would aspire for better in our society. But behaving as if your ideals are reality is usually not going to go well for you, and people would do well to remember that. These former employees have possibly put their (and their families') financial security in jeopardy because they didn't.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      > You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious. As an older developer, I am ashamed at many of the things I said at work when younger, and wonder why I didn't realize how stupid they were. It's amazing I wasn't fired for some of them.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    > smug and gloating tone > unnecessary and imprecise technobabble > the author assumes ... people ... are too stupid > patronizing and unhelpful Put it all together and you're basically describing the Hacker News Brand Voice.
- throw149102 7y ago
  To me, calling it "Trash-talk" seems to have a smug tone. It seems to imply the designers were insulting Amazon rather than having some sort of constructive criticism. "In general, criticizing one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer." reads a lot more balanced to me.
ghshephard 7y ago
Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And maybe it was reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I think the GP was mostly just trying to surface one of the laws of reality - you shit talk your employer - you will likely no longer be employed. And unless you were reporting some illegal activity, (in which case whistle blower laws may afford some level of protection, check with your lawyer first though) - there isn't much you can do about it. Just kind of a law of nature.
- Aloha 7y ago
  I think all of us learned these lessons the hard way, what's amazing is how much resistance I've encountered when I try to share this wisdom with folks in their early 20's. I guess the old adage is true, people like to learn their own lessons.
  - burkaman 7y ago
    The resistance you're finding is not people disbelieving you, it's them trying to get you to understand that this is a Bad Thing we should want to change, even though it is true right now.
    - bartread 7y ago
      Well, hold on: do you think it's really a "Bad Thing", and by your capitalisation I'm guessing you mean universally a bad thing to experience negative consequences for publicly trash-talking about your employer? Sure, if you're whistleblowing something systemically unethical - as may well be the case here - then you should be able to do the right thing without fear of negative consequence. I.e., your employer, Amazon in this case, can't fire you. However, speaking in more general terms, some people just love to whine and complain about things that simply aren't that important: I've worked with plenty (none at the moment, I hasten to add). For example, and flipping it around: is it a Good Thing for you to trash talk your employer just because you don't happen to like your boss very much? No, I don't think it is, and I think it's entirely reasonable for you to get into trouble if you do. Is it a Good Thing to trash talk a potential employer because you didn't like their hiring process? No. If other potential employers read what you've said they might choose not to interview you even if your concerns are legitimate. You can stand on principle if you want but of all the issues in the world you could stand on principle about, is this one really worth it? I'd say not but you may disagree. Getting more serious: what about if your boss is a bully? Should you publicly trash talk them? No! Are you out of your mind?!?? You should do some research and find out how to deal with it effectively and in a way that doesn't damage your future career prospects, either at your current company (which may be a lost cause) or elsewhere, which may include getting and following legal advice. Certainly for these serious issues: bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, and so on, if the issues are with a specific individual, rather than a systemic or cultural problem, whistleblowing is probably not the way to go. Note that for certain safety issues, or breaches relating to personally identifiable information, you may have a legal obligation to notify even for isolated incidents, depending on your jurisdiction (IANAL). The problem with trash-talking your employer, or even former employers, is that you risk sending a signal to potential future employers that you are a troublemaker. In some cases this is not an illegitimate concern, and because of this employers tend to be cautious, which can harm your prospects. Let me reiterate that I'm talking about trash talking in general, not the specific case of these Amazon employees, and very much not whistleblower activities involving systemic ethical failings by an employer or organisation.
jgacook 7y ago
It's a form of ethical handwashing of the kind the American justice system is built on. It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes than it is to judge whether the outcomes are fair or just, since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments. "If you do X then you can expect Y" is a tautology built on observation that divorces the observer from any responsibility for the outcome Y.
- systemvoltage 7y ago
  I have a hard time following your comment and logic. Can you expand in plain words what you mean, preferably with an example and concrete details? Specifically: > It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes This statement is too vague. What specific actions and what specific outcomes? > since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments What is "making value judgements" mean? Also, when you say "American justice system" - is this specific to the American judicial law and it does not apply to other countries?
  - meowface 7y ago
    I interpreted their statement as: "It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions. That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'." I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject". Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American. They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".
gorgoiler 7y ago
It’s an ironic take on employees who bite the hand that feeds them. I wouldn’t try to turn it into taking either side of the debate.
kelnos 7y ago
I think perhaps it would be nice to apply the principle of charity (as the HN guidelines require of us). I didn't read it as "smug and gloating", more ":facepalm:". I doubt the parent is happy about the result, but I at least would question why people would do something that would so obviously get them fired during a pandemic. Amazon workers deserve better treatment, but, if you're a current employee, trying to affect change should be an internal process, not public. If all internal avenues seem to be failing, the smart move would be a public anonymous criticism. Whistleblowing, effectively. It sucks that these people got fired for speaking out about something important that they felt strongly about, especially during a time of economic upheaval, but that's what you should expect to happen when you publicly criticize your employer and sign your name to it. They should have thought -- even for a second -- before they spoke.
Traubenfuchs 7y ago
One could interpret that pissing at ones employers leg expecting no repercussions shows a certain detachment from real life that comes across as obnoxiously arrogant.

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.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious. It's only obvious if you've accepted the status quo ("at will employment", no worker protections). Many other developed countries have substantial worker protections [1], and I see questioning this as work towards progress in having those same worker protections in the US. Young folks haven't been ground down long enough by "The System" to accept that what is wrong is what will always be, which is awesome! If your employer can fire you, and you have no recourse, for illustrating their abusive work environment (Amazon warehouses, in this case), that's a problem! What's more shocking (IMHO) are those who publicly comment that this is acceptable in a developed nation. The house is on fire, don't snicker at those trying to put the fire out. [1] https://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the https://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the (New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world’s worst countries for workers) The ITUC Global Rights Index rates countries from one to five according to 97 indicators, with an overall score placing countries in one to five rankings. 1 – Irregular violations of rights: 18 countries including Denmark and Uruguay 2 – Repeated violations of rights: 26 countries including Japan and Switzerland 3 – Regular violations of rights: 33 countries including Chile and Ghana 4 – Systematic violations of rights: 30 countries including Kenya and the USA <-- We are here, ranked below 77 other countries
    - kelnos 7y ago
      > It's only obvious if you've accepted the status quo ("at will employment", no worker protections). If you live in the US, and you haven't accepted that, then you live in a fantasy world. It's great to know what the other possibilities are, and work to make them a reality, but acting as if the current reality isn't in force... well, that's just foolish, and these two Amazon UX designers are receiving a harsh lesson in reality. Being idealistic is genuinely awesome, and I wish more people would aspire for better in our society. But behaving as if your ideals are reality is usually not going to go well for you, and people would do well to remember that. These former employees have possibly put their (and their families') financial security in jeopardy because they didn't.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious. As an older developer, I am ashamed at many of the things I said at work when younger, and wonder why I didn't realize how stupid they were. It's amazing I wasn't fired for some of them.
- paulcole 7y ago
  > smug and gloating tone > unnecessary and imprecise technobabble > the author assumes ... people ... are too stupid > patronizing and unhelpful Put it all together and you're basically describing the Hacker News Brand Voice.
throw149102 7y ago
To me, calling it "Trash-talk" seems to have a smug tone. It seems to imply the designers were insulting Amazon rather than having some sort of constructive criticism. "In general, criticizing one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer." reads a lot more balanced to me.

ghshephard 7y ago

Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And maybe it was reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I think the GP was mostly just trying to surface one of the laws of reality - you shit talk your employer - you will likely no longer be employed. And unless you were reporting some illegal activity, (in which case whistle blower laws may afford some level of protection, check with your lawyer first though) - there isn't much you can do about it. Just kind of a law of nature.

Aloha 7y ago
I think all of us learned these lessons the hard way, what's amazing is how much resistance I've encountered when I try to share this wisdom with folks in their early 20's. I guess the old adage is true, people like to learn their own lessons.
- burkaman 7y ago
  The resistance you're finding is not people disbelieving you, it's them trying to get you to understand that this is a Bad Thing we should want to change, even though it is true right now.
  - bartread 7y ago
    Well, hold on: do you think it's really a "Bad Thing", and by your capitalisation I'm guessing you mean universally a bad thing to experience negative consequences for publicly trash-talking about your employer? Sure, if you're whistleblowing something systemically unethical - as may well be the case here - then you should be able to do the right thing without fear of negative consequence. I.e., your employer, Amazon in this case, can't fire you. However, speaking in more general terms, some people just love to whine and complain about things that simply aren't that important: I've worked with plenty (none at the moment, I hasten to add). For example, and flipping it around: is it a Good Thing for you to trash talk your employer just because you don't happen to like your boss very much? No, I don't think it is, and I think it's entirely reasonable for you to get into trouble if you do. Is it a Good Thing to trash talk a potential employer because you didn't like their hiring process? No. If other potential employers read what you've said they might choose not to interview you even if your concerns are legitimate. You can stand on principle if you want but of all the issues in the world you could stand on principle about, is this one really worth it? I'd say not but you may disagree. Getting more serious: what about if your boss is a bully? Should you publicly trash talk them? No! Are you out of your mind?!?? You should do some research and find out how to deal with it effectively and in a way that doesn't damage your future career prospects, either at your current company (which may be a lost cause) or elsewhere, which may include getting and following legal advice. Certainly for these serious issues: bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, and so on, if the issues are with a specific individual, rather than a systemic or cultural problem, whistleblowing is probably not the way to go. Note that for certain safety issues, or breaches relating to personally identifiable information, you may have a legal obligation to notify even for isolated incidents, depending on your jurisdiction (IANAL). The problem with trash-talking your employer, or even former employers, is that you risk sending a signal to potential future employers that you are a troublemaker. In some cases this is not an illegitimate concern, and because of this employers tend to be cautious, which can harm your prospects. Let me reiterate that I'm talking about trash talking in general, not the specific case of these Amazon employees, and very much not whistleblower activities involving systemic ethical failings by an employer or organisation.

jgacook 7y ago

It's a form of ethical handwashing of the kind the American justice system is built on. It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes than it is to judge whether the outcomes are fair or just, since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments. "If you do X then you can expect Y" is a tautology built on observation that divorces the observer from any responsibility for the outcome Y.

systemvoltage 7y ago
I have a hard time following your comment and logic. Can you expand in plain words what you mean, preferably with an example and concrete details? Specifically: > It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes This statement is too vague. What specific actions and what specific outcomes? > since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments What is "making value judgements" mean? Also, when you say "American justice system" - is this specific to the American judicial law and it does not apply to other countries?
- meowface 7y ago
  I interpreted their statement as: "It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions. That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'." I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject". Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American. They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".

gorgoiler 7y ago

It’s an ironic take on employees who bite the hand that feeds them. I wouldn’t try to turn it into taking either side of the debate.

kelnos 7y ago

I think perhaps it would be nice to apply the principle of charity (as the HN guidelines require of us). I didn't read it as "smug and gloating", more ":facepalm:". I doubt the parent is happy about the result, but I at least would question why people would do something that would so obviously get them fired during a pandemic. Amazon workers deserve better treatment, but, if you're a current employee, trying to affect change should be an internal process, not public. If all internal avenues seem to be failing, the smart move would be a public anonymous criticism. Whistleblowing, effectively. It sucks that these people got fired for speaking out about something important that they felt strongly about, especially during a time of economic upheaval, but that's what you should expect to happen when you publicly criticize your employer and sign your name to it. They should have thought -- even for a second -- before they spoke.

Traubenfuchs 7y ago

One could interpret that pissing at ones employers leg expecting no repercussions shows a certain detachment from real life that comes across as obnoxiously arrogant.