8 ms·

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if y

They've not only rid themselves of the activists, they've made it clear that you lose your job if you publicly disagree with them. You'll lose your job and if you try to fight it you'll spend years just to get a settlement. From here on out everyone will be thinking "is this worth losing my job over, especially when I may have similarly serious concers about any employer I work for?"

rantwasp 6y ago
nah. a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures). what i think amazon is going to do is put the workers that try this stunt into positions that are so crappy or the demands are so unrealistic that they’re gonna quit.
- jwineinger 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be considered constructive dismissal, and still subject to this sort of action?
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Yes, but awfully hard to prove.
    - eropple 6y ago
      Constructive dismissal is difficult to prove, but generally less so in the context of sabotage of labor activism.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  >a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures) When you're a company that makes 11 figures, spending 7 figures for a 1% increase in profits is a hundredfold ROI. They're not expensive, they're a bargain.
  - rantwasp 6y ago
    if it’s one employee yes. if you’re going to be basically liable every time you fire someone it’s not worth it.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      That's 11 figures annually. Even if you make that settlement nearly 100 times a year, you still come out ahead
      - rantwasp 6y ago
        i think that the way a corporation would mitigate this risk is different. if i need to pay you 5million in a wrongful termination scenario vs paying you 250k per year, I could make you work for 20 years doing nothing and make your life miserable.
        ineedasername 6y ago
        The key thing is they don't want want people working for them badmouthing the company. I'm sure they view a few million a year in settlements instead of the bad PR of letting it continue, and at such a high level as these people were working at. Also making a person's life miserable at work is something a person can easily document over a year or two and then bring that lawsuit, so that's not a great option either.
  - fmajid 6y ago
    That settlement is still coming from one individual's budget within the company. Even though the settlement amount is not material for a company the size of Amazon, it will be material to that one employee, who may even be fired herself (e.g. if she is in HR), so the incentive structure of the individuals within the Amazon hive mind will still be impacted.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Not really, they have lawyers they're paying anyway, they have to work on something.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dan-robertson 6y ago
You lose your job but then win a big settlement and likely get money out of your role as someone trying to organise labour and getting fired by Amazon. It’s not clear that it’s a bad deal for those who were fired either
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Maybe they get the equivalent of a few years of salary, but have to risk significant personal savings for legal counsel as well. And their name is out there as an activist and might have a hard time getting hired after that.
- kelnos 6y ago
  That's by no means certain, and getting that settlement will likely cost you a year or two of salary in legal fees (while you're unemployed) before you get it. Amazon's legal team can remain solvent longer than you can. Maybe your lawyer will take the case on contingency, maybe not. Meanwhile, you have a reputation for bringing litigation against your employer; good luck finding a new job under those circumstances. Not impossible, sure, but many employers will no longer talk to you, and that decreases your negotiating power with companies that will talk to you. I hope the uncertain legal settlement is enough to make up the difference. This is just another fine example of how employers hold even more power in the relationship than people seem to understand. If you need to sue your (now-former) employer, you've probably already lost the war, even if you do end up winning that suit.

rantwasp 6y ago

nah. a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures). what i think amazon is going to do is put the workers that try this stunt into positions that are so crappy or the demands are so unrealistic that they’re gonna quit.

jwineinger 6y ago
Wouldn't that be considered constructive dismissal, and still subject to this sort of action?
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Yes, but awfully hard to prove.
  - eropple 6y ago
    Constructive dismissal is difficult to prove, but generally less so in the context of sabotage of labor activism.
LordDragonfang 6y ago
>a wrongful termination lawsuit is expensive (think 7 figures) When you're a company that makes 11 figures, spending 7 figures for a 1% increase in profits is a hundredfold ROI. They're not expensive, they're a bargain.
- rantwasp 6y ago
  if it’s one employee yes. if you’re going to be basically liable every time you fire someone it’s not worth it.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    That's 11 figures annually. Even if you make that settlement nearly 100 times a year, you still come out ahead
    - rantwasp 6y ago
      i think that the way a corporation would mitigate this risk is different. if i need to pay you 5million in a wrongful termination scenario vs paying you 250k per year, I could make you work for 20 years doing nothing and make your life miserable.
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        The key thing is they don't want want people working for them badmouthing the company. I'm sure they view a few million a year in settlements instead of the bad PR of letting it continue, and at such a high level as these people were working at. Also making a person's life miserable at work is something a person can easily document over a year or two and then bring that lawsuit, so that's not a great option either.
- fmajid 6y ago
  That settlement is still coming from one individual's budget within the company. Even though the settlement amount is not material for a company the size of Amazon, it will be material to that one employee, who may even be fired herself (e.g. if she is in HR), so the incentive structure of the individuals within the Amazon hive mind will still be impacted.
ineedasername 6y ago
Not really, they have lawyers they're paying anyway, they have to work on something.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dan-robertson 6y ago

You lose your job but then win a big settlement and likely get money out of your role as someone trying to organise labour and getting fired by Amazon. It’s not clear that it’s a bad deal for those who were fired either

ineedasername 6y ago
Maybe they get the equivalent of a few years of salary, but have to risk significant personal savings for legal counsel as well. And their name is out there as an activist and might have a hard time getting hired after that.
kelnos 6y ago
That's by no means certain, and getting that settlement will likely cost you a year or two of salary in legal fees (while you're unemployed) before you get it. Amazon's legal team can remain solvent longer than you can. Maybe your lawyer will take the case on contingency, maybe not. Meanwhile, you have a reputation for bringing litigation against your employer; good luck finding a new job under those circumstances. Not impossible, sure, but many employers will no longer talk to you, and that decreases your negotiating power with companies that will talk to you. I hope the uncertain legal settlement is enough to make up the difference. This is just another fine example of how employers hold even more power in the relationship than people seem to understand. If you need to sue your (now-former) employer, you've probably already lost the war, even if you do end up winning that suit.