7 ms·

The whole concept of at-will employment and employees made to look like contractors is the issue here. This is a labour rights issue, not an “Amazon is evil” i

The whole concept of at-will employment and employees made to look like contractors is the issue here. This is a labour rights issue, not an “Amazon is evil” issue. I don’t see any problem with an algorithm that fires unproductive workers, provided it has real cause to do so. Instead of bellyaching about how evil Amazon is, perhaps we should be asking why it is so easy to classify someone as a contractor so that you can deny them benefits and terminate them without cause? Beyond that, why is at-will employment even a thing? For Canada and most of Europe, the idea that you can be fired for any reason on the spot just because your employer feels like it is ridiculous. They either have valid cause, or they should have to pay you severance. The courts should not by default side with the mega-corps.

thefounder 5y ago
>> For Canada and most of Europe, the idea that you can be fired for any reason on the spot just because your employer feels like it is ridiculous. As employer you may see it differently. e.g if you don't want to be fired make your own company and rule it as you like.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Clearly not a perspective born out of much empathy. Very few people have the requirements to even attempt to start a company and out of that limited pool, most fail within the first year, with luck playing a large role in which companies survive the first 3 years. It's also bullshit - they do not want anyone to take that advice because employers cannot achieve anything without their employees so if even 20% of their workforce took that advice, their company would implode.
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
> For Canada and most of Europe, the idea that you can be fired for any reason on the spot just because your employer feels like it is ridiculous. The counterbalance is supposed be that you can quit whenever you want and aren't owned by your employer. Economic imbalances and capital having more power than labor affects that.
- anoncake 5y ago
  I can't think of any country in which the employee has to justify why they quit.
thebean11 5y ago
It's a double edged sword, difficulty firing people will always make hiring more difficult; it becomes a much bigger risk. At will employment wouldn't be such an issue if we had a more substantial government safety net.
- anoncake 5y ago
  Allow employers to fire their employees without giving a cause for the first few months, giving them time to evaluate them. Problem solved.
  - consp 5y ago
    Which is what is the norm in most European countries (length depends on country and usually duration of the contract).
  - thebean11 5y ago
    What if the company starts struggling to make payroll 3 months in? What if the employee works hard the first 3 months then stops showing up? Regulations like that just entrench the biggest players because they can afford the legal headaches of firing. Great way to incentivize people to start companies elsewhere.
    - relax88 5y ago
      If they stop showing up, you would have legal cause to fire them.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        That's an extreme example obviously, but still one where there might be significant legal costs if the firee lawyers up.
    - consp 5y ago
      Apparently all the companies in the building I'm in didn't get the memo. There is a risk yes, then again there are also way more rewards for the company than the employee so you give some, you get some.
dogman144 5y ago
The Amazon drones sprinting around doing package deliveries are certainly governed by a similar algorithmic approach. When I and I think a lot of the tech community see that, it looks ugly and dehumanizing, and the algo under the hood plays no small role in why. This news has similar markings. If you feel there is no issue with Amazon’s Algos and their leverage over a vulnerable workforce: that’s your ethics and I won’t fault you. But, your blind trust that an algorithmic solution to PeopleOps is problem-free is indicative of a common blindspot for techies. It causes a fair amount of social issues downstream when the algos meet the people being governed by them but the industry that creates the algos can’t see the nuance.
- relax88 5y ago
  I’m not suggesting that there are no issues with algorithmic HR operations. I’m suggesting that the abuses of such a system will only be solved in the courts, and that those courts decide the rules based on legislation that outlines worker protections. Corporations exist to make a profit and you can’t expect them to act against the profit motive out of the kindness of their own hearts, you must compel them.
  - jonfw 5y ago
    Corporations are led by people and we expect people to be moral. Seeking profit doesn't excuse you from morality. Legislation is a good idea as well
    - relax88 5y ago
      Morality is a lot more subjective than labour law. Do you want to believe on faith that business owners will act in a way that matches your morals? I certainly don’t.
- jonfw 5y ago
  This is ultimately a human decision. The algorithm gives a score but a human decides what a good score is. Doing this at scale is no different than hiring a hundred middle managers to eye ball it. At the end of the day- if your company wants to fire the least productive 10% of your workforce on a regular basis to motivate employees, you'll be able to do so. This is a business practice issue and not a technology one
dfxm12 5y ago
This is a labour rights issue, not an “Amazon is evil” issue. There's a lot of room for both to be true. There's no need to set up a dichotomy here, especially when you consider Amazon's attempts to curtail unionization [0] and their lobbying to exempt employees from labor protection [1]. At-will employment is a thing because big corporations (like Amazon) have lobbied for it [2]. 0 - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-virginia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-... 1 - https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-washington-seattle-wa-state-wire-5c01ffdd9fbb48639fc43bc376f501e4 https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-washington-se... 2 - https://mainebeacon.com/corporate-lobby-groups-set-sights-on-defeating-maine-bill-challenging-at-will-employment/ https://mainebeacon.com/corporate-lobby-groups-set-sights-on...

thefounder 5y ago

>> For Canada and most of Europe, the idea that you can be fired for any reason on the spot just because your employer feels like it is ridiculous. As employer you may see it differently. e.g if you don't want to be fired make your own company and rule it as you like.

vimacs2 5y ago
Clearly not a perspective born out of much empathy. Very few people have the requirements to even attempt to start a company and out of that limited pool, most fail within the first year, with luck playing a large role in which companies survive the first 3 years. It's also bullshit - they do not want anyone to take that advice because employers cannot achieve anything without their employees so if even 20% of their workforce took that advice, their company would implode.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

> For Canada and most of Europe, the idea that you can be fired for any reason on the spot just because your employer feels like it is ridiculous. The counterbalance is supposed be that you can quit whenever you want and aren't owned by your employer. Economic imbalances and capital having more power than labor affects that.

anoncake 5y ago
I can't think of any country in which the employee has to justify why they quit.

thebean11 5y ago

It's a double edged sword, difficulty firing people will always make hiring more difficult; it becomes a much bigger risk. At will employment wouldn't be such an issue if we had a more substantial government safety net.

anoncake 5y ago
Allow employers to fire their employees without giving a cause for the first few months, giving them time to evaluate them. Problem solved.
- consp 5y ago
  Which is what is the norm in most European countries (length depends on country and usually duration of the contract).
- thebean11 5y ago
  What if the company starts struggling to make payroll 3 months in? What if the employee works hard the first 3 months then stops showing up? Regulations like that just entrench the biggest players because they can afford the legal headaches of firing. Great way to incentivize people to start companies elsewhere.
  - relax88 5y ago
    If they stop showing up, you would have legal cause to fire them.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      That's an extreme example obviously, but still one where there might be significant legal costs if the firee lawyers up.
  - consp 5y ago
    Apparently all the companies in the building I'm in didn't get the memo. There is a risk yes, then again there are also way more rewards for the company than the employee so you give some, you get some.

dogman144 5y ago

The Amazon drones sprinting around doing package deliveries are certainly governed by a similar algorithmic approach. When I and I think a lot of the tech community see that, it looks ugly and dehumanizing, and the algo under the hood plays no small role in why. This news has similar markings. If you feel there is no issue with Amazon’s Algos and their leverage over a vulnerable workforce: that’s your ethics and I won’t fault you. But, your blind trust that an algorithmic solution to PeopleOps is problem-free is indicative of a common blindspot for techies. It causes a fair amount of social issues downstream when the algos meet the people being governed by them but the industry that creates the algos can’t see the nuance.

relax88 5y ago
I’m not suggesting that there are no issues with algorithmic HR operations. I’m suggesting that the abuses of such a system will only be solved in the courts, and that those courts decide the rules based on legislation that outlines worker protections. Corporations exist to make a profit and you can’t expect them to act against the profit motive out of the kindness of their own hearts, you must compel them.
- jonfw 5y ago
  Corporations are led by people and we expect people to be moral. Seeking profit doesn't excuse you from morality. Legislation is a good idea as well
  - relax88 5y ago
    Morality is a lot more subjective than labour law. Do you want to believe on faith that business owners will act in a way that matches your morals? I certainly don’t.
jonfw 5y ago
This is ultimately a human decision. The algorithm gives a score but a human decides what a good score is. Doing this at scale is no different than hiring a hundred middle managers to eye ball it. At the end of the day- if your company wants to fire the least productive 10% of your workforce on a regular basis to motivate employees, you'll be able to do so. This is a business practice issue and not a technology one

dfxm12 5y ago

This is a labour rights issue, not an “Amazon is evil” issue. There's a lot of room for both to be true. There's no need to set up a dichotomy here, especially when you consider Amazon's attempts to curtail unionization [0] and their lobbying to exempt employees from labor protection [1]. At-will employment is a thing because big corporations (like Amazon) have lobbied for it [2]. 0 - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-virginia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-... 1 - https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-washington-seattle-wa-state-wire-5c01ffdd9fbb48639fc43bc376f501e4 https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-washington-se... 2 - https://mainebeacon.com/corporate-lobby-groups-set-sights-on-defeating-maine-bill-challenging-at-will-employment/ https://mainebeacon.com/corporate-lobby-groups-set-sights-on...