4 ms·

>there were no warning signs. There was no trail of communication saying, "You are underperforming." I don't know about the U.S but in many countries, I imagin

>there were no warning signs. There was no trail of communication saying, "You are underperforming." I don't know about the U.S but in many countries, I imagine this would be a valid justification to reject a PIP. Take it to an employment tribunal and say: "There was no indication that I was performing anything other than as expected until I was handed a PIP".

wyldfire 3y ago
This appeal process was handled by the employee themselves. so they probably had an idea of how effective appeals were. > And look, I'm not going to say you're going to ever find this somewhere, locked down in words. But the idea is, if you're putting somebody in Pivot, you make that so damn hard that they don't get out.
- rgblambda 3y ago
  That sounds like an internal corporate appeals process, which is as rigged as an East German court. I'm talking about an external state affiliated employment ombudsman.
  - wyldfire 3y ago
    Yeah for the most part in the US there's very little legal protections in the code that state authorities can use to vindicate an employee. I think the only protections are things like age, sexual, racial discrimination. The PIP itself is designed to gather evidence that the company has a cause to rebut any claim of illegal discrimination. But if you don't start out with one of those claims, it's moot to disprove the cause. I could be wrong - some more progressive states may have more protections than this. And certainly folks who are employed under collective bargaining agreements have more protections. That wouldn't apply at Amazon, though.
nness 3y ago
That was my first reading — in every country I've worked (that is not the U.S.), the burden of proof on the employer is very high. Which is not to say that organisations can't find their own ways to fire staff that align with the regulatory environment in which they operate — just, it's very hard for this kind of U.S-style ultra-capitalistic culture to develop. I largely think that is a good thing. Employers have a disproportionate power over the employees, and having to go through the hurdles to fire a few troublesome employees is well worth the protections afforded to everyone else.

wyldfire 3y ago

This appeal process was handled by the employee themselves. so they probably had an idea of how effective appeals were. > And look, I'm not going to say you're going to ever find this somewhere, locked down in words. But the idea is, if you're putting somebody in Pivot, you make that so damn hard that they don't get out.

rgblambda 3y ago
That sounds like an internal corporate appeals process, which is as rigged as an East German court. I'm talking about an external state affiliated employment ombudsman.
- wyldfire 3y ago
  Yeah for the most part in the US there's very little legal protections in the code that state authorities can use to vindicate an employee. I think the only protections are things like age, sexual, racial discrimination. The PIP itself is designed to gather evidence that the company has a cause to rebut any claim of illegal discrimination. But if you don't start out with one of those claims, it's moot to disprove the cause. I could be wrong - some more progressive states may have more protections than this. And certainly folks who are employed under collective bargaining agreements have more protections. That wouldn't apply at Amazon, though.

nness 3y ago

That was my first reading — in every country I've worked (that is not the U.S.), the burden of proof on the employer is very high. Which is not to say that organisations can't find their own ways to fire staff that align with the regulatory environment in which they operate — just, it's very hard for this kind of U.S-style ultra-capitalistic culture to develop. I largely think that is a good thing. Employers have a disproportionate power over the employees, and having to go through the hurdles to fire a few troublesome employees is well worth the protections afforded to everyone else.