5 ms·

A court ruled in their favor... If anyone wonders why I have a poor view of the HN community as a whole, this is exhibit-fucking-A.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
causality0 3y ago
Even true claims need independent verification.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  And you think the court wasn't independent enough?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Vaslo 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      That poster wasn't responding to you, but I'll take this on. The court case changes things. You accuse the interviewer of being biased, not understanding that you yourself are so biased you've ignored a crucial piece of evidence, that an independent court agreed that it was wrongful termination.
      - Vaslo 3y ago
        An independent court ruled that abortion choices should be moved to the states. Surely since this is an independent court as well, you agree right?
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        oh snap, whataboutism!
nuclearnice3 3y ago
Right. Poster doesn't dispute any of the claims, just pours FUD on. As an example, the piece is clearly identified as an "interview." Presented as a dialogue between CASPAR SHALLER and MAGDA MALINOWSKA. Poster lodges this comlaint: "I knew something was up when the author asked the subject"
- Vaslo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nuclearnice3 3y ago
    People like you? Like the original post, you aren't dealing with the substance, you're just slinging insults. You are violating the first guideline. Which I reproduce here and offer you an opportunity to apologize to me: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
    - Vaslo 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - nuclearnice3 3y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how provocative someone is being or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        What does it mean to be an expert on deaths in Amazon Warehouses? She was a Union Organizer. Presumably, unions are most interested in working conditions and pay. She spoke out about the working conditions that she feels caused the death. This seems inline with what a union organizer would do, but more importantly, who the hell do you think is going to be more authoritative on this than a union organizer? What credentials do you feel she is lacking and who has the credentials such that you would be willing to defer to them as an expert?
stavros 3y ago
While I disagree with the GP's sentiment, a court ruling in her favor just means that the court agrees that she was unreasonably terminated, not that the things she said happened (please correct me if I'm wrong).
- _cenw 3y ago
  It's pretty consistent with other reports out of Amazon. Apparently the variance between different fulfillment centers is quite large - but that also tracks with Amazon's engineering divisions.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I'm only talking specifically about what a court ruling in your favor means.
zer8k 3y ago
Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-left magazine on HN: Taboo Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-right magazine on HN: "due diligence". It's important to understand the standpoint of the magazine. If they're far-anything chances are most of the reporting is garbage. So what they ruled in their favor? It doesn't mean the journalistic integrity is worth actually wasting clock cycles heating your CPU.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  A court ruled in her favor. It stopped being speculation at that point. And while you may argue the court got it wrong, you have the burden of proof there. - courts generally require due diligence - There's no way in hell Amazon didn't try to out-money her in terms of lawyers and they still lost - winning a wrongful termination case isn't typically easy.
Vaslo 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wtfwhateven 3y ago
  why is the court ruling "nonsense"? because you don't agree with it, or? seems biased to me
  - Vaslo 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - wtfwhateven 3y ago
      so you're sincerely asserting the court case doesn't exist?
      - Vaslo 3y ago
        I didn't think about that but now that you say that, I'm not finding any other sources reporting on it. Again, when I read a heavily biased source, I'm always suspicious of the findings. When the author asks a virtual nobody at the company (and to be clear I am a virtual nobody at mine as are 98% of HN'ers) if there are deaths happening all the time at Amazon warehouses, this is a huge red flag. Why not check into this yourself? If she had said "yes all the time" he would have ran with that as if fact. I wish she had explicitly said it so Amazon could have sued the magazine out of existence.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        listen to what you just said. It's not a problem if a single death happens, only if lots of deaths happen. The woman spoke out about a single death because her values are obviously different from yours.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

causality0 3y ago

Even true claims need independent verification.

jacquesm 3y ago
And you think the court wasn't independent enough?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Vaslo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    That poster wasn't responding to you, but I'll take this on. The court case changes things. You accuse the interviewer of being biased, not understanding that you yourself are so biased you've ignored a crucial piece of evidence, that an independent court agreed that it was wrongful termination.
    - Vaslo 3y ago
      An independent court ruled that abortion choices should be moved to the states. Surely since this is an independent court as well, you agree right?
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        oh snap, whataboutism!

nuclearnice3 3y ago

Right. Poster doesn't dispute any of the claims, just pours FUD on. As an example, the piece is clearly identified as an "interview." Presented as a dialogue between CASPAR SHALLER and MAGDA MALINOWSKA. Poster lodges this comlaint: "I knew something was up when the author asked the subject"

Vaslo 3y ago
[flagged]
- nuclearnice3 3y ago
  People like you? Like the original post, you aren't dealing with the substance, you're just slinging insults. You are violating the first guideline. Which I reproduce here and offer you an opportunity to apologize to me: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
  - Vaslo 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nuclearnice3 3y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how provocative someone is being or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      What does it mean to be an expert on deaths in Amazon Warehouses? She was a Union Organizer. Presumably, unions are most interested in working conditions and pay. She spoke out about the working conditions that she feels caused the death. This seems inline with what a union organizer would do, but more importantly, who the hell do you think is going to be more authoritative on this than a union organizer? What credentials do you feel she is lacking and who has the credentials such that you would be willing to defer to them as an expert?

stavros 3y ago

While I disagree with the GP's sentiment, a court ruling in her favor just means that the court agrees that she was unreasonably terminated, not that the things she said happened (please correct me if I'm wrong).

_cenw 3y ago
It's pretty consistent with other reports out of Amazon. Apparently the variance between different fulfillment centers is quite large - but that also tracks with Amazon's engineering divisions.
- stavros 3y ago
  I'm only talking specifically about what a court ruling in your favor means.

zer8k 3y ago

Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-left magazine on HN: Taboo Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-right magazine on HN: "due diligence". It's important to understand the standpoint of the magazine. If they're far-anything chances are most of the reporting is garbage. So what they ruled in their favor? It doesn't mean the journalistic integrity is worth actually wasting clock cycles heating your CPU.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
A court ruled in her favor. It stopped being speculation at that point. And while you may argue the court got it wrong, you have the burden of proof there. - courts generally require due diligence - There's no way in hell Amazon didn't try to out-money her in terms of lawyers and they still lost - winning a wrongful termination case isn't typically easy.

Vaslo 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wtfwhateven 3y ago
why is the court ruling "nonsense"? because you don't agree with it, or? seems biased to me
- Vaslo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - wtfwhateven 3y ago
    so you're sincerely asserting the court case doesn't exist?
    - Vaslo 3y ago
      I didn't think about that but now that you say that, I'm not finding any other sources reporting on it. Again, when I read a heavily biased source, I'm always suspicious of the findings. When the author asks a virtual nobody at the company (and to be clear I am a virtual nobody at mine as are 98% of HN'ers) if there are deaths happening all the time at Amazon warehouses, this is a huge red flag. Why not check into this yourself? If she had said "yes all the time" he would have ran with that as if fact. I wish she had explicitly said it so Amazon could have sued the magazine out of existence.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        listen to what you just said. It's not a problem if a single death happens, only if lots of deaths happen. The woman spoke out about a single death because her values are obviously different from yours.