3 ms·

> her efforts to speak out against poor working conditions Sounds like they did her a favor? Or were the working conditions less than ideal but good enough sh

> her efforts to speak out against poor working conditions Sounds like they did her a favor? Or were the working conditions less than ideal but good enough she still wanted to work at Amazon?

frob 3y ago
Amazon should be held accountable for running a safe workplace. Even if she is not there, Amazon should not be allowed to operate an unsafe workhouse that puts its employees in danger. If Amazon has a culture of firing anyone who dares to speak up about unsafe working conditions, it will be allowed to abuse and endanger its employees for profit since no one would be willing to speak up for fear of losing the paycheck that puts a roof over their head and food on their plate.
graphe 3y ago
I didn't know you could get fired from Amazon besides stealing most people just quit.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Your framing is a bit disingenuous. For one, there’s, of course, the simple matter that these kinds of things shouldn’t happen and that cases like hers bring it to light. The implied alternative by you would mean companies can keep being poor employers because people would walk away, and nothing would change for the ones that stay behind and are affected by it. And then there’s, of course, your implication that everyone is in the fortunate position of being able to walk away from a job or let go from a job without the slightest inconvenience. In reality, a lot of people work because they have to survive. Losing a job can be an earth-shattering experience for many because of the implications it has on their ability to survive. The solution to employers creating poor or dangerous work conditions isn’t to say, “Let the market sort it out,” and then blame the victims. The solution is to regulate employers and to punish them hard and often when they create those work conditions. The main reason for this is because of the highly skewed power balance. One side has a fundamental need for survival, the need for money to pay for shelter and food, while the other side mainly has to worry about shareholder value and profits. This power imbalance always ensures there will be people desperate enough to take on any job, no matter how shitty or dangerous, to the point that they’ll even rationalize it and delude themselves. One way to balance out the powers a bit more is regulation on working conditions, and another is creating social safety nets and improving standards of living that guarantee a level of survival regardless of whether you hold a job or not, which allows people to walk away from poor working conditions. It is in countries where these measures are lacking or non/existent, where you see many people taking up jobs that have questionable or outright poor working conditions. This is why you see a proliferation of gig workers, MLMs, and people willing to take on jobs with poor pay and poor working conditions in those countries. You’ll also see the exploitation of people with lesser legal protections in those countries, such as children or undocumented immigrants. Ironically, in countries with better regulations and where they facilitate programs that ensure everyone can survive regardless of employment status, you’ll see more of the classical “free market” effects you allude to. People who walk away from a job that has poor working conditions or people who won’t even take up a job with such conditions, which in turn motivates employers to improve the working conditions beyond the minimum conditions as prescribed in regulation. It turns out that when people don’t have to worry about being homeless and hungry, people can negotiate better working conditions, even if the negotiations are done with their feet.

> her efforts to speak out against poor working conditions Sounds like they did her a favor? Or were the working conditions less than ideal but good enough she still wanted to work at Amazon?

frob 3y ago

Amazon should be held accountable for running a safe workplace. Even if she is not there, Amazon should not be allowed to operate an unsafe workhouse that puts its employees in danger. If Amazon has a culture of firing anyone who dares to speak up about unsafe working conditions, it will be allowed to abuse and endanger its employees for profit since no one would be willing to speak up for fear of losing the paycheck that puts a roof over their head and food on their plate.

graphe 3y ago

I didn't know you could get fired from Amazon besides stealing most people just quit.

turquoisevar 3y ago

Your framing is a bit disingenuous. For one, there’s, of course, the simple matter that these kinds of things shouldn’t happen and that cases like hers bring it to light. The implied alternative by you would mean companies can keep being poor employers because people would walk away, and nothing would change for the ones that stay behind and are affected by it. And then there’s, of course, your implication that everyone is in the fortunate position of being able to walk away from a job or let go from a job without the slightest inconvenience. In reality, a lot of people work because they have to survive. Losing a job can be an earth-shattering experience for many because of the implications it has on their ability to survive. The solution to employers creating poor or dangerous work conditions isn’t to say, “Let the market sort it out,” and then blame the victims. The solution is to regulate employers and to punish them hard and often when they create those work conditions. The main reason for this is because of the highly skewed power balance. One side has a fundamental need for survival, the need for money to pay for shelter and food, while the other side mainly has to worry about shareholder value and profits. This power imbalance always ensures there will be people desperate enough to take on any job, no matter how shitty or dangerous, to the point that they’ll even rationalize it and delude themselves. One way to balance out the powers a bit more is regulation on working conditions, and another is creating social safety nets and improving standards of living that guarantee a level of survival regardless of whether you hold a job or not, which allows people to walk away from poor working conditions. It is in countries where these measures are lacking or non/existent, where you see many people taking up jobs that have questionable or outright poor working conditions. This is why you see a proliferation of gig workers, MLMs, and people willing to take on jobs with poor pay and poor working conditions in those countries. You’ll also see the exploitation of people with lesser legal protections in those countries, such as children or undocumented immigrants. Ironically, in countries with better regulations and where they facilitate programs that ensure everyone can survive regardless of employment status, you’ll see more of the classical “free market” effects you allude to. People who walk away from a job that has poor working conditions or people who won’t even take up a job with such conditions, which in turn motivates employers to improve the working conditions beyond the minimum conditions as prescribed in regulation. It turns out that when people don’t have to worry about being homeless and hungry, people can negotiate better working conditions, even if the negotiations are done with their feet.