> it’s hard to imagine a modern day industry that isn’t “exploitative”
I think that’s the general sentiment, at least among young people. The statement “if you define x as exploitative then everything is” is exactly indicative of a systems problem and the solution can’t be shrugging and doing nothing unless you’ve already accepted your lot in life.
The near impossibility of sourcing goods that aren’t the result of worker mistreatment everywhere in the supply chain is nuts. You can’t vote with your wallet and you can’t vote with your votes.
The problem here is that by their sentiment, there has never been a single industry, at any point in history, that hasn’t been “exploitative”.
This is what happens when your definition of “exploitative” is based on a relative metric. Exploitative literally means “having a life that’s worst than average”- which by definition means there’ll always be people who are exploited.
There was a time where exploitation meant literally chattel slavery, now it means working a sub-optimal job. You even hear of how Investment Bankers are “exploited” because they work long hours.
Although I agree with the general sentiment of this article-
journalists gravitates towards their career not for the job itself. I think he's making a pure speculation on the "journalists have rich parents" point.
I think it might be something much simpler, like "journalists often can't find another job based on their english-adjacent degree; and the barrier to entry for journalism is very low".
Of course, when the barrier to entry is low- and most candidates are indistinguishable- you hire your friends; which inevitably leads to homogenization.
There was a thread on Twitter a while ago pointing out a slew of journalists who frequently wrote articles attacking tech companies and specifically how each of them came from wealthy families. This idea that journalists are by and large people from well to do backgrounds is an idea that has been floating around for a couple years now.
Edit: Here is a tweet in that vein Balaji in particular had a lot of tweets on the journalists are often from wealth idea.
I love it when "critical" of tech companies is transformed into "attacking". The tech industry is now the biggest industry in the world, ranking billions in profits every year, having the power to influence elections, human rights violation, etc. Of course they should be criticized and not get a free pass.
Too many years they were only reported as "startups" doing "good".
> The tech industry is now the biggest industry in the world
Is it though? I can’t find reliable sources (likely because “tech” isn’t specific enough), but some site says tech is 10.5% of US GDP. That’s not even close to being the biggest industry.
People were specifically upset with unfair negative articles it wasn’t about factual criticism.
The New York Times doxing a popular pseudo anonymous blogger for example Slat Star Codex, there were articles dragging people for making charitable donations just a lot of stuff that was more gossip and hit pieces injected with the journalist’s opinion and not news.
Also articles dragging tech for not being “diverse” when journalism has a much bigger lack of diversity problem.
> there were articles dragging people for making charitable donations
You mean articles stating correctly that donations are not a sustainable way of financing and tech billionaires should instead pay higher taxes? Cause that's the articles I remember and that's not an unfair article. Just one you and others may not agree with.
Then why not write an article advocating a higher taxes policy? Taxing doesn’t magically make money multiply in fact a donation managed properly can endow a charitable organization indefinitely that is never the case with government taxation since taxes are always spent and never invested. Your argument makes no sense.
I don’t understand how reporters apparently don’t advocate for higher taxes. Wealth tax has been a radar on political reporting beat for ages. Elizabeth Warren campaigned on it and tons of ink was spilled analyzing on if it would work, how it would work, and headlines made over bill gates being “scared” of it or whatever.
Additionally, it can be true that one endowment to a charity can keep the charity perpetual while also criticizing that charity overall is not a sustainable model of good in society broadly. One of the things that come to mind is that a billionaire is unlikely to fund an anti-billionaire charity, for example a charity for renters rights and renter organization Eg. Rent strikes and the like.
Reporters are always advocating based on what they believe are facts from their backgrounds. That’s why media in America are always covering less wealthy countries as “war-torn x dealing with militant y” and never the same language to America. There was a hilarious thread in which a Kenyan reporter did headlines on America the same way America reported Kenya.
And it doesn’t have anything to do with the other. I don’t even know why it was brought up as an alternative.
It would be unfair if the article was demonizing, say, Jack Dorsey for not paying enough in taxes, unless Jack has gone out of his way to lobby to get his tax burden lowered. Otherwise, he is merely living within the rules of the system, and the article should be attacking the politicians who are responsible for our tax laws.
The New York Times wrote article about the blogger in the same exact way articles about people in journals have always been written. Just because the blogger is generally in tech does not mean the New York Times has to treat him in some complete different way then any other subject.
Being critical of something immediately makes you into a “hater”. People have been trained to either be all in on something or to completely reject it. It’s really not allowed to be in the middle. “Pick a side”.
The problem is that alot of the "criticism" seems be around economic protectionism not actual criticism. They are critical that a tech company dare allow an a person from the unwashed masses to have as big of a megaphone for their speech as the gilded elites from an established journalistic outlet
Is it attacking people like Elon Musk to point out that he wants others to not be able to benefit from the same sorts of government assistance his companies have benefited from or is it simply pointing out he isn't being consistent?
No I believe the specific thing that set people off was a hit piece against the female CEO of Away a relatively small company that sells luggage. They tried to cancel her because she tweeted something about how she though many media outlets had low standards of reporting and much of their content bordered on liable.
They then wrote negative articles about her saying she should have been using her time to talk about other issues like BLM or Gay rights. The whole premise was ridiculous as if tweets are a limited resource.
> you hire your friends; which inevitably leads to homogenization.
This is very common, in many industries. Maybe moreso, with journalism (I am not very familiar with that industry).
Also "you hire people that don't make you uncomfortable."
I strongly suspect that this also happens with software development. "Cultural outsiders" (like me), have a very hard time getting in the door. I am quite sure that one reason that many older folks don't get hired, is because CEO <= 30, and doesn't want people around, that make them even slightly uncomfortable. Since they're the boss; what they want, they get. In "classic" corporations, CEOs are generally in their 50s, or older, and don't feel particularly challenged by older folks. They have to hire younger folks; even if it makes them uncomfortable.
I've learned the value of a "heterodyne" workplace. There is definitely friction, caused by clashing cultures, but the product is often wonderful.
>This is very common, in many industries. Maybe moreso, with journalism (I am not very familiar with that industry).
I am somewhat familiar being on the board of a student newspaper. And it's extremely true in journalism. The students who went on to being journalists (or editors etc.) all did it through connections. You probably don't get a job on something like the editorial page of the WSJ by sending your resume around.
> I think it might be something much simpler, like "journalists often can't find another job based on their english-adjacent degree; and the barrier to entry for journalism is very low".
I have read enough bad documentation to know there is a hot market for documentation writers. Now, if only english-adjacent degree holders knew about ... well, the documented stuff.
The barrier is extremely low; now anyone with a wordpress can call themself a “journalist” and there isn’t anything anyone can do to stop them. They really don’t even need the English degree although sometimes it can be evident when they do not.
And the fact that there's a chain of other responders disagreeing with your take suggests that it isn't.
Either way, I don't have a horse in this fight. You may as well be right in your assessment.
The fact of the matter though is this - the original blog post is completely uninteresting. If you have wealth and money - you can pretty much build anything anywhere. There's nothing in that house that is a technological marvel/achievement or anything in its construction method that warrants unique news coverage on HN or elsewhere.
I guess we can file yours under "callous indifference". Someone complains about the societal issues that allow a couple to build a SECOND mansion like this in the woods while millions of people are homeless and your response is to paint them as "jealous".
OP isn't complaining about societal issues; OP is trying to drag a couple just because they have demonstrated some modicum of success and happen to be "white".
They literally mentioned nothing about societal issues, except the implicit racism in their assumption that whiteness somehow inherently detracts from people's accomplishments.
You've already changed your argument from "they never said anything about that" to "okay they said it but I think they were making assumptions". Log off. Go touch grass.
By "go touch grass", I assume you're probably a younger person. You certainly have the reading comprehension of one.
I'd re-read this thread carefully and then take a moment to consider: is this really a hill worth dying of embarrassment on? You can always just walk away.
White priviledge is not something that would be on my mind(for all I care, they could be black), but unsustainability, destruction of nature and self-righteousness to do so... I would really wonder why such article has appeared in HN, as it is going against current global social narrative and NH is not really far-right nutwings, but rather on the left-spectrum.
IMO, modern home should leave as less impact on nature as possible - be it materials used to build it or energy demands to run that house.
This anecdote supports a theory I've been hearing about affirmative action harming excellent minority candidates.
It helps those who would've not made it otherwise, but for those who truly excel and would've made it either way; it diminishes their accomplishments in a way that's unfortunate.
It's not like affirmative action is a secret, the buyers in the labour market knows about it and will react accordingly.
In some ways, I guess it's similar to how people used to avoid buying cars made on a Monday.
UNC is a public university, not a private institution.
ETA: If you believe that legacy admissions perpetuate the impacts of racism from 1-2 generations ago then there is a moral and ethical grounds to ask them to stop considering legacy.
Referring specifically to Harvard and other Ivys. I have no idea why any public university would consider legacy as a factor.
Edit: I think it's a leap to tie legacy admission from 2 generations ago to racism. Because that's attributing wide spread societal faults to a few specific institution.
I'm not attributing wide spread societal faults to specific institutions. This is simply a question of garbage in, garbage out. The sample of students from 1-2 generations ago is biased towards certain races. Therefore, using that biased data to decide who gets into a university today perpetuates that bias. The exact source of that bias isn't important and doesn't mean the bias doesn't exist.
Legacy is usually a family that donates or at least a well known family so admitting the family member for donations or clout seems to me like admitting a football player on scholarship who will win games but not good academically?
These situations are few and sort of cancel each other out- they don't matter... what matters is how the other people are let in.... and ivy league has a reputation of being very gifted minds (high IQ measured through SAT). Ultimately unis have discretion to some degree... but race happens to be protected. I think it's the large difference in scores by race that cause problems. And if you think it's unfair bc of upbringing.. how is putting them in with way more gifted students the answer--- unless ivy league is now just a signal and not a learning institution? If so it's time is limited.
I actually think these ivy leagues are just operating under woke capitalism- the more elite blacks (the best blacks with the highest SAT scores) they let in the better their clout right now- even if whites or asians have higher scores--- that is bc race is the only thing that matters right now. This transfers to hiring too- so the blacks that go to Harvard today are probably worth 100X any white or asian. At least politically... which is where power resides.
Perhaps that means that the issue is deeper. It isn't just okay to discriminate against whites and asians. Blacks are a rare commodity, at least ones that can succeed at Harvard and the ivy leagues want to make sure they get as many as they can. What though does that tell us of the importance of race and who is being worshiped just bc of their skin color?
Public vs private- I mean they both are tax exempt. One takes more in tax dollars.. so what? Do we have more control over the public school- not really.
Legacy means having a family member, usually a parent or grandparent, who graduated from that school. People benefiting from this are going to be disproportionately white.
I believe students getting in based on donations is the Dean's interest list or some similar term. Unfortunately, racist policies in the past, such as redlining, made it harder for some groups to build up generational wealth so this group is disproportionately white as well. I do agree that this group is probably small enough to be ignored if it was on its own. If it isn't, they should raise their cutoff for the amount of donations it requires until it is small enough.
As for athletics, those are very towards wealthier students. Lots of sports require expensive equipment or facilities to train in that poor students won't have access to. This impacts racial minorities for the same reasons as the above point.
> I think it's the large difference in scores by race that cause problems. And if you think it's unfair bc of upbringing.. how is putting them in with way more gifted students the answer
This assumes that differences in testing are the result of differences in ability. There are lots of reasons why someone might have lower scores on a standardized test or the SATs that aren't related to how smart they are. The children of wealthy parents are going to have access to better teachers, private tutoring in subjects they have trouble with, test prep, etc.
> Blacks are a rare commodity, at least ones that can succeed at Harvard
Just over 2/5 of the white students at Harvard at ADLC admissions. These are overwhelmingly white. To make up for that imbalance, you need very biased admissions for non-ADLC students, indeed.
I've changed the title to stay as close as possible to what the submitted document says, on the assumption that the document is authentic.
The submitted title was "[name redacted], architect of GitHub Copilot, arrested for strangling girlfriend". I also assumed that meant "strangled to death" when I first saw it—I think the word "strangled" in headlines tends to imply that. Assault strangulation is obviously a serious crime.
I think the only thing it makes sense to do here is stay as close as possible to the available facts.
[name redacted], This happened to me, not you. I was nowhere near death. The police changed my story and exaggerated my account. There was no strangulation. Stay in your lane. Mind your own business. Please get over [name redacted] and find a new man to stalk and obsess over
Lol it is really me. Look at you, crazy vindictive lady, saving everything on a google drive. It wasn’t strangling the way you think it was. Once again, the police used inflammatory words to make it sound worse then it seems. They get $10k from fines, go figure
You have spent 3 years trying to cancel [name redacted] (a man you dated for less than 3 months) after he broke up with you realizing you guys were both incompatible, and you are up on this site at 2am posting every 15 minutes about a man who didn’t love you back. Look, I’ve been there. It’s hard. I’ve loved and lost too. But please, for your own sake, move on. Why are you trying so hard to ruin people’s lives? Will it make you happy seeing someone’s downfall or will it make you happy seeing someone heal and be redeemed, or better yet, yourself healed and redeemed? Work on your own emotional health—-you’ll be much happier than trying to change someone else. Work on you. You have a right to be happy and in what you deem is a healthy relationship
You dated him for 2-3 months. I dated him for almost 2 years. You do not know him the way I do. It takes at least 2 years to really get to know a person you’re dating. You’re still in your 20s and probably haven’t had a relationship that long based on your behavior and age. You can’t seem to move on. I’m really sorry your heart got broken and things didn’t work out. Believe me, I’ve had many heartbreaks and sometimes I didn’t act sane when it was hard to let go. Maybe [name redacted] was your first love? I’m ashamed of my behavior with one of my exes, too. I created a fake number like you, but not several as you did, and it took me maybe up to 6-12 months to finally move on.., not 2 years… not to compare, I mean we are still in the midst of a pandemic. One day your heart will heal. Give it time. And forgive [name redacted] in your head, not for him, but for your healing heart
Once again you toss out these hot terms/hashtags like “abuse,” “metoo.” [name redacted] does get depressed and moody sometimes, but he had never laid his hands on me nor emotionally abused me. I don’t mean to negate what you believe you went through. But my relationship with him was not abusive. It was sweet, affectionate, and loving, and we made each other laugh, and we both felt completely comfortable to let ourselves be who we are without pretense or trying. We’re both goofy and fun, like to explore, and love art and nature, dancing, exploring, traveling, and just being together gave us such peace and joy! One day, you’ll find true love that matches you and doesn’t feel like abuse, too. We still fought, but all couples do. And I admit I have a bad temper lol, which is why I’m partially to blame for why things got out of hand, but I’m working on it. No one is perfect. There is no perfect love, just loving someone perfectly, and knowing that when the love is reciprocated, you’ll work through the hard things. Work on yourself instead of trying to change and ruin others, and you’ll be much happier, and attract another great guy! You seem like a smart, creative gal. Let 2022 be your year to focus on nurturing you
[name redacted] sold me the same story of “working on love” when he wanted to control me. This is not an uncommon theme amongst abusers.
[name redacted] often spoke of this pure unattainable love that we had, but claimed it never existed once he realized he would never be able to control me to his liking.
My love life prior to [name redacted] is none of your business and has no bearing on this situation and I can hear [name redacted]’s own words echoed in your speech, which highly suspect is actually [name redacted].
I was in my 30s and so was [name redacted] when we were dating.
I've been in significantly longer relationships than 2 years.
It doesn't take 2 years to know what he did to me was assault and abuse.
You're crazy. I am the girl. I'm sorry [name redacted] didn't love you back and it didn't work out. Please get over him and move on. You will not find love if you obsess over a past love. YOu're wasting your energy. And this is me, I am the girl who filed the report. Stop trying to gaslight me
I had to file a report on the police for misconstruing my words and also for lying to me at the scene of the incident. I don’t even trust the police anymore after reporting this incident and how they handled this.
They grossly exaggerated my story, I even spoke with the prosecutors. It made me so upset that they twisted my words. That’s why I requested the detective to revise his report and I’m asking the charges to be dropped.
If I'm paying a person $200-$300K to build a house and his wife gets cancer; it doesn't entitle him to keep my money. He gives it back because he didn't do his job.
The analogy of a house is entirely incorrect - a house is a one time transaction. Giving an employee space and support during this time likely leads to loyalty and better production in the long run. It also prevents articles like this, which is probably worth the $300k, as even ONE talented engineer turned off from joining Amazon due to this article will cost them that much and more.
It's not about "your rights", it's about "what's right". Sure, you're within your rights. But when you're a trillion-dollar-market-cap company, you can eat $300k for a year and let the employee get through his grief and come back to you.
Also, you edited your comment in a way that was deceptive, and didn't say the reason for the edit -- but your comparison is still flawed. $300k to you is pennies to Amazon.
That's another dodge. His direct manager is acting on behalf of the company, and in the interest of the company. The company should have behaved better. His direct manager also isn't paying the writer's salary out of a personal bank account.
The point is that companies ought to treat their employees with empathy even when it costs them. There are reasonable limits to that, yes, but $300k for Amazon is well within that bounds in my view.
No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit.
Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I assume you're probably early enough in your career you never had to manage people. But when you eventually do, try to separate idealism from reality.
Sorry, I am old and have more than 10 years of management experience.
You can try to formalize human life with your rules for the next 100k years and it will still not work. There are things that are beyond words and beyond your and my ability to "define".
I am afraid a lot of us have lost any of their inherent common sense, because there was no policy for it.
This is not idealism. This is someone dying. And you are talking about policies. Come on!
> No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit.
These are not mutually exclusive things, much of the time, but sometimes exceptions have to be made.
> Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day.
This is a reasonable point, but it, again, does not address my fundamental point: Amazon as a company should have more ethical and empathetic policies. Amazon as a company should instruct managers to help their employees and be willing to back that help up with financial assistance.
Whether it's Jeff Bezos or this person's manager, you seem to want to keep this at an individual level of decision-making, but that's not the change I want to make.
As for myself, I'm not a manager because I don't want to be, and having to enforce policies I don't agree with is one of the reasons for that.
This is the right answer. Your safety net is your responsibility, not your company’s or the government’s (like it or not, this is the reality we live in today, in the USA). Making the high income that he does, it should have been trivial to save a few years worth of emergency fund for exactly this situation. If he had made different choices he would be able to take a year off and properly take care of his family, not blame Amazon for his life choices.
Do you really think that this is about the money? This man is losing his wife, he cannot think clearly, because he loses the person he loves and has children with. He may suffer from severe depression. I'd bet my right leg that if he didn't need to, he would not think about money for a minute. It also doesn't matter whether he should have built up an emergency fund that can cover cancer treatment expenses. He clearly has different problems than that right now.
I can't comprehend how you can even talk about money until you have helped that guy with all you have. Clearly, Amazon is well enough equipped to first provide support, then ask questions once a situation like that has been resolved.
The way this is being handled is just wrong. You wouldn't treat any of your friends or family members like that, so why do it to your employee?
If you make mid six-figures and can’t put together an emergency fund that is on you. He could have made different life choices and spent time with his wife in her last moments rather than slaving away at work.
Do unions really incentivize automation? UAW blocks American automakers from transitioning to the Toyota production system, so unions would likely block any attempts of automation as well.
I believe the above comment was suggesting that if the union vote passes, Amazon will swiftly begin to get rid of as many human workers as possible and invest heavily in robotics to replace them.
It depends and is too early to tell. Specifically, it depends on whether this is a random ad hoc labor curfuffle (sp?) or a catalyst for increasing union sympathy and adoption.
I kind of empathize with Bezos, there's a certain tone of entitlement to this entire saga. Amazon doesn't own anybody a job, if working conditions are shit (but assuming it's legal), you should quit.
If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for it.
If I went to work everyday, complained loudly about how much the job sucks, I wouldn't have a job anymore and I'd understand. To think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still be entitled to a job is lunacy.
erode peoples' standard of living, erode the laws protecting them from abusive working environments, force them into a position where they only have the option of working for one company, and then blame them for trying to ask for better conditions.
If you went into your job every day and criticized the job with a coworker, you would in fact not lose your job (or have the option for a nice settlement), because American labor law specifically protects workers' rights to talk about their working conditions?
The point is that in many of these communities where retail jobs have been absolutely decimated (because of Amazon), working for Amazon is often the only game in town
Can you name any of these cities? People keep using this argument in discussions about Amazon, but I've not seen any specific evidence for it - i.e., a town where it really is true.
I'm conscious I'm starting to sound like a broken record, having posed this question several times in another recent thread, but where is the evidence that Amazon has access to an endless supply of workers who are at-once sufficiently able-bodied, able-minded and otherwise capable of doing the work Amazon needs done, and also so desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of mistreatment?
My claim is not that Amazon has no room to improve pay and conditions for its workers. I'm sure it does. I'm just questioning the assumption that Amazon is able to endlessly exploit and mistreat its workers without consequence.
Move somewhere else. If you can't find a perfered job in your hometown, you don't force the local company to make a job to your satisfaction, you move to a different part of the country.
Why should these people get any other type of consideration.
When you can barely even pay each month’s rent, just moving to a new apartment locally can require a year or two of savings. And thats assuming you don’t have children or any other unexpected (car broke down, medical bills).
You've said that in another branch of this thread.
Do you understand that some people don't have that option? Or cannot move to a new location? Through no fault of their own?
Why can't people use the powers they have delegated to the government to put a stop to these practices, for the growing class of people who are trapped in jobs with conditions similar to this?
I never said they can't lobby the government. I said they shouldn't feel entitled.
If I'm destitute and I'm at a soup kitchen; I wouldn't complain about the food even if it sucks, because the alternative is to starve.
It's the same thing here, beggars can't be choosers. If you want the government to change the rules, go ahead. But don't demonize the company that's literally putting food on your table because you don't like the only job you can find.
Yet options are dwindling here where I am. As a teen there was a shopping mall packed with choices. Now the nearby mall has so many vacant slots it's a wonder they're still open.
Amazon may not owe them a job, but a government ought to make sure that it's citizens are not treated like animals to just make a living, no matter where they choose to work.
It's a shame that any country allows conditions like this to exist, under the excuse of "the free market will solve this problem, just get a job elsewhere"
The balance of power between government, people + companies has made this extremely difficult, and the "free market" is just optimizing for this imbalance by allowing conditions to get this bad in the first place.
If a politician's solution to "making sure people aren't treated like animals" is going after a single company; rather than fixing the system, then they've failed as politicians.
You fix the system by going after the miscreants and holding them to account, one by one, and accumulating a record that can be used to provide more general laws and regulations for the future. Lawmakers do that by investigating specific companies for specific reasons.
You have, by my count at this time, 14 posts in this thread.
What is it that you might have left to say that you were unable to put in to words in the first 13?
You make it sound like any of the conditions are pervasive, they employ 876,000 people, if the conditions were as bad as the media makes it seem I would imagine there being more outcry instead of the media having to blow up specific instances of things happening.
Where there's smoke there is fire is the saying, so maybe it is that bad but that's not what I understand it to be.
Edit: Also from all the documents we've seen it would appear Amazon leaks like a sieve so I would also expect way more damning evidence to have appeared by now.
Whether or not they are pervasive, they should not have occurred in the first place. What kind of culture allowed this to happen even once? Why hasn't there been a statement or commitment from Amazon on fixing this, rather than doubling down on "it doesn't happen" ?
This specific Amazon incident is just one of may incidents across many major employers where workers end up suffering. Regulations should exist that prevent this from even happening, but political will doesn't seem to exist, sadly.
Blowing up this incident helps refocus the attention on trying to fix this nationwide, rather than this specific incident at amazon.
> This specific Amazon incident is just one of may incidents across many major employers where workers end up suffering. Regulations should exist that prevent this from even happening, but political will doesn't seem to exist, sadly.
Okay if the goal is bringing attention to general workplace issues across major companies, then why is it only ever Amazon taking flak? What is special about them that they're the whipping post? Walmart is egregious, systematically so, shown time and time again over decades, but Amazon is the beacon of workforce mal-treatment? Please.
> Also from all the documents we've seen it would appear Amazon leaks like a sieve so I would also expect way more damning evidence to have appeared by now.
This is some the most impressive circular logic I’ve seen in my day.
I think it's generally okay to complain about a system that forces you to pee in bottles due to lack of restroom breaks. People have quit, and they still have every right to complain even after quitting
Most people in America would not have any money for food or shelter if they missed just one paycheck. When the option is between pissing in a bottle and becoming homeless, most people will piss in the bottle. That's a choice people shouldn't have to make.
They’re not forcing anyone and most workers don’t do that. The ones that do are probably just not productive and are making up the loss of production by peeing in bottles. That’s not necessarily an indictment of the company. Their policy, from leaked documents, is that workers should not be doing this.
Sure, but it isn't just legal it's better (in some ways) than most things in the same class. Amazon tracks you and makes you work harder, but compensates you better and doesn't fuck around with hours as much as other jobs in the same fields. It does seem unfair to target them specifically.
For example the piss bottles. It is a thing for truckers and delivery workers to piss in bottles. UPS people, FedEx people, Truckers more than the others will talk about it anonymously. But everyone acts like Amazon isn't acting within the unspoken norms of society.
But ideas of what is “just” change and the justice system is often slow to react. Sometimes things that are technically unjust (banning gay marriage) are allowed. Slavery was once legal. Justice system at the time said so. Also, as an anecdote, speaking as someone who has participated in the justice system quite a bit, for me it was very rarely the best determinant of what was “just” on the small scale of my life. I would hesitate to assume on the larger scale of society as a whole it is any more accurate.
The problem is that the "justice system" is the only universally agreed upon system. The alternative is everybody upholds their own justice and we have anarchy.
If you want to change the justice system, go ahead. But there's a difference between changing labour laws and going after one specific company.
So we should change the rules? Accepting laws because that's the way it is to be blunt silly. Why do we have child labor laws? Those families and children should have just been greatful? Or maybe things can be better and the law isn't perfect
You’re all over this discussion trying to argue from a place of “legal = humane/ethical/moral/etc.” and I’m sorry, but this premise just doesn’t hold water.
They're tiptoeing the line. So, yes, you're right; They haven't broken the law, but when they have to stand right on that line to get what they want, it's clear they want to go past it.
Same as mine operators employing kids in 19th century England, or current Chinese companies with their fucked 9-9-6 system.
Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism should be mandatory reading for any person commenting online about the modern economic system.
Also, the bar for exploitation is so low for the author that it’s hard to imagine a modern day industry that isn’t “exploitative” by their definition.