"If you do X then you can expect Y" is a tautology built on observation that divorces the observer from any responsibility for the outcome Y.
Specifically:
> It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes
This statement is too vague. What specific actions and what specific outcomes?
> since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments
What is "making value judgements" mean?
Also, when you say "American justice system" - is this specific to the American judicial law and it does not apply to other countries?
"It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions.
That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'."
I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject".
Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American.
They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".
Golden, this is a perfect analogy and gave me a chuckle.
I get irritated by this kind of comment because by being a description of a chain of events with no verdict as to whether outcome Y is fair or proportional to action X, it is an absolution of responsibility for the observer and to some extent implies that those affected by outcome Y are responsible for their fate simply because they weren't canny enough to realize the chain of events they had set in motion, regardless of whether the chain of events is immoral.
An alternate example: "The subversives held a protest and were reported to the secret police who sentenced them to death by firing squad. Perhaps if the subversives didn't want to be shot they shouldn't have staged the protest in the first place, since protesting carries the death sentence."
I know that example is taken to the extreme, but I think it makes some points more salient: (i) by reciting a series of outcomes without value judgments about the outcomes, the observer is not engaging with whether the subversives should be shot and thereby implicitly supports the status quo, regardless of whether the status quo is fair or just (ii) the observer misses the point by implying that the protesters are responsible for their fate and blames them for the unjust outcome. The protesters likely knew that they would be executed for protesting. Surely we should be asking why the sentence for protesting is death, not whether the protesters were too stupid to see what they were getting themselves into.
RE the criminal justice system...I know it's a cop out to say "I read a lot", but I am interested in its shortcomings and consume a lot on the subject matter. I recently read "Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System" which I think is a good primer on the bureaucracy of the justice system. It's a complex thing to dissect in a post, but from a very high up/more abstract POV the American justice system considers "justice" the rendering of sentences based on breaking of laws, not necessarily whether an outcome is compatible with what we consider "justice".
Example: a man is sentenced to 10 years for possession of marijuana. The justice system considers this to be justice because the man was aware that action X (possessing marijuana) leads to outcome Y (prison time) without really considering whether jail time is a reasonable or fair outcome for possessing a plant that is quite harmless by most scientific standards.
This turned into an essay...hope I clarified my point of view though!
Sure, if you're whistleblowing something systemically unethical - as may well be the case here - then you should be able to do the right thing without fear of negative consequence. I.e., your employer, Amazon in this case, can't fire you.
However, speaking in more general terms, some people just love to whine and complain about things that simply aren't that important: I've worked with plenty (none at the moment, I hasten to add).
For example, and flipping it around: is it a Good Thing for you to trash talk your employer just because you don't happen to like your boss very much? No, I don't think it is, and I think it's entirely reasonable for you to get into trouble if you do.
Is it a Good Thing to trash talk a potential employer because you didn't like their hiring process? No. If other potential employers read what you've said they might choose not to interview you even if your concerns are legitimate. You can stand on principle if you want but of all the issues in the world you could stand on principle about, is this one really worth it? I'd say not but you may disagree.
Getting more serious: what about if your boss is a bully? Should you publicly trash talk them? No! Are you out of your mind?!?? You should do some research and find out how to deal with it effectively and in a way that doesn't damage your future career prospects, either at your current company (which may be a lost cause) or elsewhere, which may include getting and following legal advice.
Certainly for these serious issues: bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, and so on, if the issues are with a specific individual, rather than a systemic or cultural problem, whistleblowing is probably not the way to go. Note that for certain safety issues, or breaches relating to personally identifiable information, you may have a legal obligation to notify even for isolated incidents, depending on your jurisdiction (IANAL).
The problem with trash-talking your employer, or even former employers, is that you risk sending a signal to potential future employers that you are a troublemaker. In some cases this is not an illegitimate concern, and because of this employers tend to be cautious, which can harm your prospects.
Let me reiterate that I'm talking about trash talking in general, not the specific case of these Amazon employees, and very much not whistleblower activities involving systemic ethical failings by an employer or organisation.
That is not what I mean. This conversation is about the accepted "law of nature" that if you say bad things about your employer you will probably be fired. As you point out, sometimes there are good reasons to publicly say bad things about your employer. Therefore, it is bad that firing is the accepted consequence regardless of the situation, and we should seek to change this status quo.
> I think all of us learned these lessons the hard way, what's amazing is how much resistance I've encountered when I try to share this wisdom with folks in their early 20's. I guess the old adage is true, people like to learn their own lessons.
I think it's arguable the lesson you're referring too is not "wisdom," but rather an obvious form of status-quo acceptance. I don't think just "accept the status quo" would be counted as wisdom by many. The status quo used to include many awful things that are now rightly regarded with horror (for instance, executing someone for criticizing the king), and there are many things we accept now that will be regarded with similar horror in the future.
I'd bet money that the resistance you're encountering is moral rejection. You argue that something is true but acceptable. Your interlocutors also understand that thing to be true but they see it as unacceptable. And frankly, they're right: criticizing working conditions is always acceptable (even if they're not your working conditions, but those of your colleagues), and the people who do so need strong productions against reprisals by their employers. That's how working conditions are improved.
If you talk smack about someone, expect them to talk smack back about you.
If you talk smack about your employer, the employer will talk smack back about you (a lot of times, in the form of ending their involvement with you).
Do you really think people are going to read that comment and come away with useful advice?
You'd be surprised how many techies (especially the younger ones) don't see the above advice as being obvious.
It's only obvious if you've accepted the status quo ("at will employment", no worker protections). Many other developed countries have substantial worker protections [1], and I see questioning this as work towards progress in having those same worker protections in the US. Young folks haven't been ground down long enough by "The System" to accept that what is wrong is what will always be, which is awesome!
If your employer can fire you, and you have no recourse, for illustrating their abusive work environment (Amazon warehouses, in this case), that's a problem! What's more shocking (IMHO) are those who publicly comment that this is acceptable in a developed nation. The house is on fire, don't snicker at those trying to put the fire out.
[1] https://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the (New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world’s worst countries for workers)
The ITUC Global Rights Index rates countries from one to five according to 97 indicators, with an overall score placing countries in one to five rankings.
1 – Irregular violations of rights: 18 countries including Denmark and Uruguay
2 – Repeated violations of rights: 26 countries including Japan and Switzerland
3 – Regular violations of rights: 33 countries including Chile and Ghana
4 – Systematic violations of rights: 30 countries including Kenya and the USA <-- We are here, ranked below 77 other countries
If you live in the US, and you haven't accepted that, then you live in a fantasy world.
It's great to know what the other possibilities are, and work to make them a reality, but acting as if the current reality isn't in force... well, that's just foolish, and these two Amazon UX designers are receiving a harsh lesson in reality.
Being idealistic is genuinely awesome, and I wish more people would aspire for better in our society. But behaving as if your ideals are reality is usually not going to go well for you, and people would do well to remember that. These former employees have possibly put their (and their families') financial security in jeopardy because they didn't.
As an older developer, I am ashamed at many of the things I said at work when younger, and wonder why I didn't realize how stupid they were. It's amazing I wasn't fired for some of them.
> unnecessary and imprecise technobabble
> the author assumes ... people ... are too stupid
> patronizing and unhelpful
Put it all together and you're basically describing the Hacker News Brand Voice.
"In general, criticizing one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer." reads a lot more balanced to me.
I doubt the parent is happy about the result, but I at least would question why people would do something that would so obviously get them fired during a pandemic.
Amazon workers deserve better treatment, but, if you're a current employee, trying to affect change should be an internal process, not public. If all internal avenues seem to be failing, the smart move would be a public anonymous criticism. Whistleblowing, effectively.
It sucks that these people got fired for speaking out about something important that they felt strongly about, especially during a time of economic upheaval, but that's what you should expect to happen when you publicly criticize your employer and sign your name to it. They should have thought -- even for a second -- before they spoke.