Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtf_is_up | Hacker News Reader

How is destroying other people's stuff a reasonable response for you being disgruntled at your employer?

It's not about being disgruntled, it's about not wanting your family to go hungry because you were only able to deliver three hundred packages in ten hours by taking extra care.

There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

Exactly what the game Papers Please is about

> not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

Because you need your job, even. It's not just a want.

That exact same argument would hold true for drug dealers, mob enforcers, and a whole variety of people that do bad things. Sure, the mob boss is a bad guy for having the enforcer break someone's shop up; but the enforcer is _also_ a bad guy for doing it.

If the mob boss holds leverage over the enforcer (first a debt with threat of violence, and later evidence of the enforcer's crimes) then the enforcer might not be such a bad person. This is a big reason that lower level criminals are offered witness protection in exchange for information

I'm not sure why people keep equating carelessness with actual malice.

Yes, obviously both the boss and the enforcer are bad for doing harmful things with an evil mind. That's just not the same as apathy.

Taking actions that you know put someone else's personal property at risk _is_ malice. It's less malice than actively breaking it, but it is actively making a choice to put something that belongs to someone else in harm's way.

No, it's not. Neither is minor speeding, for example. It's a lack of care and awareness about the consequences of one's actions - hardly a desire for those consequences. You say "active" and the whole point is that it isn't.

> There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.

What is the difference, when you said you destroyed the packages in each case?

The difference is the intention.

But, the results are the same in either case. People's property gets destroyed. If the results are the same, what is the actual, real-world difference?

It depends on your angle. If your looking to solve the problem, the root cause very much informs the solution. If your looking to prosecute, intention and context often inform the severity of the charge(s) and determination of guilt (ie man-slaughter v. first-degree murder).

Well, no, you can bet if I hate my employer and therefore destroy people's stuff, that stuff is getting destroyed.

Tossing a cardboard box just doesn't do much the majority of the time.

That's not the workers problem.

People aren't responsible for their own actions?

I presume they mean due to only having such a short time to deliver, they aren't paid to expend time on being careful, rather than malice.

If amazon would learn how to pack things, maybe stuff wouldn't get destroyed when boxes are tossed.

I've seen so many packages where the box is two sizes too big, and then a smattering of air pillows is added, leaving most of the space empty.

I assume packing has to take only seconds.

Buying from a retailer that doesn't work with such perverse incentives and inhumane practices could benefit the consumer it turns out.

If an action takes you 5 minutes to do correctly and your boss force you to do it in 1 minute, how the hell can you do it right and not lose your job?

They're not getting paid to care, why should they?

Because it's a crime to intently destroy other peoples property?

There's a difference between intentionally destroying someone else's property, and simply not being paid enough to care what happens to it.

I guess the ones that cared got fired for not meeting KPIs. Amazon is selecting for neglect and recklessness.

How did you get that the destruction was intentional?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com