Hacker News Reader

Comment by tucaz | Hacker News Reader

People on this forum are usually too good to find problems within. With folks here, usually the other party is always at fault.

View on HN

The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed, has people pissing in bottles to meet insane work quotas, stack ranks employees, flys drones over delivery trucks to surveil drivers to ensure efficiency, repeatedly busts union efforts, might run through literally every available American because the churn at it's distribution centers is so high, uses its platform data to compete with it's suppliers, and whose founder Bezos is one of the richest men to ever live who built himself a literal space craft while income inequality is higher than during the French Revolution?

Are you absolutely sure that there are no legitimate problems with Amazon, or that maybe we're a little itchy with Amazon for a reason?

> The company who ordered people back to the floor when a hurricane was coming causing their death when the building partially collapsed

Question about this specifically. Was it ever revealed if that order was to get people indoors to a reinforced building that happened to collapse? I remember SMS screenshots of a delivery driver who was killed, and to have sent him on the road would have been a death sentence.

That’s an exceedingly charitable stance to take, because the actual proper thing to do would have been to send people home before the storm hit, and possibly give them the option of sheltering in the warehouse if they needed to (assuming it was actually reinforced).

I can see why you'd say that. It's not charitable thinking. I'm thinking it's part of a standard inclement weather plan. Everyone works as usual. If there's a tornado watch, employees don't come in to keep them from being caught in a tornado. Hold employees in approved safety area under a tornado warning (e.g. reinforced building, not open warehouse), because sending them home is a clear danger.

If the rest of the parent's comment wasn't already true beforehand, then maybe we could assume good faith.

The irony-meter just exploded

Reply on news.ycombinator.com