While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" that doesn't mean ANY reason or any process. If the company has a process that isn't fair, an employee could potentially sue over that. Granted other factors come into play but if a company sets up a system like this they still have to do it fairly, a judge could potentially decide the process is unfair.
Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may unintentionally overstate what Amazon's appeal process is actually appealing.
Based on the text, Amazon's "appeal process" is to challenge the status of being put on PIP - the Performance Improvement Plan. It isn't to appeal a firing. (Although I understand that some see that as no difference if a PIP is ~99% equivalent to getting fired eventually.)
If the employee wants to keep working (at least temporarily) for Amazon, he/she doesn't need to appeal. What a successful appeal does is let them work without PIP targets hanging over their head.
I've never heard of a PIP actually succeeding (an employee improving to the satisfaction of their manager) so it delays the inevitable, perhaps allowing the employee to quit and find another job before their fired. It's definitely meant to avoid a wrongful dismissal lawsuit but I think that almost never works; either the employee is going to sue or they're not, "being given a chance to improve" isn't going to change that.
If there are explicit goals or metrics to be measured, which I have seen in many cases, it's pretty clear what needs to be done to clear it. If they don't meet those goals, and they're attainable (e.g. other people in the same role are performing that well on average), it's a pretty clear defense for a lawsuit.
The whole place was a clown show that I was unhappy at anyway, so while I entertained the idea of taking them to court, when I realized the PIP is basically an elaborate attempt to defend against wrongful termination cases I ultimately just found a much better job.
The biggest thing is to ensure that the targets in the PIP are both realistic and measurable. All too often I've seen people being asked to meet a bar far higher than is possible (and not even met by top achievers at a company) and with no real way to measure it other than "if I think you're doing good enough".
Yeah, it's a silly game where everyone has to pretend there's a chance you can "succeed". When in reality it's "rather than firing you and dealing with severance and lawsuits, we'll keep paying you for a few months while you find a new job, and then we'll agree that you voluntarily resigned". An employee who doesn't realize that is going to have a bad time, and would in fact be better off fired.
>[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectible [sic] by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
No specific reason needs to be given. And this is important. Neither side should be beholden to the other. Employees are not beholden to their employer to stay any length of time, and neither should employers be beholden to the employees to keep them employed indefinitely.
Now, no matter what, there is going to be a power imbalance. Currently, the power lies mostly with the employers. Employees are generally replaceable. You can find someone else to do a similar job.
So its symbolic in one sense - sure you can quit, but you can't do it without fallout.
And most non-competes are unenforceable as it prevents people from making a living.
The deets may vary around the edges depending on the state (excluding CA which has strong anti-non-compete)
/* I used to practice employee-side employment law.
As usual, there's a system in place and lofty rules about 'right to work' but it functions only for the well-off. The entitled if you will.
The vacation/sick pay issue is more of a grey issue as it's mostly a matter of company policy than any legal issue.
While there are plenty of workers who don't really have any recourse, I'd imagine highly paid tech workers can afford enough of a lawyer's time for them to draft a scary letter.
If your payroll damages are low and your case is solid, you might find a bleeding-heart lawyer to help you because attorney's fees are often included in the employee's damage award.
Though, in some states punitive damages may be available as well. (Sadly, not in Washington State where I used to practice)
You can fire people for no reason, but firing them for a reason via a process still requires it to be somewhat "fair".
It is weird how that works. Granted like anything to challenge it in court you need to prove a lot, but it is still a thing.
And to be clear I don't know if the boss just getting the final say as in the above example would qualify.
Under such circumstances the rules of natural justice must still be observed: most significantly, a fair hearing with rights of reply, and an unbiased adjudicator.
Failure to adhere to those rules is the basis of an appeal to a real court.
The problem with a system like Amazon's (or internal appeal processes other private companies use) is that they are often so blatantly biased towards management that their results would be legally meaningless in the context of a trial. It makes me wonder why they bother at all.
People are claiming that workers' rights should be limited to the same extent that employers' rights are limited (i.e. that either party can end the relationship at any time and without any specific reason) so as to avoid giving excess power to one party or the other.
The person who owns the business has decided that this is the process by which he wants employees vetted because they do not have the time to personally oversee every decision.
See, you've actually moved the goalposts here and you may not have realized it.
That is not comparable to two employees with different responsibilities.
I mean, no one would come right out and say that, because it's a pretty stupid thing to say. There are, however, plenty of actions that have that outcome, without having the optics of coming right out and saying that you're favoring employers over employees. Being friendly to "job creators" and all that.
That's right, the workers. The workers should have the excess of power in all circumstances. The only reason we have weekends and the "40" hour work week is because of workers and left wing movements. Corporations would have never let such happen, and are historically against the worker & only in favor of raking in profit at the expense of labor.
Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation.
There is plenty of room for disagreement among people who accept that workers should have rights -- for example, what should the rights be, how should those rights be balanced against the rights of management, etc.
If we are living this, it must be some type of reality, right? I mean, if something is the reality for lots of people, you can't just claim it is not a reality. I think it weakens the argument to ignore the kinds of work lots of people are actually doing when discussing this stuff; it needs to be incorporated into the intellectual structure of the philosophy if it is meant to be useful.
And best practice is to have an appeal stage so you can appeal the verdict to a manger completely outside of your reporting chain.