It's amazing how this thread got derailed so quickly from "The power disparity between low skill workers generates worse working conditions" to "If we treat low skill workers well, don't we have to support them doing drugs and bringing guns?"

Of course not. Allowing needles and guns at your workplace isn't friendlier to employees in general.

The discussion went from "Maybe we shouldn't fire them for trying to organize so they don't die in a pandemic" to "Whats an employer to do with 33% time thieves and drug users?" embarrassingly quickly.

Why is it embarrassing? This is really a problem which employers must deal with.

I think what Tim Bray did is heroic, I think that Amazon exploited workers way too much, all in the name of thinner overheads and lowering prices, which is the only thing their customers care about.

Tim Bray's resignation won't change things, but if we decide that Amazon's unfair and refuse to patronize them because of their employee treatment, then perhaps there will be change. However, I think there are enough people living paycheck to paycheck where that is a secondary consideration after price, and Amazon does have good prices on many things.

I, for one, will be curtailing my use of Amazon. I only used them sporadically anyway, preferring to support others, but still liked the convenience of Prime for some products. For work, I spend six figures a month with AWS, but there's no employee mistreatment there that I'm aware of.

It's embarrassing that the flow of the conversation went from "The power disparity between low and high skill labor is causing terrible working conditions" to "But the employers have to deal with theft and time theft" to "And sometimes drug use and guns" in two comments.

It's a massive derailment from the point that makes it seem like employers are unduly burdened by their employees. It reads as 'Point', 'Counterpoint' but it really isn't -- nobody is going to argue that employees should be allowed to bring drugs and guns or steal from the company.

(Although I imagine "Time theft" mentioned above includes behavior that if high skilled labor did wouldn't raise any eyebrows.)

Come on, HN is about weaving a tapestry from tangents to tangents :)

I'm curious why you believe this type of behavior is only found in "disadvantaged" workers. In my brief career, I've encountered several white collar workers drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis on the job, and I even stumbled across a lawyer doing cocaine in a bathroom. I've seen desk workers get canned for bringing knives to work and leaving guns in their car. I've known office workers who have stolen both time and money from our employer and who have harassed and assaulted our coworkers. I even saw someone get escorted out of the building for downloading and printing off porn from the internet. I've seen all of these from white collar workers, and I've even perpetrated some of these acts myself! So, I'm having a really hard time swallowing the proposition that "hard living" people have some monopoly on being bad employees.

I never said it's found only in those workers, my experience happens to be with workers who come from the more disadvantaged strata of society. You find many, wonderful people with a strong work ethic among them, but the rough living part is much more rough and visible - like doing heroin at work or pulling out a gun. This happens in all echelons of society, but it's just much less subtle in certain groups of people. On the upside, the people with good work ethic were promoted, got raises, and better benefits.

Maybe its because scooping up 100s of people at random from the population all at once and putting them in a box is asking for trouble.

Tech companies don't understand culture. The same assumption that you give a bunch of kids laptops and they'll just automatically learn to program is the same that if you give people cubicles coffee and water they'll act like docile office workers. There are things that you needed that you didn't have a line item for.

I can see how dehumanization could be a common occurrence when "coming down hard" or "covering your butt", but I don't think it's intrinsic. Having and enforcing standards isn't intrinsically dehumanizing. Going too far in the other direction could also involve dehumanization, in the form of denying people's agency and capacity for personal responsibility.

Maybe you can work on your hiring practices? Even for low-skill jobs, you can hire for soft skills.

edit: I am being downvoted and don't know why. Can you please explain what's wrong with this idea? I think the parent paints a false dichotomy.

For example - another option is to deal with problematic individuals on an individual basis. You don't have to ruin the entire company culture.

For some really annoying grunt jobs, you're not going to hire the most disciplined, most educated people with a good work ethic. People willing to do tedious, crappy work have no other options usually, and you also can't be too picky, or you won't hire anyone. These jobs typically have low value as well, so if you tried to pay more, the whole project may not be cost effective and won't happen.

You definitely need to treat people with as much respect as possible, but in some jobs, you have to have all these rules in place knowing you'll get people who aren't model citizens. I was never in the HR org chart here, never saw finances, but I suspect the people that I mentioned were paid near minimum wage. Few stuck around more than six months, and those who did, moved onto better jobs. It was all very structured and regimented. I would never fire anyone for trying to make their workplace better, assuming they did it in a non-disruptive way.

>Can you please explain what's wrong with this idea?

This may have more to do with the phrasing of your first sentence, which could be interpreted as flippant, or presumptive, or maybe even victim blaming.

[After reading other comments, I think the behavior you noted is most likely to be the result of people engaged in ideological battle. If this is true, I would just keep engaging in good faith, there's little you can do.]

Separately, in the future, you might frame your follow-up inquiry as:

>edit: Can anyone please explain what's wrong with this idea? I think the parent paints a false dichotomy.

Or similar. That is, leaving off explicit mention of your motivation for asking as [discussion of this specific motivation] is frowned upon in the site guidelines.

<sarcasm>Those stories sound nothing like the stories you hear about highly compensated employees at tech companies. You never hear stories of them ignoring strict company policies, engaging in drug abuse on the job, or displaying behaviour that makes other employees fear for their own safety.</sarcasm>

<sarcasm> No you don't understand. Cocaine is totally different from crack. </sarcasm>

But I couldn't think of a 'danger' equivalent off the top of my head. What are some examples?

Well, for starters, you hear from a lot of women who feel like their safety may be at risk because of behaviour of certain individuals they work with...

Being compelled by poverty to continue working elbow to elbow with a peer who flashes deadly weapons strikes me as fairly dehumanizing.

Honestly just sounds like lower middle class in America and nothing to do with the job. We don't do a great job taking care of people. Drug user, violence, psychological issues and domestic problems are rampant.

Well, you can't behave in an uncivilized manner, and then expect someone to want to pay you for the privilege of having you around. Particularly if you are also low-skilled or only have skills which are extremely common and therefore low-valued. Menial or "low-skill" labor is not low paid because we don't need it. It is low-paid because the market is perpetually glutted. If you are unable to differentiate yourself to even the tiny extent of just behaving yourself while at work, then you are of course disposable, because literally thousands or millions wait to replace you. Why would any employer want to pay you to come do drugs at work, endangering everyone there and causing them liability? They are not your Mama.

> we had a strict no drugs policy

I have news that might surprise you about how widespread hard drug use in SV programming, finance, or any "startup" area.

Zero tolerance for the phone banks but not for Elon Musk, right?