The Dig is like EconTalk for leftists. Even if you’re not onboard with the ideology, the intelligence, researched depth, and interest of the host Daniel Denvir is matched by little else in media today.
That he subverted democracy by threatening the Seattle city council as they attempted to address their homelessness crisis makes me skeptical of this effort. I doubt we can do much to fix the underlying issues in a context where billionaires can intimidate governments into surrendering power to their unilateral, authoritarian control.
At the point when you recognize this and then choose to proceed apace, you become a “mustache twirling villain.” YouTube crossed that threshold a long, long time ago.
That may be, but the person to which I responded said that they can tell people need unions when they shop. They wouldn’t be able to tell if people are making their budgets meet at home, just whether they seem to enjoy their jobs.
We’re in the middle of the best economy and wages still aren’t rising. Monopoly, monopsony, and free market extremism have crushed them for all but the very few.
And? If Amazon bought a company with poor working conditions, ripe for unionization, it’s their problem. They’re the bosses now.
Maybe the workers hoped things would get better absent labor organization, but now that they’re being managed by a company rife with labor abuses, their circumstances have become more clear to them.
I don't disagree, I think it's a great opportunity for Amazon to make this a big win for their optics - externally for consumers who are starting to view them as the new Walmart and internally for WF employees.
I just felt I needed to clarify that attacking Amazon and painting them red in the press for poor employment practices that WF has upheld for a long time was not really a diplomatic strategy for approaching your new boss, especially when a lot of WF employees likely wanted Amazon to be a "hands-off" acquirer.
If they can’t do basic, physical security correctly, it kind of calls into question their broader approach? For example, I imagine it’s much easier to socially engineer yourself into other access once your inside the campus than from without.
>There was a very small detail that was almost overlooked in the article- it seemed like they were planning on keeping their more senior engineers and fire their junior ones.
This seemed pretty clear in the article? They tried to buy off senior male employees with extra stock options last minute.
>Maybe that really is the story, but so many details were left out to focus on the narrative that we won't know without better journalism.
It felt like there was a fair amount of detail to me. If anything, it exposed how much sexism in tech is something management sees as a useful wedge to divide and conquer workers.
My point was that, without knowing the management's perspective, it's entirely possible that gender was merely a coincidence of having senior males available, and hiring junior females either because they were the best available or the company wanted to look diverse. Perhaps they were flagging and needed to cut the junior developers so the senior developers could focus on getting back on track.
Either way, it's impossible to know, because without more details all we are left with is the agenda of an author who isn't interested in presenting the truth (or providing sufficient evidence to support it).
Edit: consider the following scenario: you have a team of male developerd; maybe they were friends when they pitched the idea for a product to you. After a few months, there's a big backlog, and they want to hire junior developers to train and take off some of the pressure. To embrace diversity, you hire a bunch of women who recently graduated from a boot camp to round out your all white male staff.
Fast forward a year. Everyone has become a tight knit team, but the pressure to deliver mounts. Instead of getting faster, they're all bogged down with refactors and endless pull request revisions of things that aren't working out. You are running out of money, so you decide to cut the junior developers, and try to bribe the senior devs with some of the cost savings to make up for all the extra hours they'll now be working. Uh oh! You're only firing the women! They all band together, oblivious to the fact that you literally won't be able to keep them all on.
I'm not saying this is what happened. What happened could have been pure sexism and anti-labor mentality. BUT pushing such an agenda without KNOWING that is the case here doesn't do anyone any favors.
I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management seemingly handled the situation so poorly and in violation of labor laws, it’s not like they’re going to go on the record anyway...
that's the point; it isn't at all. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on information that is missing from the article.
The fact that the article is missing such important information could be because it's not available, or it might not fit the author's agenda.
The company is very clearly in the wrong here; I'm taking issue with the heavy handedness of forcing gender into a story that, based on the evidence presented, could easily be a clear cut labor issue.
It’s not pure speculation- it’s the worker’s side of the story. You can’t discredit their experience because the other side behaved in such a brazenly stupid fashion that they’re probably being advised to not speak to the press at all. Even if management’s perspective was included in the article, corresponded to your framing, the same would hold true. Your skepticism isn’t really skepticism when it leans consistently in favor of one party or the other.
What is there to be skeptical about regarding the management? We know nothing about their motives, only a few facts. Without the remaining facts, or their perspective, there's nothing to be skeptical about.
I've tried to be clear that I'm open to the possibility that this really is about sexism. I don't think that exclusively presenting one side of the story will lead us to the truth, though.
