I had nooo idea. Holy shit!
-
@benjamin-hall and what about people who are neither in personal nor work relationship? A third set of rules? What about former partners/coworkers - which set to apply then?
The more special-casing, the more problems.
Edit: and no one has explained WHAT needs to be different between family members and coworkers. What is an abuse in one situation that isn't abuse in the other?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@benjamin-hall and what about people who are neither in personal nor work relationship? A third set of rules? What about former partners/coworkers - which set to apply then?
The more special-casing, the more problems.
As does lumping very different things together. Instead, have a low level general law (for those without specific duties of care), and then add-ons for various specific duties.
-
@benjamin-hall the thing is, I don't see them as different - in relation to abuse and abuse laws.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@benjamin-hall the thing is, I don't see them as different - in relation to abuse and abuse laws.
One is adults, in a purely monetary, quid pro quo relationship. The other is people in a relationship of total fidelity, with minors possibly in the mix. A law that fits the first group is too loose for the second. A law that fits the second is impossibly constraining for the first.
-
@benjamin-hall examples.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@benjamin-hall examples.
I hire you to do a job.I have a kid.
There you go.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@pie_flavor said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska Well, no it wouldn't. I'm talking about work environments here.
So you think there should be a different set of laws for abuse of family members and for abuse of employees?
Children cannot leave to find better parents. Employees can leave to find better employers. The rules should be somewhat different, yes.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@benjamin-hall examples.
We already have laws specifically applicable to employment, and we have laws specifically applicable to parental rights and responsibilities. We probably have another set of laws specifically applicable to caregivers who do not fall into the category of parents.
-
@Gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
What is an abuse in one situation that isn't abuse in the other?
Not feeding an employee is not abuse.
Not feeding your child is abuse.
-
@pie_flavor we all know you make up your own definitions of words to support whatever your point is
@Jaloopa I can't tell if you're referencing @djls45, someone in this thread, or something I did.
- I don't make up definitions. Just because you don't like that I use a particular definition to clarify my point does not make my arguments irrelevant.
- I have a point to my argumentation. It may not be a point you like or agree with, but there is a point nonetheless.
- @Jaloopa is a troll who will play either side like a fiddle if they let him. You're letting him. :P
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@pie_flavor said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska Well, no it wouldn't. I'm talking about work environments here.
So you think there should be a different set of laws for abuse of family members and for abuse of employees?
Children cannot leave to find better parents. Employees can leave to find better employers. The rules should be somewhat different, yes.
Yeah, I haven't exactly thought it through. I still think that it is emotional abuse to drive employees into overwork so much that they have emotional breakdowns on regular basis - especially if ALL employees suffer from that. If it was a handful of people, you could blame their personalities - but if it's majority of employees, it can't be anything but carefully engineered machine that extracts every ounce of will to live.
-
@magus Thanks Dr. Factoid.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I still think that it is emotional abuse to drive employees into overwork so much that they have emotional breakdowns on regular basis - especially if ALL employees suffer from that.
It's a terrible work environment and not one I'd like to experience but I'm not sure I'd use the term "abuse" like this.
-
@boomzilla if this isn't abuse, I don't know what is.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla if this isn't abuse, I don't know what is.
I can agree with that.
-
@boomzilla but would you say the same?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla but would you say the same?
Yes, I would say that you don't know what abuse is.
-
@boomzilla so tell me, what do you think emotional abuse is, and how what Amazon's doing isn't emotional abuse?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla so tell me, what do you think emotional abuse is, and how what Amazon's doing isn't emotional abuse?
I think it's a relatively dysfunctional working environment. There's lots of bad stuff in the world that isn't "abuse."
-
@boomzilla I feel you have no intent to have a serious discussion whatsoever, as evidenced by not even trying to answer my question.
-
@gąska What's not to understand? He answered your question. It's a dysfunctional work environment, but not an abusive one, because employees voluntarily choose to put themselves in that environment by working there.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla I feel you have no intent to have a serious discussion whatsoever, as evidenced by not even trying to answer my question.
I feel like you didn't read my post and are upset that I haven't accepted your assertions about "abuse."
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska What's not to understand? He answered your question.
I don't see a definiton or a description of what abuse is anywhere in his post.
It's a dysfunctional work environment, but not an abusive one, because employees voluntarily choose to put themselves in that environment by working there.
Partners and spouses also voluntarily put themselves in relationships and marriages. Are you saying it's not possible to emotionally abuse the spouse?
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't see a definiton or a description of what abuse is anywhere in his post.
It's too broad to make one definition that applies in every situation. Even just limiting it to the workplace, I don't think you could concisely describe what abuse is or isn't, except to say the following:
When it comes to the workforce, there are laws regulating employee safety, hours, pay, benefits, and discrimination/harassment... violating those laws would probably constitute an abusive work environment. If the employer isn't violating any of those laws, it might be a shitty work environment, but it's probably not an abusive one. The rare cases which could be an exception to this rule probably should result in the law being changed, but I don't know that this situation is one of them.
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't see a definiton or a description of what abuse is anywhere in his post.
It's too broad to make one definition that applies in every situation.
Then it shouldn't be used in any serious discussion. And it definitely shouldn't be used in any legal texts.
We should also come up with some term that encompasses all actions that intentionally cause psychological damage to people. You know, something like emotional abuse, but real - something that can be defined. And then demand laws that make this thing illegal.
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees, and it should be illegal. And it should be the same legal category as emotionally abusing children and spouses.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees,
No, they don't.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
What is an abuse in one situation that isn't abuse in the other?
Child discipline?
Can't ask an employee to go sit in timeout after hours, can you?
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I still think that it is emotional abuse to drive employees into overwork so much that they have emotional breakdowns on regular basis - especially if ALL employees suffer from that.
It's a terrible work environment and not one I'd like to experience but I'm not sure I'd use the term "abuse" like this.
They expect robotic precision on the first shot during their interviews. (interviewed with them myself)
That says a lot to me.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla I feel you have no intent to have a serious discussion whatsoever, as evidenced by not even trying to answer my question.
YMBNH
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees
I doubt they want damaged employees.
They seem absolutely fine with most of their workforce having emotional breakdowns on regular basis. It really looks as if they make their internal policies and procedures in a way that uses psychological tricks of various sorts to extract maximum amount of productivity from people. I'm pretty sure they're aware that the side effects of becoming maximally productive involve serious psychological issues.
Inb4 emotional breakdowns aren't psychological damage.
-
My antibiotics have side effects of nausea. They still prescribed it to me.
They must want me to feel dizzy.
"intent" has a particular meaning. Despite their knowledge and the situation being shitty, you can't just up and change the meaning to suit your frustration. It weakens the word for when its actually applicable.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't see a definiton or a description of what abuse is anywhere in his post.
It's too broad to make one definition that applies in every situation.
Then it shouldn't be used in any serious discussion. And it definitely shouldn't be used in any legal texts.
We should also come up with some term that encompasses all actions that intentionally cause psychological damage to people. You know, something like emotional abuse, but real - something that can be defined. And then demand laws that make this thing illegal.
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees, and it should be illegal. And it should be the same legal category as emotionally abusing children and spouses.
It is defined -- just, it's a massive set of laws that is really too complex to really dig into in much detail, for serious casual discussions. The question is really more a question of which specific laws apply to the situation at hand, and how.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
My antibiotics have side effects of nausea. They still prescribed it to me.
They must want me to feel dizzy.
Try ginger.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees,
No, they don't.
Well maybe not intentional, per se, but...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-have-to-pee-into-bottles-2018-4
Amazon workers 'peeing in bottles as they're afraid of time wasting'
In a poll of 100 staff, half said they were depressed and eight were suicidal. James Bloodworth, who worked at a warehouse in Rugeley, Staffordshire, said staff peed in bottles out of fear of time wasting.
And that DM headline in full, since they've clearly been screwing around with their oneboxes:
Several Amazon workers 'have considered suicide since joining the company', poll reveals while warehouse staff claim they have urinated into bottles because they're afraid of 'time-wasting'
-
@pjh I would certainly believe that there are abusive managers there. In a company that big there'd have to be.
@pjh said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Several Amazon workers 'have considered suicide since joining the company',
Again, I'd be surprised if none had, even if it weren't such an apparently shitty place to work.
-
@pjh so, peeing is considered "taking a long break"?
Amazon sets high performance quotas for warehouse pickers, so I think it's more likely that these folks weren't fast enough to keep up with the quotas so they were trying to accomplish more during their shift by working through their breaks in order to avoid getting fired for under-producing. I've known people who did it, and it's a fast-paced, yet monotonous, job. It's really not for everyone. Also the pay is quite decent, but again, some people really just aren't cut out for it.
Working through your breaks would be illegal in the US, but obviously it's only going to be an issue if someone complains or they're caught. I don't know what the legality of this would be in the UK.
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
working through their breaks
This is people 'afraid' to go to the toilet between those breaks. Ostensibly (from memory) because it took them so long to go there, perform their ablutions, and get back to work, that Amazon penalised them.
Why they never learnt to use the facilities between the bits when they are supposed to be working, remains a mystery. (The impression I got was they were 'taking too long' on a regular basis, not just occasionally.)
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
I don't see a definiton or a description of what abuse is anywhere in his post.
It's too broad to make one definition that applies in every situation.
Then it shouldn't be used in any serious discussion. And it definitely shouldn't be used in any legal texts.
We should also come up with some term that encompasses all actions that intentionally cause psychological damage to people. You know, something like emotional abuse, but real - something that can be defined. And then demand laws that make this thing illegal.
Amazon's practices cause intentional psychological damage to employees, and it should be illegal. And it should be the same legal category as emotionally abusing children and spouses.
It is defined -- just, it's a massive set of laws that is really too complex to really dig into in much detail, for serious casual discussions.
When you have a massive set of laws that is too complex to dig into in much detail, it usually means the thing itself is fairly straight forward to define, but there are million corner cases that don't deal with the definition itself as much as how it's applicable and what the consequences are given the circumstances. For example, VAT is Value Added Tax - it's a sales tax that's applied to all products and services both in retail and B2B (including middlemen like warehouses), that is calculated from the difference of what you sell it for and what you paid for materials. That is pretty much complete definition of what VAT is, despite the law being like this:
http://www.skpn.pl/foto/ksiazka-leksykon-vat-2018.jpg
When you say "too broad to make one definition that applies in every situation", I don't think VAT - I think gender. Once upon a time, it used to have a pretty clear definition - it meant the property of either being male or female. Everybody knew what it means, and the meaning didn't change drastically from context to context, and this allowed for serious and productive discussions about the roles of both genders and such. But nowadays, gender isn't about your genitals anymore - we have transgender people, we have bigender people, we have demigender, agender, nonbinary, trigender, genderfluid, among others. And with the invention of reassignment surgery, even genitals stopped being a good indicator. There are too many genders to keep count of, and particular genders - even the classic male and female - are so ill-defined that it's impossible to make any statements about them, because they will never hold true for every specimen of a given gender unless they hold true for the entire of humanity, in which case it's pointless to talk about any particular gender.
If you insist on emotional abuse not being definable in one paragraph, I will keep using alternative wording that means the same, but has a clear definition. Because otherwise there's no way to have a coherent discussion. Or we could just stop this charade and agree on some meaning of emotional abuse.
-
@pjh said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
working through their breaks
This is people 'afraid' to go to the toilet between those breaks. Ostensibly (from memory) because it took them so long to go there, perform their ablutions, and get back to work, that Amazon penalised them.
Why they never learnt to use the facilities between the bits when they are supposed to be working, remains a mystery. (The impression I got was they were 'taking too long' on a regular basis, not just occasionally.)
Nah, I'm staying with my original answer. They're not keeping up the pace, so to try to meet the daily / weekly quota they're supposed to produce, they're working through the breaks they're supposed to be taking (which, yes, should give them plenty of time to pee).
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
If you insist on emotional abuse not being definable in one paragraph, I will keep using alternative wording that means the same, but has a clear definition.
Fine, but don't expect us to act like your alternative wording should be treated as though it's law.
-
@xaade said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
My antibiotics have side effects of nausea. They still prescribed it to me.
They must want me to feel dizzy.
They knowingly prescribed you something that makes you feel dizzy. Thankfully for them, it's not illegal to make people dizzy. If they prescribed you arsenic and you took it, they would surely be charged with some kind of assisting in murder, and most people would surely agree they're guilty of it.
"intent" has a particular meaning. Despite their knowledge and the situation being shitty, you can't just up and change the meaning to suit your frustration.
If your phone rings in your pocket and I shoot you in order to turn it off, and you die in the process, I'm sure I would be charged with - and found guilty of - a murder not a manslaughter - despite killing you never being my intent. Here, Amazon is the shooter, and the phone is mental blockades stopping employees from giving literal 100%.
-
@gąska As far as I can tell the only thing Amazon is guilty of is setting production standards that some people simply can't meet. That, and not verifying that employees actually take the breaks they're legally supposed to have (and fire them if this behavior is repeated).
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
If your phone rings in your pocket and I shoot you in order to turn it off, and you die in the process, I'm sure I would be charged with - and found guilty of - a murder not a manslaughter - despite killing you never being my intent. Here, Amazon is the shooter, and the phone is mental blockades stopping employees from giving literal 100%.
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track. What, specifically, would you outlaw?
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska As far as I can tell the only thing Amazon is guilty of is setting production standards that some people simply can't meet. That, and not verifying that employees actually take the breaks they're legally supposed to have (and fire them if this behavior is repeated).
The article sounds like a big part of employees work way over their limits and their mental health suffers greatly. If it was 1 or 2 people per 100, I would just write it off as some people being pussies. But if it's so frequent (IIRC the article uses the word "everyone"), it's very hard to believe it wasn't engineered on a higher level.
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
If your phone rings in your pocket and I shoot you in order to turn it off, and you die in the process, I'm sure I would be charged with - and found guilty of - a murder not a manslaughter - despite killing you never being my intent. Here, Amazon is the shooter, and the phone is mental blockades stopping employees from giving literal 100%.
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track. What, specifically, would you outlaw?
Intentionally causing psychological damage.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track. What, specifically, would you outlaw?
Intentionally causing psychological damage.
What does that mean, though? Did you not understand the question? I'm not sure how you think that's an actual answer to my question. If you don't have an answer, then fine, but that's probably also admitting that they aren't doing this since you can't explain how it's happening.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
The article sounds like a big part of employees work way over their limits and their mental health suffers greatly. If it was 1 or 2 people per 100, I would just write it off as some people being pussies. But if it's so frequent (IIRC the article uses the word "everyone"), it's very hard to believe it wasn't engineered on a higher level.
I don't know how this is handled in the UK, but in the US working through your breaks is a pretty big no-no. Because it can get the companies into pretty hot water, the ones who actually care about staying legit apropos the law will monitor employees pretty closely to make sure that hourly employees take breaks when they're supposed to (and actually take breaks, not just clock out and keep working). That's not to say that some companies won't skirt the law to try to make as much profit as quickly as they can, but employees are given legal protection if they blow the whistle on such labor practices. Also, employers are legally required to post, in a common area such as a break room where employees will be able to see it, a large bulletin board with lots of fine print explaining in detail what employee's rights are and who to contact if they feel like they're being mistreated.
-
@anotherusername said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
Working through your breaks would be illegal in the US, but obviously it's only going to be an issue if someone complains or they're caught. I don't know what the legality of this would be in the UK.
When I worked in a callcenter, our company made us take a break when we were supposed to by law.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
If your phone rings in your pocket and I shoot you in order to turn it off, and you die in the process, I'm sure I would be charged with - and found guilty of - a murder not a manslaughter - despite killing you never being my intent.
Actually, no.
What you'd run into is reasonable doubt, but you'd be arguing in your defense that the goal was to destroy the phone and not kill the person. That's the entire point of manslaughter vs. murder.
Now, if you had an employee do something unsafe and death could be an outcome, it's negligent manslaughter.
And now you're showing exactly why the legal term "intent" needs to stay where it is.
Because if it changed to your usage, laying out all the dangers of a job would do nothing, because as soon as the employee died it would be 1st degree murder.
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track.
Yeah.
Ignoring the phone metaphor, you're holding a company responsible for intentionally causing all stress that an employee experiences.
-
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
@boomzilla said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
This is getting really stupid. Let's try to get stuff back on track. What, specifically, would you outlaw?
Intentionally causing psychological damage.
Did you not understand the question?
I understood it no less than you understood mine. You asked what I wanted to be illegal. I aswered this.
I'm not sure how you think that's an actual answer to my question.
It relates directly to what you asked for and it used common words everybody knows meaning of.
What does that mean, though?
Oh, a clarifying question. Well, what I meant is:
- intentionally - as in, doing things while being fully aware of consequences;
- causing - as in, being the actor that chooses to do these things (so lower management isn't really responsible if it's higher-ups' decision);
- emotional - as in, not physical;
- damage - as in, altering how the person functions in a negative way.
-
@gąska said in I had nooo idea. Holy shit!:
intentionally - as in, doing things while being fully aware of consequences;
That's where we are miscommunicating.
That's not the definition of intentionally.It's closer to negligence.
I don't intend to get into a wreck if I don't maintain my vehicle.
