Hacker News Reader

Comment by ascar | Hacker News Reader

I don't think there is a huge ethical problem with automatically terminating employees based on metrics. Quite the opposite, it could make this process more fair.

The problem is in how the metrics are used and there is no real difference between an ill-meaning profit-hungry manager and an ill-meaning profit-hungry algorithm.

Laying off employees for bathroom breaks or short (days, few weeks) fluctuations in productivity is wrong. But it's wrong if an algorithm does it or a human does it. Algorithms could be used to prevent firing an employee in such a situation.

View on HN

    > ... Algorithms could be used to prevent firing an employee in such a situation.

I think you're being _very_ optimistic and a bit naive about the motivations of a business that would resort to such algorithms.

They want to maximize the throughput rate of picking boxes and minimize their cost. Sure, it sounds "objective" to say that everyone who doesn't meet the pre-agreed work criteria would be fired (and not-fired if they meet it).

But who gets to set that threshold? Who determines what is reasonable? What if that performance threshold can only be met by fit young people and only until their bodies can't take the stress anymore? How will workers even assess whether or not they can do the job until they try?

This is an ugly practice. If it survives, it will be coming to a cubicle near you someday. Hope I am retired by then.

>But who gets to set that threshold? Who determines what is reasonable? What if that performance threshold can only be met by fit young people and only until their bodies can't take the stress anymore? How will workers even assess whether or not they can do the job until they try?

If it's harmful to the worker, then it should fall under the purview of OSHA in the US.

Otherwise, that threshold is set by consumers who choose to patronize businesses that treat their employees in a certain way. Almost all of the time, for goods that can't be distinguished from one another, consumers will choose to patronize a business offering the lowest price available to them, hence the businesses that squeeze the most out of the workers survive and the others do not.

   > ...then it should fall under the purview of OSHA in the US.

Will OSHA end up being an algorithm as well?

Sorry, but contrary to techno-libertarian fundamentalist beliefs, institutions and courts just can't keep up when things are so insanely lopsided in favor of the rich and powerful.

That said, nothing is going to stop amazon from instituting whatever crazy "expert system" they want to abuse warehouse workers until they're all robots.

All they've really done here is automate their management. It's the next logical step. If you can automate the pickers with robots, and the managers' jobs can be replicated by an algorithm, why not automate the managers too?

If Bezos could find a way to automate himself, I'm pretty sure he would. And why not? He still owns the stock. Robot Bezos would do all the work and meaty Bezos would make all the money.

The psychology of it is fucked. It is so impersonal. Are you even notified that you've been terminated or you show up and your badge doesn't work. No explanation provided, just algo129 determined poor metrics. Sucks to work there not knowing what the blackbox is watching or when your time will come.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com