Comment by kcplate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kcplate | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

People seem to think that once they are hired that their employer owes them something more than the agreed upon compensation for the work they agreed to do for them.

If your work capabilities continually suffer, short of legally protected events, at some point your company will make moves to end the employment if you are no longer able to provide value for your compensation. Doesn’t matter if Amazon or a mom and pop shop. At some point there is an end to patience in every organization. In a company with 1.3M employees…it will be unlikely that his situation was all that unique among the employees. With that many employees there could easily be a thousand or more employees dealing with a similar family illness issue, and with similar inabilities to take unpaid LOAs. So a consistency of the policies governing this type of thing will always trump special single considerations in a corporation.

As long as Amazon consistently applied it’s policies it’s simply not at fault, and I would argue handled this situation as morally as a corporation could. Amazon is not at fault for the illness, nor at fault for the employee’s inability to take an unpaid leave. If they provided the opportunity for the employee to take an unpaid LOA and preserve his $300k job…that is a helluva benefit to that employee in my mind.

> People seem to think that once they are hired that their employer owes them something more than the agreed upon compensation for the work they agreed to do for them.

Legally, no.

Morally and ethically, yes they do. And the consequences for breaking a moral or ethical 'rule' is loss of reputation, which is exactly what this post is doing to them. And if companies keep doing this kind of thing, as a society we might decide to make it a legal matter, like we did for minimum wage and protected classes.

Would you make the argument the other way? Where employees owe their company more than their agreed upon effort? I don’t think so.

But what exactly did Amazon do here that was immoral or not ethical? Honestly I don’t see where it failed. The company may not of met the author’s expectations, but I feel like his expectation was “pay me no matter my performance because I cannot afford to take a LOA when my wife is dying, and I am way depressed because I never grieved for my brother…who died before I even came to work here.” Frankly, that is a wholly unreasonable expectation to place on any company.

> But what exactly did Amazon do here that was immoral or not ethical?

They made him "choose" between his wife and his works. Well they didn't actually made him choose, as the alternative was inconceivable, thus, they forced him to perform while his wife was in a death sentence.

That's the unethical part.

No, they gave him options and good ones too. STD, LTD, and a LOA, and including a severance at the end was available to him. He did all the choosing and every step of the way appears to have chosen poorly or chose in favor of the $ over his own mental health needs.

Chose to work there, chose not to take advantage of a LOA, STD, or LTD, chose work over grief for his brother, chose to take a losing stance on his perceived value at the company.

I’m sympathetic to his family tragedy, that’s an awful thing to endure, but this is less “bad bosses” and more “ignorant or greedy worker” in my opinion.

So what should they have done? Paid him a $300k per year salary to do nothing?

They didn't have to pay it directly, but it is common for companies to have contingencies to pay employees 60% or more of their base salary "to do nothing: Amazon was already paying for, in part, long-term disability insurance, but the employee, manager, or - most surprisingly - HR were not in the headspace to even think of this, I assume because the default mode of is adversarial.

It’s the employee’s responsibility to engage STD and LTD. Everything in this article the author was complaining about was either his responsibility or due to poor choices he made.

The company does owe employees a lot more than agreed compensation. Companies, as entities in our society, fulfill certain roles which are without exception means to something else. We use (commercial) companies as instruments to improve human life. Modern economy in its entirety is but an instrument and not a goal in itself.

I've grossly oversimplified things here for a number of reasons, but this is pretty much the gist of it.

Companies effectively work as tyrannies where the tradeoff involved (renounce freedoms for the promise that money is) appears to be eventually disadvantageous for the society, even though it may seem advantageous for the economy.

Companies owe society a better life or they're not fit for purpose.

I mean that’s a great pitch for universal healthcare as any I’ve heard. I would be for strengthening the FMLA as much as possible. But I’m not even sure covid is impactful enough.

How? The article and subsequent comments don’t seem to complain about healthcare offered or FMLA at all. To be honest, he qualified for and was apparently offered a LOA and CHOSE NOT to take it!

I mean argue for universal healthcare all you want, argue FMLA protection expansions. But if $150-180k in LTD payout wasn’t enough for this guy to opt to take it, I am pretty sure a government program is not going to be that generous, ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com