Reasonable people acting reasonably is how we got to where we are, and there are a lot of people who aren’t happy with the results. I’m sure you would like those people to remain calm, but I don’t know that it’s wise to expect that they will continue doing so forever.
> During his second week at Amazon, Smith was approached by workers involved in organizing the Amazon Labor Union. Although Smith loved his job, he thought there were things that could be improved. In particular, he said, he was concerned about the warehouse’s extremely rapid pace of work and lack of breaks.
https://www.nysfocus.com/2021/11/23/a-homeless-amazon-worker...
> Everyone else working around me was working at their own pace and he was just on me sending me more carts to sort and telling me to work faster
One reason he gave for joining the union was "the warehouse’s extremely rapid pace of work."
Wait, are you saying he should take a step back and make fewer good decisions? You don't think this was a major bad decision, but you also don't think he should have made it?
I'm trying to follow the line of logic that says that people who make mistakes should stop doing anything else even if they're not making a new mistake. I mean, that sounds a lot like saying that he made a bad choice and therefore he just shouldn't participate in society now regardless of the role or appropriateness of his actions, even after serving his sentence. And if that's the implication, I'd push back against that sentiment pretty hard.
I'm saying he should not trust his own decision making process right now, considering how often those decisions have led him to a negative outcome.
"Wait and see" is very tricky advice to give to someone who was working at Amazon out of a homeless shelter. How confident are you that staying homeless and not taking steps to try and improve his working conditions would have had a better outcome for him?
I am skeptical that "this had costs" is a good enough reason to say that this was a bad decision. A big part of coming out of rock bottom for people is the active decision not to stay at rock bottom, so if you don't think it was a major bad decision and you're just pointing out that it was risky... that's not a good enough criticism for me to be sympathetic to. From what I can tell, pretty much every life decision is risky when you're homeless.
There's also something of a chicken and egg problem here. Bad jobs are sustainable because they hire desperate people. If you're advocating that people who have made mistakes and ended up in desperate places shouldn't do bold things or make major life changes, then that is essentially saying that they should stay in those positions (even though I know that's not what you mean to imply). Who is going to challenge the status quo around desperate jobs if we say that the people working those jobs aren't supposed to advocate for themselves?