Also this one... "Racial profiling is at the heart of Amazon Ring’s business model."
There's a liberal tendency to hyper-focus on race and see everything in the lens of race only. Ironically, I don't think this helps racial injustice that they are set out to resolve.
I think that is just a cheap deflection as this does pretty much normalize people having video cameras surveilling their neighbors as the discussion about the measure itself is delegated to a side show.
Not a conspiracy, they are just a bit clumsy about it.
Is anyone in this thread cognizant of some data that shows whether divestment has a correlation to actual crime data? I would really like to know.
There have been a lot of people talking about divesting. But, I wonder how much has actually occurred. And, whether in places where it has occurred, there has been demonstrated uptick in crime, or whether there are places where crime has risen alongside a marginal reduction in police forces (due to attrition, or whatever).
I would really like to see a factual discussion because it feels like the arguments are generally coming from a bias on both sides and the crime wave happening could be occurring because of number of contributing factors, not just divestment.
Well, first you'd have to find some place where it happened. I don't think there was much in that way, howls to the contrary notwithstanding. What people mean by the terms they throw around is a little inconsistent so I'm not going to hazard a guess as to exactly what the article writers think.
“The other signatories, a majority of whom were engineers, declined to publicly disclose their names because they did not want to jeopardize employment at Blue Origin or harm their prospects in the aerospace industry for other jobs.”
It's what happens when there aren't enough colleagues willing to also sign. Once a majority are willing to sign, it's a lot easier to make your name public. Unfortunately, prior to that point there is a ding you take on credibility. However, it's pretty odd for employees to want their company to get criticized like this unless it deserves it. Why start something unless its real when the consequences are fighting the first or second richest man in the world?
Possible, but unlikely. Usually when workers speak up they're the tip of the iceberg. This is different from e.g. celebrities because when they say something, they get attention, adulation, sell shit etc. When workers speak up, they are risking mostly negative consequences and so most speech is repressed.
> It’s like Nixon’s “silent majority” of supporters.
The term "silent majority" referred to people in the 1968 and 1972 elections who held moderate-to-conservative views that weren't represented in the mass protests and domestic terrorism of the time. Considering that Nixon won both presidential elections--1972 in an utter landslide--it turned out that the "silent majority" actually existed--quite unlike these anonymous signatories.
I get what you are saying, but then what is the solution for people who have legitimate complaints, but fear reprisal if they don't remain anonymous?
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to go up against their employer without repercussions that are worse than the original complaint. But that doesn't mean people should just have to suck it up and put up with unjust (and perhaps illegal) behavior.
"This org is kind of shitty. Sadly, I need to move on.". That's what the vast majority of people do. Unless there are clearly illegal acts, say withholding pay or physical endangerment, not sure why people would want to pick a public fight with their employer. It's a lose-lose proposition.
Exactly this. You can be the best Physical Security - Spacecraft Engineer (making up a title obviously) on the planet who can make sure no unauthorized entities get into a spacecraft but if you piss off the 5 people who run spacecraft companies you will be unemployed.
Oh phooey. Expertise like that is very transferable. I didn't have any trouble transitioning from being an aerospace gearbox expert to writing software and then compilers.
My experience agrees with the OP. Aerospace is sometimes considered a subset of mechanical engineering which is a very broad field that can be applied across many domains.
Now if you've spent your career in a very narrow subset of that field and not developed transferrable skills along the way, I'm not sure the fault is entirely the employer's.
Right. I have a skill set from a previous job that I don't use anymore. I could get hired tomorrow to do that job again but I have no interest in it. I guess if we are saying highly skilled people can find another job then I agree but that wasnt the argument.
It's a small world, and painting a target on your back for employers when you need to work to feed your family and see a doctor might not be the best decision for those people at the moment.
I might agree with you if they were better organized and had more leverage. But right now, they aren't and they don't.
Thank you for that statistic from 50 years ago. I'm talking about today. Companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc. are basically a rotating pool. I have personally wound up working alongside several coworkers from previous jobs, and none of us were referrals. It's such a common experience that it's become something of a running joke.
It's only a rotating pool because people want to stay in aerospace. Many of those engineers can transfer to other fields if they really had the desire. They could work in automotive, energy, oil and gas, etc. I assume they either like aerospace or don't feel comfortable enough to branch out to other domains.
Aerospace is one of those fields where many people feel like they are moving backwards if they leave because of the status/prestige attached to it.
If our job-field selection process has to include "field where most companies in it aren't toxic" as a major factor, that's... not a good sign. I don't think it'd be a good result if people had to leave their field and move to another one because the culture at most companies in their field is toxic.
I was mainly addressing the comment about the lack of prospects, not really making any claims about the aerospace culture as a whole. However, it would be interesting to see if toxic culture may correlate with specific industries, like those who are constantly competing for low-bid government contracts or high-risk projects. It seems like it could add some added pressure.
Some fields definitely have that reputation more than others. I don't know anything about BO specifically, but I wouldn't advise anyone to go into aerospace if they wanted a low-key hipster culture.
>if people had to leave their field and move to another one because the culture at most companies in their field is toxic.
Some people do exactly this. Oil and manufacturing are examples engineers will sometimes avoid because of the culture associated with them.
I don't know that I agree, unless you equate "more pay" to the same thing as "more desirable". Typically, I see the opposite where the desirable conditions (fulfillment, status, general low-stress working conditions) with what most people correlate with the more desirable fields. It seems less desirable fields have to make up for that with higher pay.
The issue isn't that people are trapped at their current job (though some people may also feel that way, who knows), it's that if they stand up against poor treatment at their current job, the other companies in the field won't hire them.
Sure, another option is to not say anything at all, and just quietly quit and go to another company, but that doesn't really solve the problem; it just makes it someone else's problem.
And if the pool of companies is small enough, you also run the risk of these bad behaviors cropping up everywhere, with nowhere else to go.
If you don't like the conditions at work, adult up and try to fix it. Or find another job. Or start your own outfit. (Didn't some Google auto-drive engineers do just that?)
Writing an anonymous letter because you willingly signed a statement that you wouldn't is - well how can I put this - not something I can respect.
Walter, respectfully, I can see that you aren't interested in trying to actually understand what I'm saying, or acknowledging that things might have changed since you graduated, or respecting that someone who has worked for multiple launch providers might actually know something about them. That being the case, I'm going to end our discussion here.
> "In 2019, Blue Origin leadership requested that all employees sign new contracts with a non-disparagement clause binding them and their heirs from ever saying something that would 'hurt the goodwill of the company,'" the essay authors write. "Contracts for some departing employees now mandated they pay the corporation’s legal fees if the corporation chose to sue them for breach of contract. The inner circle of leadership tracked who signed and discussed contingency plans for those who did not."
> Defamation is essentially, “Don't make up bad things about us to hurt us,” while disparagement is, “Don't say bad things about us—even if they're true.” So, yes, even if your happy-hour venting session or LinkedIn post references something totally true and not malicious, it's still considered disparagement.
I suppose a parent might be held responsible for their kids below a certain age - and getting pissy about what a 15 year old is saying on their Twitch stream is totally in keeping with my experience of Bezos' corporate PR.
That said, this should be laughed out of court regardless of the age of the "heirs". In Europe you could reasonably expect that to happen with minimal bother, but in the US I expect the employee would end up paying a six figure sum for the privilege of getting the case thrown out.
It’s not as simple as “the driver can take over if they need to.” In many cases it takes a human too long to recognize the system doing something dangerous and to intervene. This is going to end badly.
Indeed, recognizing the problem takes vital time and taking over to execute a maneuver is way harder than executing the same maneuver while you're already in control.
I don’t think RVs are a good indicator. My wife and I just bought a 32’ Class A motorhome to travel around the country in the fall, since I’m forced to work remotely and the kids will be doing school remotely. If there were no pandemic, we would have never dreamed of buying one.
Right, I agree that this is probably the fundamental reason. Just not something I'd have expected going into this crisis.
I'm glad for it, though, we're going to put ours on the market in a couple weeks after our last planned camping trip for the year, a strong market will be good for resale. Hoping it weakens a bit over the winter, though, because before next season rolls around I'll want another.
Most teams wouldn't bat an eye at a few weeks working somewhere else. The managers will change their tune if they lose engineers over such a stupid policy.
Zuck can do whatever he thinks is “fair” but ultimately he has to deal with the realities of the labor market, which will change if remote works really catches on.
I'm sure Zuck doesn't know the concept of fairness and would laugh if someone would explain it to him. Words that Zuck understands are "efficient", "justifiable", "profitable".
