[mrmuagi]

The scenario becomes weird when you take a step back and realize that she is a human being and bodily functions are even being monitored in such a way. I go to the bathroom sometimes more than her and the reasons are extremely defensible even outside medical reasons. Drink water often and see (although I would say perhaps with electrolytes mixed in as not to flush them out). I would not even doubt this was an excuse and they just wanted to get rid of her. It just feels icky, why does your manager need proof of your medical issue? What if it's a more private issue and you really don't want your medical privacy to be known to your manager? Perhaps a sexual organ is involved, and you are just not comfortable being pried into that way. Yuck.

I want to honestly ask you, how would you feel if someone monitored how many times you got up to stretch, how often you went to the bathroom, chatted with a coworker, or even just paused in thought and stopped touching your keyboard/mouse. Like a fucking human with diginity does. Would that not feel weird in your perspective? I certainly get vibes that this type of managerial practice is draconian and dehumanizing, and although my information about her day to day is limited, from the article, it seemed like an excuse to power trip and fire without justified cause.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

60%+ of Americans work in retail once in their lives, where bathroom breaks are almost always monitored. The people working at Walmart, grocery stores, department stores, etc. are absolutely expected to man their shift until their scheduled break, as are many people that work in restaurants, on manufacturing floors, etc.

It's inhumane, yes, but it's not Amazon-specific.

[inter_netuser]

Not even just retail.

Call centers are like that too.

[b9a2cab5]

It sounds like you've never worked with people who intentionally "use the bathroom" to not work. If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

Blue collar work / retail is not like tech where your output is not necessarily a function of hours worked. In tech you can go to the bathroom 8 hours a day as long as you get your work done. Can you say the same for a warehouse worker?

[srswtf123]

So what you’re saying is: it’s reasonable to dehumanize blue collar workers because they might be lazy?

[mrmuagi]

> It sounds like you've never worked with people who intentionally "use the bathroom" to not work. If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

If it's perfectly reasonable, perhaps there's no need for a court case? Or maybe you could concede that there's more details to the story and it remains to be seen if Amazon was being perfectly reasonable. I think it's more the latter, and despite my biases due to the obvious negative press Amazon gets, it may not be the case. Let's be perfectly reasonable ourselves, I made assumptions that the manager was just trying to fire the lady because Amazon be Amazon. You are making assumptions that the worker is a freeloading grifter, and also this:

> If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it's productive to throw assumptions about my work history. I think it's laughable you are using this "you are privileged" argument I've seen time and time again used against to people supportive of Amazon's employment practices here, and swap the worker for the employer. I actually had to double take your stance, because I really had trouble with you assuming my personal work history, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are addressing the general audience having that viewpoint instead. I think you are bringing up a great point by the way, but I am no means in that "white collar tech bubble".

And hey, consider this, the fact you are typing on this forum right at this moment shows we both have a bubble of sorts, where we can type comments and yell at our monitors on a lazy sunday. Some people have to work, and I am pretty sure I'll still get deliveries by Amazon on Sunday.

[ctvo]

> If it's perfectly reasonable, perhaps there's no need for a court case? Or maybe you could concede that there's more details to the story and it remains to be seen if Amazon was being perfectly reasonable

Anyone can bring a civil claim against anyone in America. If lawyers think the reputation damage will get Amazon to settle they'll front all bills for a percentage. Your position is exactly what the lawyers hope for at this stage.

---

> But Amazon said she was expected to be seeking more than $75,000, one of the reasons it sought to move the case to federal court.

This is pennies for Amazon to settle. They won't since it'll open them up to more of these, and they'll spend as much time here as possible to send a message on the costs of litigating against them to others in the future.

[mrmuagi]

> Your position is exactly what the lawyers hope for at this stage.

My dread is complete. The avenue disgruntled employees have to air out injustices also lines the pocket of lawyers.

Jokes aside, I appreciate your analysis. There's always another layer to the onion. There's definitely someone at Amazon corporate weighing the scales as you so astutely elaborated. In the end though I am interested to hear about the disability protections afforded by NJ legislature and if they apply here.

[inter_netuser]

what costs?

some lawyer is picking this up on contingency. They'll have a confidential settlement at some point that will not be binding nor set precedent.

It'll be cheaper for Amazon to do that, than keep sending lawyers to court.

[b9a2cab5]

I took a quick look through your comments. You seem to work in tech and/or IT. Either of which can be considered white collar and neither of which has hourly work you need to get done.

Have you ever worked as a retail worker? Or teacher? Or anything that _isn't_ do your work any time during the day? Or for that matter, have you worked as an frontline IT tech before? If you've done any of these things I think it'd be obvious that this is a completely reasonable case. What would be _unreasonable_ and medical discrimination would be if the woman got fired 5 days after being notified to get a doctor's note. In this case she had 2 months to get a doctor's note, then got written up, then had 5 days to get a doctor's note after _she had already been notified for 2 months_.

Maybe step out of your "big tech and Bezos are evil" bubble for just a moment and consider things objectively. Amazon has plenty of _legitimate_ abuses but this isn't one of them. You seem to believe that all jobs should allow you to behave as if you're a white collar tech worker who can get their work done any time.

[hkt]

> Like a fucking human with diginity does.

There isn't enough righteous indignation about this on HN. Thank you. (No sarcasm, there really isn't enough - we need to care more about people's lives.)

[davidjytang]

I myself am used to not being monitored. But a famous PCB factories in my country has famous policy that production line workers should always "run" to the toilet. Consequences if caught walking.

Also famous anecdote of Terry Guo: during breaks between meetings, top level executives including Guo might go to the toilets. If you were one of the executive and happen to pick a urinal right next to Guo, he would peek if your urine looked healthy. If it looks healthy, that means he can and will put more workload on you.

[dboreham]

I will say this is all true but when you end up managing someone who just doesn't want to work, you may change your opinion. It's been many decades since I was in that position and it has occurred only once in my career, but it happens. Very disturbing experience tbh.

[threatofrain]

You can ask your doctor to simply be vague and affirm that you have a clinically significant problem which requires accommodation. There is no reason to get into the details, except with respect to the ways you're asking to be accommodated.

Similarly, if you were attending a public institution, it makes sense that if you're seeking special accommodation then you'd at least have to disclose how you want to be accommodated. It does not mean you have to disclose you have IBS.

What we might debate is whether 2 months is a reasonable timeframe to ask for a doctor to write a note, or whether 6 bathroom trips a day should be the threshold that a warehouse should care about.

[mrmuagi]

> You can ask your doctor to simply be vague and affirm that you have a clinically significant problem which requires accommodation.

That's a good point. I think the remaining obstacles left is perhaps getting that doctors note. I don't live in the tri-state area and have no idea how hard it would be in the current climate.

> What we might debate is whether 2 months is a reasonable timeframe to ask for a doctor to write a note, or whether 6 bathroom trips a day should be the threshold that a warehouse should care about.

Eh, true, so I guess we need more info. Were the bathroom trips long? What if they were pretty long and she actually suffered from IBS -- seems like her lawyers are just making an argument she is protected under disability laws? I am not sure then.

[inter_netuser]

Diagnoses are almost never revealed on accomodation requests, only what aspects need to be accomodated.