121–130 of 399 posts
I wonder what their recruiting team thinks about these moves by the company. I know I will not work for Amazon seeing how the manage dissent at the company and I’m sure there are many other people who feel the same.
I think the kind of person that works at Amazon, after all that's been disclosed about worker conditions, is likely to be completely OK with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)
I can't honestly say I disagree with you. There must be a line between you and work and a question where that line is is a valid question. As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices,…
Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong.
> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said. > Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publ…
Amazon is firing them for commenting publicly on its business. If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?
Google had a similar policy and, after losing NLRA cases, had to issue a notice to all employees saying that its previous policies no longer included discussing working conditions with the public.
Amazon will likely get sued over this, and very likely lose in a similar matter, as their conduct here is even more egregious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)
> Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All US states recognize at-will employment. This does not mean that people can be fired for any reason, there are numerous laws that define reasons that are prohibited. But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.
Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity by the NLRB. Firing workers for that is explicitly illegal. You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.
Didn't help that Google guy. The NLRB itself even issued some sort of opinion stating that he had violated corporate policy and that his firing was thus justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've reread this comment a few times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's obviously true, but why post something with such a smug and gloating tone? Are you happy about how Amazon warehouse workers are treated and pleased to see people speaking out being fired in the midst of a pandemic?
Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And maybe it was reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I think the GP was mostly just trying to…
The UX designer probably work in a cushy Amazon corporate office with free snacks and drinks, but amazon warehouse roles are probably under more spartan and strict conditions. How does Amazon warehouse work conditions compare to other warehouse work conditions. That's the better comparable.
If any programmer was thrown into a construction or blue collar work environment they probably won't like the work conditions. But for cost reasons they can't extend the same benefits for people who sort packages the same as people who write code or design screens.
The best way to protest an employer is to not work for them. As UX designers who made it into Amazon they probably have other choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said. > Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publ…
If I criticized my employer in the national media, I'd expect to be shown the door too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
You have a very unrealistic view of how employment works.
What is your view?