21–30 of 416 posts
That's the reason why I don't buy anything from Amazon and prefer to pay a bit more to a local store instead.
I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…
Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?
Though, in the NYT’s case, they’ve been predictably going straight downhill since they adopted Fox News’ high level strategy of chasing, fanning and profiting from political and social polarization.
So, nobody’s holding their breath that NYT would rise to that challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?
Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?
To do it’s job as journalist institution. Though, in the NYT’s case, they’ve been predictably going straight downhill since they adopted Fox News’ high level strategy of chasing, fanning and profiting from political and social polarization. So, nobody’s holding their breath that NYT would rise to that challenge.
I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…
That's a funny euphemism for "statement written by a corporate PR person who may not have any clue about what they are talking about, and may be repeating someone's lies."
I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…
Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for…
They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.
> now disproven legal theories
Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazo…
This kind of “both sides” journalism has been weaponized by bad actors to the point it does a disservice to readers. They use it as a way to inject talking points into the public discourse. I think the last 10 years have showed us that there are definitely some points of view that are more valuable than others, and that treating all points of view as carrying equal weight is a false equivalency that simply creates openings for bad-faith actors (and Amazon is hardly the first company / politician to act in bad faith).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We’ve got you covered* >*Applies to regular full-time employees. >Don’t buy that dinner, don’t buy those school supplies, don’t buy those gifts because you won’t have that almost $500 you paid in dues. WHY NOT save the money and get the books, gifts & things you want? I've seen better propaganda for EVE Online and most people are doing that as a joke
I am actually curious to see the EVE Online propaganda. Do you have any links?
The labor laws in place violate the freedom of association and are terrible for social welfare. There is a reason why unionization is associated with enterprise decline, and why shareholders oppose it. Amazon is doing immense good for US quality of life and raising US export revenue, and there is no benefit in jeopardizing that to give a select group of workers a monopoly over the jobs it offers.