5 ms·

Please look at the bigger picture: this is Amazon telling it's current (and future?) employees: if you ever say anything bad about us, all your records will go

Please look at the bigger picture: this is Amazon telling it's current (and future?) employees: if you ever say anything bad about us, all your records will go public, and our head of PR will use any inconsideration in them to argue that your opinion is invalid. Fraud may have been the outlier case here: he's also outing reviews of other people whose opinions he/his employers don't like. That's one way to deal with whistle blowers, and scare the rest of the herd: don't mess with us - we've got your files, and we ain't afraid to put them on Medium.

FussyZeus 11y ago
Two things: - I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. - If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.
- iterati 11y ago
  Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    What you do at your workplace is by definition not private and shouldn't be. When you're on the company clock using the companies resources, the company should know what you're doing, and you should be ok with that. And if any of those things bother you, sorry, you're the problem.
    - tremon 11y ago
      Actually, what you do on company time is private. Or are you arguing that all meeting minutes should always be publicly accessible? Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do? What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood. We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Should privacy really cover what someone else (in this case Amazon) thinks about you? These aren't medical records or other protected information.
    - TravelTechGuy 11y ago
      Several points on this privacy angle: 1. Many of the facts in your HR files are based on heresay - what your colleagues/managers/HR personnel think about you. These are highly subjective facts, very domain and company specific. Airing those out without context is a breach of privacy and can cause great damage to the employee down the line. 2. These files belong to the employer - he can alter them to show whatever he wants them to; either in real time, or after the fact, to justify wrongful termination etc. I've actually seen that happen, when a pregnant colleague of mine was let go, and the management later invented a non-existent reason (right before they settled out of court). 3. Privacy here goes one way: if you, the ex-employee, decide to protect your good name, or retaliate - maybe by discussing what you think really happened, you may be violating the NDA you signed. At worst, you could be sued for libel. Most of the time you have no facts on your side, and you can refer to #2 to see what happens to the facts aligned against you. Finally, imho, if your employee was caught in the process of criminal activity, report him to the appropriate authorities and fire him. Letting him go quietly, only to use this fact against him later, smells of shoddy behavior to your current and past employees, and to your customers.
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        1. I agree, kind of. The documents if released publicly should be made available in whole so context can be seen. 2. This pushes into the conspiracy area though, you'd have to have an entire chain of staff (at least in a company the size of Amazon) that couldn't not know this had occurred, and somehow convince them all to be silent. Not impossible, just unlikely. 3. If the company is releasing info about whatever occurred, an NDA would no longer apply. Why would it? The information is now public knowledge. This I definitely agree with, when employees are found to be stealing it should be handled like any other matter; call the cops and let the process handle itself. Again I think we'd have a much less corrupt corporate culture in our society if we started treating these criminals like criminals.
- lightbritefight 11y ago
  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy? You can leave an employer less than amicably, and not have done anything wrong. Even Amazons claims about the firing are just that, claims. They haven't posted any evidence that it occurred, or that it was against their practices. Its entirely likely that based on their culture, what he was doing was silently encouraged, up until the point they needed a scapegoat. What is does tell you is that if you work at Amazon and ever disagree with them, they will burn your reputation to the ground, and you will have no real recourse. Thats a giant, flaming "go fuck yourself" to any potential hires in the future.
- cwilkes 11y ago
  I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    So in this situation, where this ex-employee's remarks are being used by a large media source to damage the reputation of the company, you don't think the company should have the right to say, "just so you know, this guy resigned after we caught him stealing from our vendors, so you might want to take his statements with a grain of salt."?
    - cwilkes 11y ago
      The problem here is that the buying public doesn't give two hoots about how Amazon employees are treated. They just want cheap goods that are delivered quickly. So there isn't a need to rebut the NYT for them as there's no gain. What has been harmed by the NYT article is Amazon's ability to recruit. And what Mr Carney did makes it even harder. Why would you willing join a company that then goes all Scientology on you if you dare speak against it? He's preaching to the kool aid drinkers when he should have been working on the ones that weren't sure if they should join. This is PR 101.

FussyZeus 11y ago

Two things: - I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. - If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.

iterati 11y ago
Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  What you do at your workplace is by definition not private and shouldn't be. When you're on the company clock using the companies resources, the company should know what you're doing, and you should be ok with that. And if any of those things bother you, sorry, you're the problem.
  - tremon 11y ago
    Actually, what you do on company time is private. Or are you arguing that all meeting minutes should always be publicly accessible? Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do? What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood. We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Should privacy really cover what someone else (in this case Amazon) thinks about you? These aren't medical records or other protected information.
  - TravelTechGuy 11y ago
    Several points on this privacy angle: 1. Many of the facts in your HR files are based on heresay - what your colleagues/managers/HR personnel think about you. These are highly subjective facts, very domain and company specific. Airing those out without context is a breach of privacy and can cause great damage to the employee down the line. 2. These files belong to the employer - he can alter them to show whatever he wants them to; either in real time, or after the fact, to justify wrongful termination etc. I've actually seen that happen, when a pregnant colleague of mine was let go, and the management later invented a non-existent reason (right before they settled out of court). 3. Privacy here goes one way: if you, the ex-employee, decide to protect your good name, or retaliate - maybe by discussing what you think really happened, you may be violating the NDA you signed. At worst, you could be sued for libel. Most of the time you have no facts on your side, and you can refer to #2 to see what happens to the facts aligned against you. Finally, imho, if your employee was caught in the process of criminal activity, report him to the appropriate authorities and fire him. Letting him go quietly, only to use this fact against him later, smells of shoddy behavior to your current and past employees, and to your customers.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      1. I agree, kind of. The documents if released publicly should be made available in whole so context can be seen. 2. This pushes into the conspiracy area though, you'd have to have an entire chain of staff (at least in a company the size of Amazon) that couldn't not know this had occurred, and somehow convince them all to be silent. Not impossible, just unlikely. 3. If the company is releasing info about whatever occurred, an NDA would no longer apply. Why would it? The information is now public knowledge. This I definitely agree with, when employees are found to be stealing it should be handled like any other matter; call the cops and let the process handle itself. Again I think we'd have a much less corrupt corporate culture in our society if we started treating these criminals like criminals.
lightbritefight 11y ago
If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy? You can leave an employer less than amicably, and not have done anything wrong. Even Amazons claims about the firing are just that, claims. They haven't posted any evidence that it occurred, or that it was against their practices. Its entirely likely that based on their culture, what he was doing was silently encouraged, up until the point they needed a scapegoat. What is does tell you is that if you work at Amazon and ever disagree with them, they will burn your reputation to the ground, and you will have no real recourse. Thats a giant, flaming "go fuck yourself" to any potential hires in the future.
cwilkes 11y ago
I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  So in this situation, where this ex-employee's remarks are being used by a large media source to damage the reputation of the company, you don't think the company should have the right to say, "just so you know, this guy resigned after we caught him stealing from our vendors, so you might want to take his statements with a grain of salt."?
  - cwilkes 11y ago
    The problem here is that the buying public doesn't give two hoots about how Amazon employees are treated. They just want cheap goods that are delivered quickly. So there isn't a need to rebut the NYT for them as there's no gain. What has been harmed by the NYT article is Amazon's ability to recruit. And what Mr Carney did makes it even harder. Why would you willing join a company that then goes all Scientology on you if you dare speak against it? He's preaching to the kool aid drinkers when he should have been working on the ones that weren't sure if they should join. This is PR 101.