6 ms·
Both the title and the article are clear that this support is specifically support for blockages of Amazon sites. Title: "Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont
by entity345 8y ago
Both the title and the article are clear that this support is specifically support for blockages of Amazon sites.
Title: "Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont affiché leur soutien aux blocages des "gilets jaunes""
Which translates "Amazon sacks employees who publicly expressed their support for Yellow Vests' blockages"
They report that one posted the following on Facebook " "Bravo à tous pour le blocage d'Amazon", which translates to "Congratulations to all for blocking Amazon!"
Another called on social media for people to join a blockage and to bring supplies to block the road.
To me that looks like a good and valid reason to sack an employee.
- benj111 8y agoSurely the answer is more nuanced? If I as an employee of Amazon, during work time, as an Amazon representative denounce Amazon, then yes sacking may be reasonable. If I'm on my own time speaking as a private individual? I wouldn't say its reasonable to sack them for that. I don't speak French and your translated text doesn't clarify either way.
- sokoloff 8y agoI think calling on people to bring materials for the blockade of your employer is reason for sacking regardless of when the call was made.
- benj111 8y agoIsn't that what a picket is? Is that also a sacking offense?
- entity345 8y agoPicketing is simply standing on public land outside the gates, holding slogans. Blocking the way in either direction is usually an offence (you can get arrested).
- sokoloff 8y agoPicketing is free speech; I fully support the act. Blockading access to the site and impeding operations goes beyond legal/supportable picketing. This I do not support and would support an employer who sacks an employee for it.
- benj111 8y agoThe original post I was responding to said: "Amazon sacks employees who publicly expressed their support for Yellow Vests' blockages" So that doesn't seem to be 'calling on people' to bring material as you wrote in your previous post. I'm also unsure if your post is referring to employees directly partaking in blockading? Please clarify we are on the same page here, because as far as I'm concerned, this is supporting, not partaking. I wont argue with you regarding the nature of 'blockage' because I don't know but 'blockages' could mean picketing or blockading to me.
- sokoloff 8y agoFrom the article: "Il faut du renfort et des palettes, les amis !" which translates roughly to: "It takes reinforcement and pallets, friends!" That is what I read as "calling on people to bring blockade materials." (My French is somewhat halting and far from fluent, but I don't think I've mis-understood here.) Pallets don't have a place in free speech/supportable picketing, IMO. They do have a place in illegal blockades.
- benj111 8y agoPallets are commonly broken up for firewood for pickets, especially in the middle of winter. Pallets certainly don't say blockade to me. So again that could be read either way.
- sokoloff 8y agoIf there's a blockade and that blockade is using pallet material, I would expect the ex-employee to lose that argument. If it's just for fuel, I agree with your point.
- throwawaymanbot 8y agoThen NO sacking is not reasonable.. (except in Bezos cult circles)
- entity345 8y agoI'm afraid it is not more nuanced. As a private individual you have duties to your employer and those duties do not stop when you leave office.
- youdontknowtho 8y agoI have to ask if you are trolling. "as a private individual you have duties to your employer and those duties do not stop when you leave office"... Let's say that is true...I don't think it is, but let's say that it is...where does it end? Can I speak ill of them in public, like at a bar or cafe? What about on the phone? What if my employer contributes funds and energy to causes that are directly opposed to my well being? Being an employee isn't like being a citizen. My relationship with my employer can be entirely transactional. My relationship with the state is more permanent. I think I would like to keep it that way.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago> Let's say that is true...I don't think it is, but let's say that it is...where does it end? Can I speak ill of them in public, like at a bar or cafe? What about on the phone? What if my employer contributes funds and energy to causes that are directly opposed to my well being? Of course, you're free to speak ill of your employer at any time. And they're free to fire you for anything they hear about. It may be shortsighted of them to do so; with a good employer, you should be able to criticize in a productive way and work to change things. But that's not an issue of legality.
- huhtenberg 8y agoIt's really quite simple. Imagine that you are the employer and an employee of yours, on their free time, goes around agitating others to explicitly hurt your company. Can't get any more nuanced that this.
- youdontknowtho 8y agoDepends on what "hurt" means, doesn't it? If you are "agitating" to organize political action, then the most reasonable course of action is to get the interested parties to a negotiating table and come to an agreement that works for everyone. If "hurt" means "anything that keeps me from making as much money as possible to the exclusion of other people's interests"...
- huhtenberg 8y agoHence the "explicitly" qualifier in my comment. Any hostile intent aimed directly at the company itself.
- youdontknowtho 8y agoDoes that mean a material loss of property or just potential loss of profits? I think you get where I'm going with this.
- benj111 8y agoIf I go around campaigning to introduce a carbon tax, reduce plastic use, some other initiative. Does my employer have some right to sack me because it might tangentially hit their bottom line? Am I duty bound to vote for, and encourage others to vote for, any party that would lower corporate taxes? Do I have to (in this example) do all my shopping through Amazon, or am I also allowed to shop at competitors? So yes, I think you can get more nuanced
- huhtenberg 8y ago> it might tangentially hit their bottom line Take your strawman back. I didn't say "tangentially", I said "explicitly". Anything that is aimed directly at the company itself. Like suggesting to nail the office door shut to prevent any work from being done.