7 ms·

Amazon threatened to fire employees for speaking out on climate, workers say

97 points by vanusa 7y ago

advisedwang 7y ago
Landlords can't ban their tenants from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a tenant). Hospitals can't ban their patients from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a patient). Airlines can't ban their passengers from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a passenger). The general rule is that if an individual is in an economic relationship with a large institution, it is important for them to be able to comment publicly on that institution. This is needed to address they myriad, well known ways that institutions can do stupid or even evil things. It is especially important when there is a huge power imbalance that tends to perpetuate sick institutional behaviours. And so: Companies shouldn't be able to ban their employees from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as an employee).
- papito 7y ago
  Those are not employees - those are clients. Any hospital and airline has the right to discipline or fire an employee who talks crap about their place of employment, publicly.
tidepod12 7y ago
Alternate title: Amazon employee was given a warning by HR after she explicitly broke company policy regarding talking to the press I know it's fun to hate on the big tech companies recently and act like they are bullies (and indeed in many ways they are), but this is a bad example of that. Most companies I know of would outright fire you if you, against explicit company policy, went to the press and started badmouthing your employer. The fact that Amazon only gave her a warning is the only surprising thing in this article.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  Your alternative title is accurate, but doesn't make Amazon look any better.
- uoaei 7y ago
  This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.
  - tengbretson 7y ago
    There are proper channels for affecting change internally at a company. It's clear that these channels are working to some degree since an internal faction just pressured the company into adopting an aggressive climate pledge. My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.
    - uoaei 7y ago
      This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument. Appeals to authority all the way down.
      - tengbretson 7y ago
        Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        uoaei 7y ago
        The concept of "decorum" has historically been used as suppression from above of deviations from the status quo. Particularly to shut up women's movements, branding them as "hysterical" and "bitchy".
        deogeo 7y ago
        And corporations are those who decide what the "agreed upon decorum" is.
- papito 7y ago
  Indeed, a very misleading headline in the age of automatic outrage. If your values do not align with your place of employment - quit. You are working for a private entity, not the government,
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > If your values do not align with your place of employment - quit. Why? There are many avenues for change, why limit yourself to just quitting? People are more than just workers and consumers.
    - papito 7y ago
      The issue in this case was specifically that the employees did not pursue internal avenues and instead went public with it. Nothing stops you from writing an email to the CEO and express your concerns. At your own risk, of course.
    - zo1 7y ago
      Because it's a very non-confrontational way of expressing your view and "voting" with your time & effort. Why fight an entity that you give value to anyways through your employment, it almost cancels out. Rather work to better a company that aligns with your own views while at the same time potentially calling out the other company. Then again, if they choose to stay and their contract says they aren't allowed to do this (assuming its reasonable), then they should also accept it when they get fired and move along.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  If the company had nothing to feel guilty about they wouldn’t have a problem about their employees talking to the press.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    This sounds eerily similar to the commonly mocked argument of "why would you care about strong encryption, privacy, and agencies spying on you, if you have nothing to hide?"
    - Nextgrid 7y ago
      I am not sure the analogy applies. First off we are talking about benign matters like employees' opinions, not trade secrets (common sense would prevent the latter from leaking). Second, I am not advocating to force anyone to disclose anything, but merely for them to have the potential to do so if they wish. If you trust them enough to complete the task then surely you should also trust their common sense about what to talk and not talk about (trade secrets, etc) to the press? If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it? There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect.
      - filoleg 7y ago
        >If you trust them enough to complete the task then surely you should also trust their common sense about what to talk and not talk about (trade secrets, etc) to the press? I trust people at the company to have common sense about what to talk and not talk about, as long as it is their job, as they are most likely able to have the full story and consider the situation from all angles. However, I do not trust an average engineer's common sense to know what to talk/not talk about, especially considering how narrowly scoped most of the engineering work (and, conversely, their exposure to the overall big picture) is. >There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect. Agreed with this one, but it only seems to support my previous point about the big picture. If you work at a small company, you are way more likely to have an understanding of the big picture than a cog at a big tech company, who stands very little chance at doing so. >If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it? There doesn't have to be any real "dirty laundry", it's all about how people on the outside can spin the story, even if the facts leaked are true. Just look at this submission post itself. Factually, it is true, because an employee spoke out about the company on the topic of climate change and got fired for it. Or, a more level-headed view, would be something more like "An employee acted as if they were representing company views while giving an interview regarding company policies and got fired for it regardless of their stance on the issue." Which of the two do you think will be more unfavorable to the company and paint it in a bad light? Which one opens up the company more to the potential damage?
jbob2000 7y ago
Every company I’ve ever worked for has had language that forbids me from speaking to the media on behalf of the company. This has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with violating the agreement you signed when you joined the company.
- eropple 7y ago
  "On behalf of"? That's a characterization that's doing a whole lot of heavy lifting for you. Where did anyone imply she was saying anything "on behalf of" Amazon? A person's personal time and personal views are theirs, theirs alone, and must be protected from their employer. The best way to keep an employee from speaking up when you're doing dirty is to not do dirty. And we, as that society that grants Amazon and similar megacorporations the privilege of (for it is not a right to exist, they aren't people) existence, should break straight in half any of them that tries to curb its employees from speaking up when that company is doing dirty. "Shut up and be a cog." No. Do no such thing. Be a citizen and be a human, and help others do the same.
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    You can have your own views and you are allowed to speak them as you wish. What you can’t do is make your personal views appear as if they are also the company’s views.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      Where, in the article referenced in another comment, does that employee imply they speak for the company? The policy prevents employees from speaking, period, if they are identified at all as Amazon employees. In my view, saying "I wish I were permitted to bring my values to my job doing UI design at Amazon" is not in any way speaking for the company.
      - zo1 7y ago
        Well, to be fair, they go under the group name "Amazon Employees for Climate Justice". Let's be reasonable and see it from the employers view that this sort of title has some sort of greater than zero implication that this entity speaks for Amazon. What do we think Amazon would/should do if someone external to Amazon went under an entity name such as "Amazon Executive Committee" and posted controversial/activist like content? I would imagine that Amazon would attempt to deal with the negative PR of some people thinking that this is some sort of official Amazon group.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> A further 8,000 Amazon employees subsequently signed an open letter to Bezos calling for concrete climate goals; to cancel contracts with oil and gas companies; and to stop donations to politicians who deny the reality of the climate crisis. The one thing that will kill the growth of cloud is that if businesses feel that their contracts are at the whim of activist employees. This policy is Jeff Bezos sending out a strong signal that AWS will not listen to these activist employees in that regard.
- davidcbc 7y ago
  The climate crisis should be more important than AWS growth, even for Amazon. A severe environmental collapse is gonna be pretty rough on Amazon's bottom line
  - enitihas 7y ago
    It is like the tragedy of the commons. Even if AWS decided they will not serve oil companies, those companies will simply take their business elsewhere, e.g to Microsoft, or even worse, to Oracle. This will simply have the effect of hurting the company caring about the climate, and benefitting the ones who don't give a damn. Shared resources like the environment can't be protected by the good will of anyone company. They need to be protected by the letter of the law.
halfcreative 7y ago
It seems like they were threatened termination for disobeying the new policy they implemented as stated in the article. >"The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." Not really saying anything about if the policy is ok or not, just that it doesn't seem like this is really about climate change but rather speaking out against the company
- Twirrim 7y ago
  That new policy sounds a lot like the old policy that prohibited Amazon employees from speaking publicly. I hope that there's some nuance I'm missing there, I was glad to see that Amazon had dropped the old social media etc. policy.
rdiddly 7y ago
The Amazon policy seems pretty similar to ones at other companies - if you're being asked to speak as their employee, you're supposed to refer all those inquiries to the corporate PR office or what-have-you. Because talking to the press isn't part of your job description. But if you're speaking to the press during non-work hours and off company premises, then I feel like you should be able to say what you want, as long as it doesn't reveal trade secrets. But I don't know what the policy or the law says about that. Anyway if it's a problem, then it's a simple matter of having a journalist attribute the quote to "...an Amazon employee who requested anonymity." It's not ideal for the reporter, but they are mostly pretty accustomed to protecting sources.
- bjourne 7y ago
  The idea is that you are not allowed to pretend to be the spokesperson of the company you work for. But it is absolutely allowed to referer to yourself as a <job description> at <Company> when speaking publicly. Amazon telling their employees that they can't call themselves Amazon employees is unprecedented.
aurizon 7y ago
do not buy from Amazon due to their huge carbon footprint produced by individual box delivery
- tengbretson 7y ago
  The carbon footprint of individual box delivery is unquantifiable compared to their competitors since we have no way of knowing how much more efficient this allows them to be with regard to logistics – reducing miles driven, warehousing, personnel, etc. all of which contribute to the overall carbon footprint of the operation.
  - aurizon 7y ago
    True, it is hard to asses, and as amazon rolls out e-trucks, that foorprint will decline unless the internal combustion and the oil lobby bribe politicians to charge e-vehiles road taxes
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Do you have a source for how much carbon amazon produces vs other internet sites vs people driving to stores?
  - aurizon 7y ago
    No, but as electric cars and trucks proliferate it will surely decline on both fronts.
- lightgreen 7y ago
  You never know if another Amazon competitor has a larger or smaller carbon footprint. The only way to decide who does smaller footprint is to ask your government to introduce/increase carbon tax, and then simply buy what's cheaper.
  - aurizon 7y ago
    true enough, the economics are foggy
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
It seems critically important to note that Costa's speaking out was more than comments in an article like this one. She was the subject of a full interview article from Techcrunch, which billed her as an "Amazon principal UX design lead", although there's no way for us to know if that's the specific thing that Amazon objected to.
- BryantD 7y ago
  The first chunk of that article is here[1]; worth deciding for yourself if you think this qualifies as speaking for the company or not. As you say, this may or may not be the specific objection. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethical-leadership-in-big-tech-with-amazon-principal-ux-design-lead-maren-costa/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethi...
riyadparvez 7y ago
I think we are in the acitvism bubble. The outrage culture and now this stir the pot activism are fueling certain individuals narcissism to the detriment of the cause and rest of us.
- radicaldreamer 7y ago
  We’re in a self expression bubble. It threatens not only the those in power, but people who believe in hierarchy and control as well.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      > I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed. It still is imo. You cannot really gain your 5 minutes of fame (rather than infamy) by spewing hurtful or toxic viewpoints. Self-expression, in this case, imo feels more like self-promotion, which is exactly what narcissism is all about. If the "activist" in the OP was speaking about some other topic that wasn't as highly publicized and important as climate change, no one would have batted an eye if they got fired for breaking those same rules. But since it is regarding climate change, it can be easily twisted as big bad tech giant amazon firing the good small activist for doing the brave act of speaking out for the climate change mitigation. Whole nine yards with the martyr complex added in the mix.
      - zo1 7y ago
        I hope this sort of thing doesn't become a trend to enact change, because it strikes me more as a bully tactic rather than just promoting a noble cause. It seems to be a formula almost. E.g. employee does something that they know will force their employers hand, and employer does so (however reasonably or tactfully), and then the employee goes to the media to drum up outrage.
pjc50 7y ago
And this kind of thing is why Australia is on fire.
- benjohnson 7y ago
  As I understand it, Australia is supposed to be on fire - it's ecology is adapted for it. What is un-natural is the fire suppression of the last 100 years.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  I recall also reading that Australia did not undertake sufficient controlled burns this year to reduce the amount of combustible fuel in the bush. There has been a lot of finger-pointing to suggest that this is because of the Green Party (and their supporters) pushing back on controlled burns. This push back has been around for some time now (2013: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green-arrogance-burns-fiercely/news-story/ed1f49f1e1ff11f820aa59059ea23e21 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green...). It has come to a head recently with arguments between the National Party and the Greens (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-policies-blamed-for-increased-fire-risks/news-story/bdf3d8ac083d06ba468f7135881f45b8 https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-polici...), with the Greens now saying they do support controlled burns. I'm not familiar with Australian politics deeply, and I think drier conditions can make fires worse (by adding more plant matter to the fuel stores in the bush), but I think there are many factors involved, especially considering Australia has a regularly recurring bushfire season historically.
  - flukus 7y ago
    What you've been reading is quite obviously BS (both your links are to Murdoch media). The greens haven't been against controlled burns for decades but even if they were against they've only got 3/135 seats giving them no power to dictate policy. There have been less controlled burns than desired, but that's mostly because of budget cuts and a much longer fire season due to climate change.
    - 7y ago
basseq 7y ago
A lot of FUD here. Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval. Neither of those elements strikes me as shocking. 1) Companies are sensitive—including for legal reasons—to employees clearly noting that "their opinions are their own" and may not reflect the corporate entity. And, 2) media perception, particularly in a negative light. Maren Costa is quoted as saying, “Any policy that says I can’t talk about something that is a threat to my children – all children – is a problem for me.” Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want! Victoria Liang is quoted as saying, “Amazon’s newly updated communications policy is having a chilling effect on workers who have the backbone to speak out and challenge Amazon to do better. This policy is aimed at silencing discussion around publicly available information. It has nothing to do with protecting confidential data, which is covered by a completely different set of policies.” Which... yep. The entire point is media and PR relations, not confidentiality agreements. To limit one's own employees from making you a pariah in the media. So none of this is shocking to me. Note also that this is different from a thesis of, "Workers should be protected for criticizing their employers in the media" or "Amazon should be doing more for climate change."
- bjourne 7y ago
  > Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval. What does "titular" mean here? They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees and therefore, according to Amazon, broke company policy. Luckily, giant tech companies have no right to curb employees free speech. Our world isn't that Orwellian yet. > Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want! "The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.
Havoc 7y ago
Bullshit article. It conflated two very different things: >investigation” into one employee, Maren Costa, over comments made to the media that called for the company to do more to tackle the climate crisis. No major company appreciates random employees deciding to be self appointed spokesperson for what the company should do. Very different from the amazon is against climate change stuff being implied here.
AcerbicZero 7y ago
The situations in which media organizations support or demonize employee's speech is bordering upon the absurd.

97 points by vanusa 7y ago

Landlords can't ban their tenants from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a tenant). Hospitals can't ban their patients from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a patient). Airlines can't ban their passengers from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a passenger). The general rule is that if an individual is in an economic relationship with a large institution, it is important for them to be able to comment publicly on that institution. This is needed to address they myriad, well known ways that institutions can do stupid or even evil things. It is especially important when there is a huge power imbalance that tends to perpetuate sick institutional behaviours. And so: Companies shouldn't be able to ban their employees from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as an employee).

papito 7y ago
Those are not employees - those are clients. Any hospital and airline has the right to discipline or fire an employee who talks crap about their place of employment, publicly.

tidepod12 7y ago

Alternate title: Amazon employee was given a warning by HR after she explicitly broke company policy regarding talking to the press I know it's fun to hate on the big tech companies recently and act like they are bullies (and indeed in many ways they are), but this is a bad example of that. Most companies I know of would outright fire you if you, against explicit company policy, went to the press and started badmouthing your employer. The fact that Amazon only gave her a warning is the only surprising thing in this article.

JohnFen 7y ago
Your alternative title is accurate, but doesn't make Amazon look any better.
uoaei 7y ago
This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.
- tengbretson 7y ago
  There are proper channels for affecting change internally at a company. It's clear that these channels are working to some degree since an internal faction just pressured the company into adopting an aggressive climate pledge. My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.
  - uoaei 7y ago
    This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument. Appeals to authority all the way down.
    - tengbretson 7y ago
      Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - uoaei 7y ago
        The concept of "decorum" has historically been used as suppression from above of deviations from the status quo. Particularly to shut up women's movements, branding them as "hysterical" and "bitchy".
      - deogeo 7y ago
        And corporations are those who decide what the "agreed upon decorum" is.
papito 7y ago
Indeed, a very misleading headline in the age of automatic outrage. If your values do not align with your place of employment - quit. You are working for a private entity, not the government,
- deogeo 7y ago
  > If your values do not align with your place of employment - quit. Why? There are many avenues for change, why limit yourself to just quitting? People are more than just workers and consumers.
  - papito 7y ago
    The issue in this case was specifically that the employees did not pursue internal avenues and instead went public with it. Nothing stops you from writing an email to the CEO and express your concerns. At your own risk, of course.
  - zo1 7y ago
    Because it's a very non-confrontational way of expressing your view and "voting" with your time & effort. Why fight an entity that you give value to anyways through your employment, it almost cancels out. Rather work to better a company that aligns with your own views while at the same time potentially calling out the other company. Then again, if they choose to stay and their contract says they aren't allowed to do this (assuming its reasonable), then they should also accept it when they get fired and move along.
Nextgrid 7y ago
If the company had nothing to feel guilty about they wouldn’t have a problem about their employees talking to the press.
- filoleg 7y ago
  This sounds eerily similar to the commonly mocked argument of "why would you care about strong encryption, privacy, and agencies spying on you, if you have nothing to hide?"
  - Nextgrid 7y ago
    I am not sure the analogy applies. First off we are talking about benign matters like employees' opinions, not trade secrets (common sense would prevent the latter from leaking). Second, I am not advocating to force anyone to disclose anything, but merely for them to have the potential to do so if they wish. If you trust them enough to complete the task then surely you should also trust their common sense about what to talk and not talk about (trade secrets, etc) to the press? If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it? There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      >If you trust them enough to complete the task then surely you should also trust their common sense about what to talk and not talk about (trade secrets, etc) to the press? I trust people at the company to have common sense about what to talk and not talk about, as long as it is their job, as they are most likely able to have the full story and consider the situation from all angles. However, I do not trust an average engineer's common sense to know what to talk/not talk about, especially considering how narrowly scoped most of the engineering work (and, conversely, their exposure to the overall big picture) is. >There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect. Agreed with this one, but it only seems to support my previous point about the big picture. If you work at a small company, you are way more likely to have an understanding of the big picture than a cog at a big tech company, who stands very little chance at doing so. >If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it? There doesn't have to be any real "dirty laundry", it's all about how people on the outside can spin the story, even if the facts leaked are true. Just look at this submission post itself. Factually, it is true, because an employee spoke out about the company on the topic of climate change and got fired for it. Or, a more level-headed view, would be something more like "An employee acted as if they were representing company views while giving an interview regarding company policies and got fired for it regardless of their stance on the issue." Which of the two do you think will be more unfavorable to the company and paint it in a bad light? Which one opens up the company more to the potential damage?

jbob2000 7y ago

Every company I’ve ever worked for has had language that forbids me from speaking to the media on behalf of the company. This has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with violating the agreement you signed when you joined the company.

eropple 7y ago
"On behalf of"? That's a characterization that's doing a whole lot of heavy lifting for you. Where did anyone imply she was saying anything "on behalf of" Amazon? A person's personal time and personal views are theirs, theirs alone, and must be protected from their employer. The best way to keep an employee from speaking up when you're doing dirty is to not do dirty. And we, as that society that grants Amazon and similar megacorporations the privilege of (for it is not a right to exist, they aren't people) existence, should break straight in half any of them that tries to curb its employees from speaking up when that company is doing dirty. "Shut up and be a cog." No. Do no such thing. Be a citizen and be a human, and help others do the same.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  You can have your own views and you are allowed to speak them as you wish. What you can’t do is make your personal views appear as if they are also the company’s views.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    Where, in the article referenced in another comment, does that employee imply they speak for the company? The policy prevents employees from speaking, period, if they are identified at all as Amazon employees. In my view, saying "I wish I were permitted to bring my values to my job doing UI design at Amazon" is not in any way speaking for the company.
    - zo1 7y ago
      Well, to be fair, they go under the group name "Amazon Employees for Climate Justice". Let's be reasonable and see it from the employers view that this sort of title has some sort of greater than zero implication that this entity speaks for Amazon. What do we think Amazon would/should do if someone external to Amazon went under an entity name such as "Amazon Executive Committee" and posted controversial/activist like content? I would imagine that Amazon would attempt to deal with the negative PR of some people thinking that this is some sort of official Amazon group.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> A further 8,000 Amazon employees subsequently signed an open letter to Bezos calling for concrete climate goals; to cancel contracts with oil and gas companies; and to stop donations to politicians who deny the reality of the climate crisis. The one thing that will kill the growth of cloud is that if businesses feel that their contracts are at the whim of activist employees. This policy is Jeff Bezos sending out a strong signal that AWS will not listen to these activist employees in that regard.

davidcbc 7y ago
The climate crisis should be more important than AWS growth, even for Amazon. A severe environmental collapse is gonna be pretty rough on Amazon's bottom line
- enitihas 7y ago
  It is like the tragedy of the commons. Even if AWS decided they will not serve oil companies, those companies will simply take their business elsewhere, e.g to Microsoft, or even worse, to Oracle. This will simply have the effect of hurting the company caring about the climate, and benefitting the ones who don't give a damn. Shared resources like the environment can't be protected by the good will of anyone company. They need to be protected by the letter of the law.

halfcreative 7y ago

It seems like they were threatened termination for disobeying the new policy they implemented as stated in the article. >"The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." Not really saying anything about if the policy is ok or not, just that it doesn't seem like this is really about climate change but rather speaking out against the company

Twirrim 7y ago
That new policy sounds a lot like the old policy that prohibited Amazon employees from speaking publicly. I hope that there's some nuance I'm missing there, I was glad to see that Amazon had dropped the old social media etc. policy.

rdiddly 7y ago

The Amazon policy seems pretty similar to ones at other companies - if you're being asked to speak as their employee, you're supposed to refer all those inquiries to the corporate PR office or what-have-you. Because talking to the press isn't part of your job description. But if you're speaking to the press during non-work hours and off company premises, then I feel like you should be able to say what you want, as long as it doesn't reveal trade secrets. But I don't know what the policy or the law says about that. Anyway if it's a problem, then it's a simple matter of having a journalist attribute the quote to "...an Amazon employee who requested anonymity." It's not ideal for the reporter, but they are mostly pretty accustomed to protecting sources.

bjourne 7y ago
The idea is that you are not allowed to pretend to be the spokesperson of the company you work for. But it is absolutely allowed to referer to yourself as a <job description> at <Company> when speaking publicly. Amazon telling their employees that they can't call themselves Amazon employees is unprecedented.

aurizon 7y ago

do not buy from Amazon due to their huge carbon footprint produced by individual box delivery

tengbretson 7y ago
The carbon footprint of individual box delivery is unquantifiable compared to their competitors since we have no way of knowing how much more efficient this allows them to be with regard to logistics – reducing miles driven, warehousing, personnel, etc. all of which contribute to the overall carbon footprint of the operation.
- aurizon 7y ago
  True, it is hard to asses, and as amazon rolls out e-trucks, that foorprint will decline unless the internal combustion and the oil lobby bribe politicians to charge e-vehiles road taxes
BubRoss 7y ago
Do you have a source for how much carbon amazon produces vs other internet sites vs people driving to stores?
- aurizon 7y ago
  No, but as electric cars and trucks proliferate it will surely decline on both fronts.
lightgreen 7y ago
You never know if another Amazon competitor has a larger or smaller carbon footprint. The only way to decide who does smaller footprint is to ask your government to introduce/increase carbon tax, and then simply buy what's cheaper.
- aurizon 7y ago
  true enough, the economics are foggy

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

It seems critically important to note that Costa's speaking out was more than comments in an article like this one. She was the subject of a full interview article from Techcrunch, which billed her as an "Amazon principal UX design lead", although there's no way for us to know if that's the specific thing that Amazon objected to.

BryantD 7y ago
The first chunk of that article is here[1]; worth deciding for yourself if you think this qualifies as speaking for the company or not. As you say, this may or may not be the specific objection. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethical-leadership-in-big-tech-with-amazon-principal-ux-design-lead-maren-costa/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethi...

riyadparvez 7y ago

I think we are in the acitvism bubble. The outrage culture and now this stir the pot activism are fueling certain individuals narcissism to the detriment of the cause and rest of us.

radicaldreamer 7y ago
We’re in a self expression bubble. It threatens not only the those in power, but people who believe in hierarchy and control as well.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    > I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed. It still is imo. You cannot really gain your 5 minutes of fame (rather than infamy) by spewing hurtful or toxic viewpoints. Self-expression, in this case, imo feels more like self-promotion, which is exactly what narcissism is all about. If the "activist" in the OP was speaking about some other topic that wasn't as highly publicized and important as climate change, no one would have batted an eye if they got fired for breaking those same rules. But since it is regarding climate change, it can be easily twisted as big bad tech giant amazon firing the good small activist for doing the brave act of speaking out for the climate change mitigation. Whole nine yards with the martyr complex added in the mix.
    - zo1 7y ago
      I hope this sort of thing doesn't become a trend to enact change, because it strikes me more as a bully tactic rather than just promoting a noble cause. It seems to be a formula almost. E.g. employee does something that they know will force their employers hand, and employer does so (however reasonably or tactfully), and then the employee goes to the media to drum up outrage.

pjc50 7y ago

And this kind of thing is why Australia is on fire.

benjohnson 7y ago
As I understand it, Australia is supposed to be on fire - it's ecology is adapted for it. What is un-natural is the fire suppression of the last 100 years.
throwawaysea 7y ago
I recall also reading that Australia did not undertake sufficient controlled burns this year to reduce the amount of combustible fuel in the bush. There has been a lot of finger-pointing to suggest that this is because of the Green Party (and their supporters) pushing back on controlled burns. This push back has been around for some time now (2013: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green-arrogance-burns-fiercely/news-story/ed1f49f1e1ff11f820aa59059ea23e21 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green...). It has come to a head recently with arguments between the National Party and the Greens (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-policies-blamed-for-increased-fire-risks/news-story/bdf3d8ac083d06ba468f7135881f45b8 https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-polici...), with the Greens now saying they do support controlled burns. I'm not familiar with Australian politics deeply, and I think drier conditions can make fires worse (by adding more plant matter to the fuel stores in the bush), but I think there are many factors involved, especially considering Australia has a regularly recurring bushfire season historically.
- flukus 7y ago
  What you've been reading is quite obviously BS (both your links are to Murdoch media). The greens haven't been against controlled burns for decades but even if they were against they've only got 3/135 seats giving them no power to dictate policy. There have been less controlled burns than desired, but that's mostly because of budget cuts and a much longer fire season due to climate change.
  - 7y ago

basseq 7y ago

A lot of FUD here. Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval. Neither of those elements strikes me as shocking. 1) Companies are sensitive—including for legal reasons—to employees clearly noting that "their opinions are their own" and may not reflect the corporate entity. And, 2) media perception, particularly in a negative light. Maren Costa is quoted as saying, “Any policy that says I can’t talk about something that is a threat to my children – all children – is a problem for me.” Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want! Victoria Liang is quoted as saying, “Amazon’s newly updated communications policy is having a chilling effect on workers who have the backbone to speak out and challenge Amazon to do better. This policy is aimed at silencing discussion around publicly available information. It has nothing to do with protecting confidential data, which is covered by a completely different set of policies.” Which... yep. The entire point is media and PR relations, not confidentiality agreements. To limit one's own employees from making you a pariah in the media. So none of this is shocking to me. Note also that this is different from a thesis of, "Workers should be protected for criticizing their employers in the media" or "Amazon should be doing more for climate change."

bjourne 7y ago
> Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval. What does "titular" mean here? They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees and therefore, according to Amazon, broke company policy. Luckily, giant tech companies have no right to curb employees free speech. Our world isn't that Orwellian yet. > Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want! "The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.

Havoc 7y ago

Bullshit article. It conflated two very different things: >investigation” into one employee, Maren Costa, over comments made to the media that called for the company to do more to tackle the climate crisis. No major company appreciates random employees deciding to be self appointed spokesperson for what the company should do. Very different from the amazon is against climate change stuff being implied here.

AcerbicZero 7y ago

The situations in which media organizations support or demonize employee's speech is bordering upon the absurd.