5 ms·

I really hate it when people use he said/she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and 'rigorous'. There is a reason that the courts hav

I really hate it when people use he said/she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and 'rigorous'. There is a reason that the courts have something called 'burden of proof'. When an individual worker does something a large company doesn't like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. It isn't unclear. It is perfectly normal for companies to get rid of the whistle blowers. That's why there are (weakly enforced) laws against it.

_-david-_ 7y ago
> Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. There are regulatory / liability reasons which may prevent HR from telling their side of the story. The employee is not under the same rules and can say whatever they want without HR being able to refute it.
tidepod12 7y ago
It's weird that you mention courts and then in the next sentence say this: >the burden of proof in my mind is on the company Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. If you want to start dismissing all "he said/she said" arguments, then we might as well shut down this entire thread. We are never going to get any further than "he said/she said" unless someone in this thread has insider knowledge of this situation and is willing to break privacy agreements.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Exactly. When taken to court the plaintiff would have an easy time acquiring records of quarantine counts. In that case the "burden of proof" could somewhat be seen as being on Amazon, but really it's the court allowing the accusor to get such proof. (that is, some guy doesn't have to go around and ask everyone he worked with if they were quarantined, Amazon has to give him the information).
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  > It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. It's not necessarily either. It may very well simply be the preponderance of the evidence. Nevertheless, such a suit will be undertaken with the benefit of the discovery process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29
  - gitgudnubs 7y ago
    Preponderance of evidence is the bar that must be met. But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts. The discovery process makes some of the defendant's records available to the plaintiff, in case there is relevant evidence. But if the plaintiff produces no evidence, Amazon does not need to make a defense. Thus OP is correct.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts Sure, but any evidence which makes an accusation more likely than in the absence of that evidence suffices to meet preponderance of the evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence. The fact of the labor organizing, the fact of the firing, and their temporal relationship are, together, evidence for retaliation.
      - ncallaway 7y ago
        Yes, exactly. If the only evidence presented demonstrates that the plaintiff was organizing, that Amazon learned that he was organizing, and after that point Amazon fired the plaintiff they would very likely have met a preponderance of evidence burden. It sounds like none of those facts are even in dispute. So, Amazon will very likely need to make the case (and Amazon will need to present the evidence to support it), that he was actually fired for violating the company mandated quarantine. The actual evidentiary fight will probably be over whether that quarantine was a bona fide quarantine, or a pretextual one. But who has the burden to present that evidence will very much depend on who feels like they're losing the case. Probably both of them will need to present evidence to support their position.
- Thlom 7y ago
  Isn't the firing an accusation in and of itself and as such the burden of proof is on the company?
  - jajag 7y ago
    Absolutely; it's Amazon that are making the accusations here.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Firing someone isn't asking a court to do something. Companies can fire you for all sorts of silly reasons and most of them aren't illegal. The employee is accusing the company of firing them for one of the illegal reasons.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. While sort of true, using the word "proof" there is too strong. In a civil context, the burden of proof for a retaliatory firing is a preponderance of the evidence. That means, the plaintiff has to demonstrate with evidence to the court (in a bench trial) or the jury that it is more-likely-than-not (e.g. 51%) that the firing was retaliatory. If you start with the evidence that Amazon learned that the worker was organizing a strike, and then very shortly thereafter fired the worker that evidence _alone_ (which seems to be undisputed) probably gets you near that burden. Amazon, then, might present the lack of quarantine defense as an alternative scenario, but then some of the burden will be on Amazon to effectively make this case.
koheripbal 7y ago
The standard for evidence for a corporation is indeed higher in court. That does not apply to the court of public opinion and social media. We should not expect that a corporation prove its case to US. ...we are not judges. We have no right to cast judgement or determine who's right, and have no rights to the evidence. This will all be fleshed out IN COURT - where it belongs.
leftyted 7y ago
> There is a reason that the courts have something called 'burden of proof'. Definitely. > When an individual worker does something a large company doesn't like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. You don't appear to understand why courts have "something called burden of proof". In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired. They must show that they were fired illegally. You can't just randomly assign "burden of proof" based on your ideological bias. > I really hate it when people use he said/she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and 'rigorous'. Sounds like you "really hate it" when people express a preference for finding out what really happened. I have no strong opinion about this specific case.
- jpsalm 7y ago
  >You don't appear to understand why courts have "something called burden of proof". In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired. They must show that they were fired illegally. You can't just randomly assign "burden of proof" based on your ideological bias. You don't appear to understand that there is clearly visible causality here. A random person claiming they were unjustly fired is different than someone who was fired after organizing a strike.
  - yibg 7y ago
    Isn’t that casualty just an assertion? Proving that sequence of events played a role in the firing is the whole point.
    - jpsalm 7y ago
      Yes, but it is a sliding scale. Firing someone after organizing a strike would suggest sufficient prima facie to pursue the case in court. A claim without the appearance of supporting evidence would be thrown out.
      - 7y ago
isoskeles 7y ago
And I really hate it when people distort well-defined ideas like "burden of proof" to mean whatever they want it to mean, especially whatever is most advantageous to their worldview. Just to be clear, I think this probably was retaliation, and there seems to be almost enough to prove it. If it can be proven that Amazon put no one else in quarantine under similar circumstances (minus leading a strike) before this case, yes, most reasonable people would view this as retaliation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 7y ago
> then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. Supposition does not mean "burden of proof". > the burden of proof in my mind is on the company Your presumption that the company is at fault is unjust.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who posted it above is actually working for amazon to manipulate the situation. Introducing controversy is an actual technique used to discredit people. Everybody is pretty clear about amazons reputation towards their employees, including software engineers.

_-david-_ 7y ago

> Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. There are regulatory / liability reasons which may prevent HR from telling their side of the story. The employee is not under the same rules and can say whatever they want without HR being able to refute it.

tidepod12 7y ago

It's weird that you mention courts and then in the next sentence say this: >the burden of proof in my mind is on the company Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. If you want to start dismissing all "he said/she said" arguments, then we might as well shut down this entire thread. We are never going to get any further than "he said/she said" unless someone in this thread has insider knowledge of this situation and is willing to break privacy agreements.

colechristensen 7y ago
Exactly. When taken to court the plaintiff would have an easy time acquiring records of quarantine counts. In that case the "burden of proof" could somewhat be seen as being on Amazon, but really it's the court allowing the accusor to get such proof. (that is, some guy doesn't have to go around and ask everyone he worked with if they were quarantined, Amazon has to give him the information).
fennecfoxen 7y ago
> It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. It's not necessarily either. It may very well simply be the preponderance of the evidence. Nevertheless, such a suit will be undertaken with the benefit of the discovery process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29
- gitgudnubs 7y ago
  Preponderance of evidence is the bar that must be met. But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts. The discovery process makes some of the defendant's records available to the plaintiff, in case there is relevant evidence. But if the plaintiff produces no evidence, Amazon does not need to make a defense. Thus OP is correct.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts Sure, but any evidence which makes an accusation more likely than in the absence of that evidence suffices to meet preponderance of the evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence. The fact of the labor organizing, the fact of the firing, and their temporal relationship are, together, evidence for retaliation.
    - ncallaway 7y ago
      Yes, exactly. If the only evidence presented demonstrates that the plaintiff was organizing, that Amazon learned that he was organizing, and after that point Amazon fired the plaintiff they would very likely have met a preponderance of evidence burden. It sounds like none of those facts are even in dispute. So, Amazon will very likely need to make the case (and Amazon will need to present the evidence to support it), that he was actually fired for violating the company mandated quarantine. The actual evidentiary fight will probably be over whether that quarantine was a bona fide quarantine, or a pretextual one. But who has the burden to present that evidence will very much depend on who feels like they're losing the case. Probably both of them will need to present evidence to support their position.
Thlom 7y ago
Isn't the firing an accusation in and of itself and as such the burden of proof is on the company?
- jajag 7y ago
  Absolutely; it's Amazon that are making the accusations here.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Firing someone isn't asking a court to do something. Companies can fire you for all sorts of silly reasons and most of them aren't illegal. The employee is accusing the company of firing them for one of the illegal reasons.
ncallaway 7y ago
> Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof. While sort of true, using the word "proof" there is too strong. In a civil context, the burden of proof for a retaliatory firing is a preponderance of the evidence. That means, the plaintiff has to demonstrate with evidence to the court (in a bench trial) or the jury that it is more-likely-than-not (e.g. 51%) that the firing was retaliatory. If you start with the evidence that Amazon learned that the worker was organizing a strike, and then very shortly thereafter fired the worker that evidence _alone_ (which seems to be undisputed) probably gets you near that burden. Amazon, then, might present the lack of quarantine defense as an alternative scenario, but then some of the burden will be on Amazon to effectively make this case.

koheripbal 7y ago

The standard for evidence for a corporation is indeed higher in court. That does not apply to the court of public opinion and social media. We should not expect that a corporation prove its case to US. ...we are not judges. We have no right to cast judgement or determine who's right, and have no rights to the evidence. This will all be fleshed out IN COURT - where it belongs.

leftyted 7y ago

> There is a reason that the courts have something called 'burden of proof'. Definitely. > When an individual worker does something a large company doesn't like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. You don't appear to understand why courts have "something called burden of proof". In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired. They must show that they were fired illegally. You can't just randomly assign "burden of proof" based on your ideological bias. > I really hate it when people use he said/she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and 'rigorous'. Sounds like you "really hate it" when people express a preference for finding out what really happened. I have no strong opinion about this specific case.

jpsalm 7y ago
>You don't appear to understand why courts have "something called burden of proof". In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired. They must show that they were fired illegally. You can't just randomly assign "burden of proof" based on your ideological bias. You don't appear to understand that there is clearly visible causality here. A random person claiming they were unjustly fired is different than someone who was fired after organizing a strike.
- yibg 7y ago
  Isn’t that casualty just an assertion? Proving that sequence of events played a role in the firing is the whole point.
  - jpsalm 7y ago
    Yes, but it is a sliding scale. Firing someone after organizing a strike would suggest sufficient prima facie to pursue the case in court. A claim without the appearance of supporting evidence would be thrown out.
    - 7y ago

isoskeles 7y ago

And I really hate it when people distort well-defined ideas like "burden of proof" to mean whatever they want it to mean, especially whatever is most advantageous to their worldview. Just to be clear, I think this probably was retaliation, and there seems to be almost enough to prove it. If it can be proven that Amazon put no one else in quarantine under similar circumstances (minus leading a strike) before this case, yes, most reasonable people would view this as retaliation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 7y ago

> then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time. Supposition does not mean "burden of proof". > the burden of proof in my mind is on the company Your presumption that the company is at fault is unjust.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who posted it above is actually working for amazon to manipulate the situation. Introducing controversy is an actual technique used to discredit people. Everybody is pretty clear about amazons reputation towards their employees, including software engineers.