5 ms·

> 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 li

> 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.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      That doesn't really work. If it did then anyone who knows they're about to get fired could just start organizing a strike. Or start organizing a strike as cover before purposely causing mischief.
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        Which would be discovered in court... I think your confused. OP isn't suggesting that Amazon is guilty, but that there is enough evidence to warrant investigating what happened.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        This isn't a criminal proceeding. The people who "investigate" a civil case are the plaintiffs, who don't need to be motivated by evidence in order to start investigating. The point of contention is to what extent someone starting to organize a strike should be evidence that they weren't fired for some other reason. But it's extraordinarily weak evidence because it's completely under the control of the party it's supposed to be evidence in favor of. Anybody who knows they're about to get fired for some other reason, or who wants to be able to do something obnoxious without getting fired, could just start making noises about a strike and then claim that's why when it happens. But since anybody can do that, it doesn't prove anything. It's like claiming your boss promised you a bonus, and using as evidence some fully-refundable travel tickets you claim to have bought expecting to have the money. You would do that if you really thought you had the money coming, but you would also do it if you're just trying to manufacture evidence. You have reason to do it either way, so you doing it proves nothing because it lacks any correlation with the result.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        > This isn't a criminal proceeding. The people who "investigate" a civil case are the plaintiffs, who don't need to be motivated by evidence in order to start investigating. You're not really addressing the point. No one is saying anything about proof or guilt. To carry out any sort of effective investigation discovery is required. The act of firing someone after organizing is prima facie evidence for carrying out discovery. That's all they were saying.

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.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    That doesn't really work. If it did then anyone who knows they're about to get fired could just start organizing a strike. Or start organizing a strike as cover before purposely causing mischief.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      Which would be discovered in court... I think your confused. OP isn't suggesting that Amazon is guilty, but that there is enough evidence to warrant investigating what happened.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        This isn't a criminal proceeding. The people who "investigate" a civil case are the plaintiffs, who don't need to be motivated by evidence in order to start investigating. The point of contention is to what extent someone starting to organize a strike should be evidence that they weren't fired for some other reason. But it's extraordinarily weak evidence because it's completely under the control of the party it's supposed to be evidence in favor of. Anybody who knows they're about to get fired for some other reason, or who wants to be able to do something obnoxious without getting fired, could just start making noises about a strike and then claim that's why when it happens. But since anybody can do that, it doesn't prove anything. It's like claiming your boss promised you a bonus, and using as evidence some fully-refundable travel tickets you claim to have bought expecting to have the money. You would do that if you really thought you had the money coming, but you would also do it if you're just trying to manufacture evidence. You have reason to do it either way, so you doing it proves nothing because it lacks any correlation with the result.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        > This isn't a criminal proceeding. The people who "investigate" a civil case are the plaintiffs, who don't need to be motivated by evidence in order to start investigating. You're not really addressing the point. No one is saying anything about proof or guilt. To carry out any sort of effective investigation discovery is required. The act of firing someone after organizing is prima facie evidence for carrying out discovery. That's all they were saying.