3 ms·
Can you explain why you only had skepticism towards the worker in this situation, and none towards Amazon? I'm glad you reevaluated your position once you had
by nabnob 7y ago
Can you explain why you only had skepticism towards the worker in this situation, and none towards Amazon?
I'm glad you reevaluated your position once you had more information, but I'm genuinely confused by the thought process in comments like your original comment. Amazon has a history of treating warehouse workers terribly (docking points for taking too many breaks, and firing workers with too many points etc), and this is documented in lots of news articles. They deployed a PR team on Twitter to talk about how their warehouse conditions were great - and the PR team felt the need to mention that they even got bathroom breaks, as if that is something to be proud of. They even have a reputation for treating their office workers like crap, although this varies somewhat from team to team (based on my own experience and those of my friends who also worked at Amazon as software devs, turnover is pretty high). It's actually not that easy to find a journalist willing to listen to you, and requires a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the worker risking their job. Especially with a company with as much power as Amazon, I'm sure many of the workers reaching out to journalists fear that Amazon will be able to figure out who talked.
So where does this skepticism towards the worker's stories come from?
- RHSeeger 7y agoI didn't express skepticism towards anyone involved. Rather,was basing my opinion based purely on the facts I saw presented in the article. 1. Amazon told him to self quarantined because he had been exposed, to not return to the place of work for 2 weeks 2. He came back before the 2 weeks was up 3. The fired him for it Given those facts, action 3 seems reasonable. I even prefaced my thoughts indicating that they the actions only reason reasonable if I my understanding of the situation is correct. Turns out, my understanding of the situation was incorrect. More information was presented. If that information is also true, then their actions (firing him) no longer seem reasonable.