13 ms·

> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal

• influx 7y ago
  Amazon is very clear when you're hired that you're not allowed to represent the company or it's positions on social media or anywhere publicly without getting permission. You can agree or disagree with that policy, but it's not new. Source: first heard of this policy when I was hired at Amazon in 2007.
  • oefrha 7y ago
    Also: whether you like it or not, this is pretty standard policy almost everywhere.
  • Angostura 7y ago
    They weren't "representing the company" which means speaking its behalf. They were criticising some of it's policies.
  • elicash 7y ago
    The policy could also be in violation of law. Hard to see without looking at the policy and also without looking at the substance of the comments. But there are federal laws protecting certain worker activity and a policy doesn't overrule that. It depends on the specifics of this case.
• alehul 7y ago
  Amazon is firing them for commenting publicly on its business. If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?
  • tyingq 7y ago
    I agree with you. Amazon, should though, be aware of the Streisand effect. They are amplifying their problem by firing people instead of, say...reprimanding them.
    • kube-system 7y ago
      > Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) said on Tuesday it terminated two employees, who criticized the working conditions It doesn't sound like Amazon is attempting to hide anything here.
      • tyingq 7y ago
        By firing them, they are reinforcing the idea they they don't care about working conditions. A reprimand likely wouldn't have made the news. I assume they want less buzz about work conditions.
        • kube-system 7y ago
          The Streisand effect is when someone actively takes actions to hide information, but it backfires. I haven't seen any evidence of them taking actions to hide any information. >I assume they want less buzz about work conditions. I don't think this is the case. They have been public about responding to the media and have been posting daily updates through their own site. The link to their blog discussing workers' conditions is on the front page of Amazon.com.
          • tyingq 7y ago
            Firing outspoken employees counts as an attempt to suppress information to me. The firing itself becoming news is the backfire. They essentially gave the warehouse conditions an extra news cycle.
• A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing. I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts. edit: added play
  • elicash 7y ago
    For folks looking for extra protections, you should include a call for protected concerted activity when voicing your opinions and directing them towards fellow employees: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/concerted-activity?page=8 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
  • alexandercrohde 7y ago
    I think people are outraged not because it's illegal, but because it's unconscionable. I think the general understanding is people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them, maybe it's time for the law to catch up. It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)
    • Noughmad 7y ago
      In that case, people should make it illegal. Like they did in most other countries. The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal.
      • qppo 7y ago
        Without getting into all of the hazards about legislating morality it's impractical in our current climate. I don't think this should be illegal, personally. I do think that it would be helpful to make the decision making public though. Limited legal liability isn't limited moral liability. Rather than saying "amazon fired" someone they should tell us "Jane Doe a manager at Amazon made the decision to fire." People shouldn't hide behind the company logo when they do shitty things to other people. And if you want to rationalize it, cool, do it with your name attached so your pastor, spouse, friends, and kids know the things you'll do for a paycheck and you can justify it all you want to your community.
• crispyambulance 7y ago
  The employees certainly knew this could happen, or at least should have been aware what they were getting into. I hope that's the case. Every large company very clearly states, one way or another, that speaking about the company to the public without being a designated spokesperson is seriously grounds for termination.
  • aabeshou 7y ago
    the point isn't "do companies have the legal power to do this" the point is "is it right?" if you lack the moral imagination to consider how the world could be if not for current oppressive power structures, or you blame whistleblowers because "they should have known there'd be consequences," then you're what some like to call "a bootlicker"
    • crispyambulance 7y ago
      I am suggesting that they probably knew the consequences and were OK with the possibility they'd get fired. That's not "blaming the whistleblowers". I actually admire them for taking a stand and accepting the consequences. Amazon should be protecting their warehouse workers. Taking a stand, getting fired under media spot-light for it is actually a really powerful message against Amazon.
      • aabeshou 7y ago
        got it, I misinterpreted your tone, my apologies
        • crispyambulance 7y ago
          That's OK, no worries!
• gorgoiler 7y ago
  If they were walked out for gross misconduct then there’s a story for sure. But if Amazon negotiated a deal with them by which both employer and employee bilaterally agreed to end the contract between them, then fair enough! Rest assured it was probably quite expensive for Amazon, or at least for that micro-pod’s balance sheet. No one is entitled to be a hostile employee, just as no employee has to tolerate a hostile workplace. I think they’ll be happier working somewhere else (and I hope they continue the activism.)
• rochester46 7y ago
  That quote is straight up incorrect. Amazon doesn't restrict, and actually encourages employees to talk about their work conditions, as long as said employee makes sure to say "these opinions are my own and do not represent Amazon's official stance" and that anything you are saying is actually true. You certainly do not need "corporate justification and approval from executives". I am curious where Reuters pulled that from. Both this and the WaPo article are extremely light on the details what exactly these employees said or did. WaPo says that these employees "violated company policy", which leads me to believe they must have been saying something that Amazon felt was untrue, because again, official policy is that you can speak as much as you want about working conditions at Amazon as long as they are factual. I would like to see what exactly these people said that apparently upset Amazon, but I can't find it anywhere.
  • aabeshou 7y ago
    as long as they are factual* * make sure to use corporate-approved facts
    • wpietri 7y ago
      Exactly. If Amazon is the final arbiter of what's false or what's disparaging, then the policy is not valuable as worker protection.
    • filoleg 7y ago
      non-factual: Amazon treats their employees poorly, they just don't care about us. factual: Amazon does this factual thing X and this factual thing Y, and it shouldn't be happening this way. First one is just an opinion piece, regardless of its truthfulness, because it cannot be evaluated objectively (how to objectively determine whether amazon cares or not? who counts as "amazon" in this scenario? what factual event led to this statement? and on and on). Second one is a factual statement that can be evaluated on a true/false basis. Events X and Y either happened or they didn't. If they did, the responsibility for those can be traced and evaluated. It leads to actual results, while the former is just an emotional opinion sort of statement, but that's exactly what sells the headlines.
• forgotmylogin2 7y ago
  > Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions. That's not exactly uncommon in the modern world. Especially with the prevalence of social media, expressing your opinion on anything publicly could cost you your job. Same thing happened to James Damore. If you want to remain employed, you need to be quite cautious about what you post on non-anonymous social media. In fact, I'd advise most people not to post on social media at all.
  • daenz 7y ago
    I think the surprise here comes from being fired for expressing an opinion that the tech community generally supports. When Damore did it, the community generally was against him, so firing him was celebrated. The lesson here is that these kinds of policies cut both ways.
    • dntrkv 7y ago
      That's an interesting point. Would be interested to hear these two's opinion on the firing of Damore.
  • wpietri 7y ago
    I think an important consideration with Damore is that Google had to choose between keeping him and keeping other people. There was no outcome that didn't result in people leaving. This, on the other hand, is just about Amazon trying to control people to keep their poor treatment of employees hidden. There's nobody at Amazon who's saying, "Man, I'm quitting if those people keep trying to improve worker conditions here."
  • Sharlin 7y ago
    > That's not exactly uncommon in the modern world It is uncommon in the parts of modern world that have reasonably modern employee protection laws. Yes, most jurisdictions recognize that employers may expect a certain degree of loyalty from their employees. But unless you're a very high-level executive, just disagreeing with your employer's conduct is absolutely no legal grounds for termination.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• ignoramous 7y ago
  WaPo has an in-depth article with interviews from fired employees, @marencost and @emahlee [0]. These tweets, made on 27 March, allegedly broke the camel's back: @marencosta I am matching donations to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse colleagues and their communities, while they struggle to get consistent, sufficient protections and procedures from our employer. DM or comment for match. [1] @emahlee I'm matching donations up to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse worker colleagues. "The lack of safe and sanitary working conditions" puts them and the public at risk. It's bad ya'll... [2] and @marencosta re-tweeted it. @marencosta had been warned by Amazon, in late 2019, to not publicly disparage them. --- [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-workers-fired/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-... [1] https://twitter.com/marencosta/status/1243585580736237568 https://twitter.com/marencosta/status/1243585580736237568 [2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1243441985173651456.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1243441985173651456.html
• Aloha 7y ago
  If I criticized my employer in the national media, I'd expect to be shown the door too.
  • YokoZar 7y ago
    And depending on how you criticized them (such as by engaging in protected concerted activity like discussing your pay or working conditions), you may be having your legal rights violated and are entitled to remedy under the NLRA.
    • missedthecue 7y ago
      These workers were not discussing their working conditions or pay.
      • YokoZar 7y ago
        They were engaging in organizing activity with other workers at the same company, explicitly about those workers working conditions. That too is protected.
        • missedthecue 7y ago
          Amazon didn't fire them for organizing.
• reaperducer 7y ago
  Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. This has been the policy at every company I've worked for since the 90's. It's usually in the employee handbook, and at a couple of places I had to sign a separate paper acknowledging it. Amazingly, several of those companies were news organizations. It's usually the first indication that a company is more interested in its stock price than doing the right thing.
  • YokoZar 7y ago
    Yes, these policies are widespread. And often explicitly illegal under the NLRA. You have a legal right, for instance, to discuss your pay and working conditions with anyone you like. But no one changes the policies until the NLRB requires them to after losing a case, even an easy case. Sometimes all they do is write "except where allowed by law" into the policy, then hope workers don't know what their rights are.
• outworlder 7y ago
  > Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions. A lot of companies will do that. For instance, I never identify on social media (including here) which company I work for. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. Even giving it praise on social media is a form of communication, and I am not PR. Therefore, not authorized (of course, retweeting official communications or linking to them is fine). We may not like these policies (and it is kinda dystopian if you think about it), but once we identify as employees, we are representing the company. Should I then decide to criticize the company publicly, I would expect the hammer to fall down, hard Not sure about termination, but it is always a possibility. Especially in the US, with at will employment. You can blow the whistle. But that doesn't make one immune to consequences. Should it be like that? I don't know, but the matter of the fact is that it is like that today, across most corporations. Google is (Was?) somewhat of an exception, but even then most of it was on internal forums.