9 ms·

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 a

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.
    - mcherm 7y ago
      I would immediately implement a special role for the head of HR: official decider of all firing decisions. No one will blame the head of HR because they'll know that they were only carrying out someone else's decision, while no one would blame the original decider because no one knows who it was.
      - qppo 7y ago
        Why would you want to create a workplace without personal responsibility for decision making? All I'm saying is to make that personal responsibility public. It's pretty telling to me that I'm being downvoted for saying that I think people should own up to their decisions in the workplace that impact other people and are questionable ethically. Removing any kind of moral liability for those decisions is how we wind up with businesses that employ good people that do shitty things to other good people.
        freejazz 7y ago
        Because that would just require corporations to have a "fall guy", which is basically what a lot of executives are already. Vessels into which the corporation can dump it's moral debt.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I just had a minor epiphany. This is exactly what compliance officer is supposed to be.
        SaxonRobber 7y ago
        The corporate structure institutionalizes immorality, it cannot be avoided. By law shareholder profits come first, everything else is secondary to that goal.
        Zanni 7y ago
        But it sounds like your recipe for responsibility is mob justice. What other possible result could come from publicizing the name of "the person responsible" for the firing?
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal. That's patently false. Plenty of people want to make those unethical things illegal, it's just that the people who engage in those unethical things have had the political power to thwart many of those efforts so far.
- atomi 7y ago
  > Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    Could you elaborate? I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.
    - atomi 7y ago
      When you appeal an argument to a higher authority, in your case the law, it's an attempt to shutdown further discussion. In other words, it's not an argument as to the merits of the points being made. You're just not addressing the points at all and appealing to "a higher authority."
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        Ok. I think understand your point now. I believe you have your argument type mixed up. You are probably looking for appeal to the law ( though it is still a stretch ). I am not dura lex sed lex guy, but I think it is necessary to point out current condition before we get too wound up over what the reality ought to be. edit: corrected fallacy to argument
  - Tainnor 7y ago
    I don't agree with the parent comment at all, but this is not an argument from authority. If anything, it's an instance of the is-ought fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
  - jshevek 7y ago
    It looks to me like you may be poisoning the well. Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.
- burrows 7y ago
  The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
  - katmannthree 7y ago
    >There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws. Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.
    - burrows 7y ago
      Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate. Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
      - katmannthree 7y ago
        You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome. This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
        burrows 7y ago
        That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company. Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
        katmannthree 7y ago
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I can't honestly say I disagree with you. There must be a line between you and work and a question where that line is is a valid question. As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though.. So where is the line for you?
  - skywhopper 7y ago
    A company as big as Amazon is very different than a small firm with a few employees. There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices. Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong.
    - missedthecue 7y ago
      So at what headcount does a firm just have to put up with any and all negative remarks made by their employees? Clearly you think a small business should have different rules than Amazon.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        I also think that small firms should have different rules than companies like Amazon or Walmart, in many domains. Most people agree, and the law reflects this common opinion. I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%? To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.
- mcherm 7y ago
  > 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) My favorite which would work in much of the US is "We'll fire anybody who registers with the Republican party." (Or Democratic, if you prefer.) Especially in a state where registration is required in order to participate in the primary. It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone. This is not true in my experience. Many people on the left, particularly under 35, earnestly believe that their political opponents are by definition racist and evil. In a manner similar to how I would not want a literal neo-nazi on my company's payroll, they do not want a registered Republican on the company's payroll. Edit: In other words, this kind of bigotry is actually acceptable to a disturbingly large number of people.
    - SaxonRobber 7y ago
      It is my experience that everyone who self identifies as a republican or democrat is brainwashed at this point. The worst offenders are those who are so delusional that they mock anyone who avoids political discourse or abstains from voting. They are so high on political fumes that they can’t imagine that there are things more important than our cancerous political process.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        I agree there are serious problems with brainwashing on both sides. My criticism was directed leftward only because it seemed most relevant to my disagreement with the GP.
      - filoleg 7y ago
        From my observations (total anecdata, I am aware), those pro-specific-party people also usually don't tend to participate in politics on more local levels at all (county, state, etc.), despite the fact that those are imo way more impactful and can lead to changes "trickling up" all the way to the national level. Most of the people I personally know who vote in county/state elections can be best described as independents.
- syshum 7y ago
  I 100% agree with you, however this seems to be only an outrage because these people happen to have Left leaning political views Right leaning people are fired all the time for their views on social issues, and no one seems to have a problem with that normally. Further if these employees would have been fired to taking a counter view I bet there would have been cheers for their firing no the outrage here is not really because " people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them" no it is more "I agree with these employee opinions and am outraged they were fired for an opinion I share"
- bsder 7y ago
  > we'll fire anybody who watches porn That's not particularly non-sensical, at all. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. "We'll fire anybody who plays a game" would qualify as "absurd".
kube-system 7y ago
All US states recognize at-will employment. This does not mean that people can be fired for any reason, there are numerous laws that define reasons that are prohibited. But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.
- YokoZar 7y ago
  Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity by the NLRB. Firing workers for that is explicitly illegal. You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity Didn't help that Google guy. The NLRB itself even issued some sort of opinion stating that he had violated corporate policy and that his firing was thus justified.
    - YokoZar 7y ago
      If by "that Google guy" you mean Damore he did dozens of things wrong simultaneously. If by "that Google guy" you mean the one who got fired for posting critical memes about pay on Facebook, I'm pretty sure they were ordered reinstated and the notice was issued. The Amazon folks fired here did nothing more than say they were concerned about working conditions on Twitter. It's hard to have a more explicitly protected activity.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    You're 100% right. Let me further clarify my statement: While shit talking your employer, you must be very careful not to step outside the bounds of what is legally protected. And with attention comes scrutiny.
sudosysgen 7y ago
It is fallacious to think that because something is legal, it is OK.
throwaway_USD 7y ago
>but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. Yes, employment at-will allows both the employer and employee to terminate employment at anytime without cause. However, it seems pretty clear Amazon did not terminate these employees without cause...you can argue the termination was for violation of a company policy all you want (Amazon certainly will), but the evidence seems to support Amazon fired these employees in retaliation for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. The employees will sue and Amazon will settle. This is a major win for Amazon because it will be far less costly to pay these employees off rather than make any meaningful change to work conditions.
- rochester46 7y ago
  There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. The constitution has nothing to do with this case at all.
  - bigbob2 7y ago
    True, but NLRA may be applicable.
  - throwaway_USD 7y ago
    >There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true. But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
    - rochester46 7y ago
      Feel free to point out anywhere the constitution says so. The constitution and/or bill of rights have nothing to do with this situation, as no constitutional rights were broken whatsoever. >or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement? >who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? Yes. >No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine. No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.
wpietri 7y ago
Nobody said it was illegal. Why did you think it important to defend Amazon against an accusation that isn't even being made?
xenocyon 7y ago
> nor am I condoning this Nobody's questioning the legality. The question is whether it should be condoned. Private censorship is legal, but IMHO it can be unethical, especially when the balance of power is so far askew. An employer firing or threatening to fire an employee for speaking can have a large chilling effect.
- YokoZar 7y ago
  There are plenty questioning the legality. Workers do have rights in the United States. One of them is to engage in organizing activity for mutual protection, which includes discussing working conditions with the public. Despite the spokesperson's doublespeak, that is exactly what they were fired for.
tehjoker 7y ago
Of course the powerful can use their powers for evil, we have to criticise them for it.
- missedthecue 7y ago
  I don't think discontinuing employment should be categorized as 'evil'. Amazon doesn't owe them a job, and if the seller of labour crossed a line that the buyer doesn't like and that has been clearly spelled out prior to the work beginning, no one should force the buyer to continue buying labour from the seller. That would be closer to evil than the former option.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    It seems rather authoritarian to totally shred the relationship over mild dissent. How weak and pathetic is the Amazon leadership that they cannot tolerate criticism?
    - missedthecue 7y ago
      I don't think Amazon tries very hard to silence criticism. If you need proof, there are plenty of WaPo op-eds shitting on Amazon. I don't think it is absurd not to want to employ someone who is an activist against you.
      - tehjoker 7y ago
        I don't think it is absurd to exile someone critical of the country's administration.
tobr 7y ago
Friendly input: when you start a comment with “Uhh, ...”, it comes across as if you think the person you’re replying to is stupid. It reads like the equivalent of an eye-roll.

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.
  - mcherm 7y ago
    I would immediately implement a special role for the head of HR: official decider of all firing decisions. No one will blame the head of HR because they'll know that they were only carrying out someone else's decision, while no one would blame the original decider because no one knows who it was.
    - qppo 7y ago
      Why would you want to create a workplace without personal responsibility for decision making? All I'm saying is to make that personal responsibility public. It's pretty telling to me that I'm being downvoted for saying that I think people should own up to their decisions in the workplace that impact other people and are questionable ethically. Removing any kind of moral liability for those decisions is how we wind up with businesses that employ good people that do shitty things to other good people.
      - freejazz 7y ago
        Because that would just require corporations to have a "fall guy", which is basically what a lot of executives are already. Vessels into which the corporation can dump it's moral debt.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I just had a minor epiphany. This is exactly what compliance officer is supposed to be.
      - SaxonRobber 7y ago
        The corporate structure institutionalizes immorality, it cannot be avoided. By law shareholder profits come first, everything else is secondary to that goal.
      - Zanni 7y ago
        But it sounds like your recipe for responsibility is mob justice. What other possible result could come from publicizing the name of "the person responsible" for the firing?
- ardy42 7y ago
  > The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal. That's patently false. Plenty of people want to make those unethical things illegal, it's just that the people who engage in those unethical things have had the political power to thwart many of those efforts so far.
atomi 7y ago
> Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Could you elaborate? I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.
  - atomi 7y ago
    When you appeal an argument to a higher authority, in your case the law, it's an attempt to shutdown further discussion. In other words, it's not an argument as to the merits of the points being made. You're just not addressing the points at all and appealing to "a higher authority."
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      Ok. I think understand your point now. I believe you have your argument type mixed up. You are probably looking for appeal to the law ( though it is still a stretch ). I am not dura lex sed lex guy, but I think it is necessary to point out current condition before we get too wound up over what the reality ought to be. edit: corrected fallacy to argument
- Tainnor 7y ago
  I don't agree with the parent comment at all, but this is not an argument from authority. If anything, it's an instance of the is-ought fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- jshevek 7y ago
  It looks to me like you may be poisoning the well. Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.
burrows 7y ago
The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.
- katmannthree 7y ago
  >There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws. Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.
  - burrows 7y ago
    Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate. Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
    - katmannthree 7y ago
      You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome. This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
      - burrows 7y ago
        That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company. Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
        katmannthree 7y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I can't honestly say I disagree with you. There must be a line between you and work and a question where that line is is a valid question. As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though.. So where is the line for you?
- skywhopper 7y ago
  A company as big as Amazon is very different than a small firm with a few employees. There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices. Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong.
  - missedthecue 7y ago
    So at what headcount does a firm just have to put up with any and all negative remarks made by their employees? Clearly you think a small business should have different rules than Amazon.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      I also think that small firms should have different rules than companies like Amazon or Walmart, in many domains. Most people agree, and the law reflects this common opinion. I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%? To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.
mcherm 7y ago
> 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) My favorite which would work in much of the US is "We'll fire anybody who registers with the Republican party." (Or Democratic, if you prefer.) Especially in a state where registration is required in order to participate in the primary. It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone.
- jshevek 7y ago
  >It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone. This is not true in my experience. Many people on the left, particularly under 35, earnestly believe that their political opponents are by definition racist and evil. In a manner similar to how I would not want a literal neo-nazi on my company's payroll, they do not want a registered Republican on the company's payroll. Edit: In other words, this kind of bigotry is actually acceptable to a disturbingly large number of people.
  - SaxonRobber 7y ago
    It is my experience that everyone who self identifies as a republican or democrat is brainwashed at this point. The worst offenders are those who are so delusional that they mock anyone who avoids political discourse or abstains from voting. They are so high on political fumes that they can’t imagine that there are things more important than our cancerous political process.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      I agree there are serious problems with brainwashing on both sides. My criticism was directed leftward only because it seemed most relevant to my disagreement with the GP.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      From my observations (total anecdata, I am aware), those pro-specific-party people also usually don't tend to participate in politics on more local levels at all (county, state, etc.), despite the fact that those are imo way more impactful and can lead to changes "trickling up" all the way to the national level. Most of the people I personally know who vote in county/state elections can be best described as independents.
syshum 7y ago
I 100% agree with you, however this seems to be only an outrage because these people happen to have Left leaning political views Right leaning people are fired all the time for their views on social issues, and no one seems to have a problem with that normally. Further if these employees would have been fired to taking a counter view I bet there would have been cheers for their firing no the outrage here is not really because " people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them" no it is more "I agree with these employee opinions and am outraged they were fired for an opinion I share"
bsder 7y ago
> we'll fire anybody who watches porn That's not particularly non-sensical, at all. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. "We'll fire anybody who plays a game" would qualify as "absurd".

kube-system 7y ago

All US states recognize at-will employment. This does not mean that people can be fired for any reason, there are numerous laws that define reasons that are prohibited. But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.

YokoZar 7y ago
Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity by the NLRB. Firing workers for that is explicitly illegal. You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity Didn't help that Google guy. The NLRB itself even issued some sort of opinion stating that he had violated corporate policy and that his firing was thus justified.
  - YokoZar 7y ago
    If by "that Google guy" you mean Damore he did dozens of things wrong simultaneously. If by "that Google guy" you mean the one who got fired for posting critical memes about pay on Facebook, I'm pretty sure they were ordered reinstated and the notice was issued. The Amazon folks fired here did nothing more than say they were concerned about working conditions on Twitter. It's hard to have a more explicitly protected activity.
- kube-system 7y ago
  You're 100% right. Let me further clarify my statement: While shit talking your employer, you must be very careful not to step outside the bounds of what is legally protected. And with attention comes scrutiny.

sudosysgen 7y ago

It is fallacious to think that because something is legal, it is OK.

throwaway_USD 7y ago

>but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. Yes, employment at-will allows both the employer and employee to terminate employment at anytime without cause. However, it seems pretty clear Amazon did not terminate these employees without cause...you can argue the termination was for violation of a company policy all you want (Amazon certainly will), but the evidence seems to support Amazon fired these employees in retaliation for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. The employees will sue and Amazon will settle. This is a major win for Amazon because it will be far less costly to pay these employees off rather than make any meaningful change to work conditions.

rochester46 7y ago
There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. The constitution has nothing to do with this case at all.
- bigbob2 7y ago
  True, but NLRA may be applicable.
- throwaway_USD 7y ago
  >There are no constitutionally protected rights to disparage, or even just talk negatively about, anyone you want. Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true. But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.
  - rochester46 7y ago
    Feel free to point out anywhere the constitution says so. The constitution and/or bill of rights have nothing to do with this situation, as no constitutional rights were broken whatsoever. >or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement? >who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? Yes. >No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine. No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

wpietri 7y ago

Nobody said it was illegal. Why did you think it important to defend Amazon against an accusation that isn't even being made?

xenocyon 7y ago

> nor am I condoning this Nobody's questioning the legality. The question is whether it should be condoned. Private censorship is legal, but IMHO it can be unethical, especially when the balance of power is so far askew. An employer firing or threatening to fire an employee for speaking can have a large chilling effect.

YokoZar 7y ago
There are plenty questioning the legality. Workers do have rights in the United States. One of them is to engage in organizing activity for mutual protection, which includes discussing working conditions with the public. Despite the spokesperson's doublespeak, that is exactly what they were fired for.

tehjoker 7y ago

Of course the powerful can use their powers for evil, we have to criticise them for it.

missedthecue 7y ago
I don't think discontinuing employment should be categorized as 'evil'. Amazon doesn't owe them a job, and if the seller of labour crossed a line that the buyer doesn't like and that has been clearly spelled out prior to the work beginning, no one should force the buyer to continue buying labour from the seller. That would be closer to evil than the former option.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  It seems rather authoritarian to totally shred the relationship over mild dissent. How weak and pathetic is the Amazon leadership that they cannot tolerate criticism?
  - missedthecue 7y ago
    I don't think Amazon tries very hard to silence criticism. If you need proof, there are plenty of WaPo op-eds shitting on Amazon. I don't think it is absurd not to want to employ someone who is an activist against you.
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      I don't think it is absurd to exile someone critical of the country's administration.

tobr 7y ago

Friendly input: when you start a comment with “Uhh, ...”, it comes across as if you think the person you’re replying to is stupid. It reads like the equivalent of an eye-roll.