5 ms·

>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 employ

>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.
    - throwaway_USD 7y ago
      You don't seem to understand 1st Amendment Law and protections; contract law; nor employment law. >This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so. Yes, at will employment gives the parties the right to terminate the employment...but, Amazon can not terminate an employee for any reason. For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. You may want to Google "workplace retaliation cases", because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.
      - rochester46 7y ago
        edit: in the interest of being less combative I've reworded this entire comment. The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities. >For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns. Correct, but this isn't why they were fired. There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.
- danaris 7y ago
  There's a fundamental difference between arbitrary disparagement and making public your genuine concerns about poor working conditions within the company.
  - rochester46 7y ago
    Sure, but that has nothing to do with any constitutional protections (or lack thereof) about either of those.

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.
  - throwaway_USD 7y ago
    You don't seem to understand 1st Amendment Law and protections; contract law; nor employment law. >This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so. Yes, at will employment gives the parties the right to terminate the employment...but, Amazon can not terminate an employee for any reason. For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. You may want to Google "workplace retaliation cases", because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.
    - rochester46 7y ago
      edit: in the interest of being less combative I've reworded this entire comment. The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities. >For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns. Correct, but this isn't why they were fired. There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.
danaris 7y ago
There's a fundamental difference between arbitrary disparagement and making public your genuine concerns about poor working conditions within the company.
- rochester46 7y ago
  Sure, but that has nothing to do with any constitutional protections (or lack thereof) about either of those.