4 ms·

I don't think Amazon is going to have any trouble at all filling open headcount with talented people on account of maintaining a politics-free workplace. It's

I don't think Amazon is going to have any trouble at all filling open headcount with talented people on account of maintaining a politics-free workplace. It's become fashionable in tech among a certain crowd to bombard coworkers with divisive messaging about controversial social issues, to leak confidential information to sympathetic external press, and to demonize anyone who objects. This practice must end, and I admire Bezos for having the guts to end it. Companies have every right to ask employees to focus on work at work. If being one of these "reputable people" you mention requires me to be a cheerleader for this kind of strident and obnoxious internal activism, I don't want to be "reputable".

uoaei 7y ago
It sounds like you think that the concern about Amazon is primarily about working conditions in the cushy office jobs. But that's not what anyone is talking about here. They're talking about frontline "essential" workers like those in the warehouses and delivery trucks.
tracker1 7y ago
While I agree with much of what you say, I feel that speaking out against serious problems with working conditions and the media should always be an option. For the boots on the ground workers, ever more so. For those in well paying, white collar jobs with plenty of other opportunities, even in the current climate, quitting with an exit statement is more appropriate than trying to burn it down from the inside. I respect the exec in question, and the warehouse workers who speak out. The idological opportunists pushing an agenda, not so much.
billy_beef 7y ago
This quickly begins to sound like a 21st century “we were only following orders” argument, no?
- manigandham 7y ago
  No, because they obviously didn't and quit.
  - billy_beef 6y ago
    > Companies have every right to ask employees to focus on work at work. I’m responding to this claim, maybe we’re talking about different things? My point is really: What if the “work” is running trains to death camps? Shouldn’t employees object? If you believe climate change is as big a threat as scientists claim, I think workers building tools to help fossil fuel extraction have a duty by this historical argument to not “run the trains” or not just “focus on work at work”.

uoaei 7y ago

It sounds like you think that the concern about Amazon is primarily about working conditions in the cushy office jobs. But that's not what anyone is talking about here. They're talking about frontline "essential" workers like those in the warehouses and delivery trucks.

tracker1 7y ago

While I agree with much of what you say, I feel that speaking out against serious problems with working conditions and the media should always be an option. For the boots on the ground workers, ever more so. For those in well paying, white collar jobs with plenty of other opportunities, even in the current climate, quitting with an exit statement is more appropriate than trying to burn it down from the inside. I respect the exec in question, and the warehouse workers who speak out. The idological opportunists pushing an agenda, not so much.

billy_beef 7y ago

This quickly begins to sound like a 21st century “we were only following orders” argument, no?

manigandham 7y ago
No, because they obviously didn't and quit.
- billy_beef 6y ago
  > Companies have every right to ask employees to focus on work at work. I’m responding to this claim, maybe we’re talking about different things? My point is really: What if the “work” is running trains to death camps? Shouldn’t employees object? If you believe climate change is as big a threat as scientists claim, I think workers building tools to help fossil fuel extraction have a duty by this historical argument to not “run the trains” or not just “focus on work at work”.