6 ms·

I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were

I'm clicking through all the links in this article and can't find a single bit from Amazon's point of view. But my hazy memory says Amazon's story is they were fired because they were sending mass emails through the internal Amazon email system trying to unionize and wouldn't quit and use some other means of communication even after being counseled. You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazon a cartoon villain ran by a duck who swims in a silo of gold coins?

baloney1 6y ago
NYT is clearly left leaning and usually does not provide both sides.
- brightstep 6y ago
  Maybe socially, but NYT leans right economically.
sokoloff 6y ago
> You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum 30 years ago, I would have had that expectation from NYT and other trustworthy media sources. I haven’t had that expectation for at least a decade now.
tyingq 6y ago
There's 2 quotes from an Amazon spokesperson there: “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, all of which are lawful,” said Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokeswoman. “We terminated these employees not for talking publicly about working conditions, safety or sustainability but, rather, for repeatedly violating internal policies.” Ms. Anderson, the Amazon spokeswoman, said the company disagreed with allegations made in Mr. Bailey’s case. “We are proud to provide inclusive environments, where employees can excel without fear of retaliation, intimidation or harassment,” she said.
- slibhb 6y ago
  Right. But it would interesting to hear how Amazon claims these employees violated internal policies. That seems newsworthy.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Their spokesperson did not wish to say what policies they claim were violated. They were presented an opportunity to state their side, and chose not to.
    - slibhb 6y ago
      Maybe an intrepid journalist could find out... Perhaps, in doing so, that journalist would discover that Amazon had no real argument for any internal policy being violated at all. Or perhaps they would discover that these employees did, in fact, violate some internal policy, whether or not their firing violated their rights.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The intrepid journalist linked to it, why is reprinting it necessary?
      - danaliv 6y ago
        I generally don't like the New York Times either, but you're grasping at straws here.
    - aksss 6y ago
      Which is why these things shouldn’t be decided in a court of public opinion. If you’ve ever been involved in the employment dispute world, you know there is a lot of liability for employers talking about internal investigation matters publicly. It’s not realistic to expect Amazon or any employer to talk openly with the press about an ongoing dispute with an employee in detail. Meanwhile, an individual fighting the company has every incentive to air everything (as they understand it) and little liability for doing so. Consequently, news stories are seldom going to give you a full accounting of facts.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazon a cartoon villain ran by a duck who swims in a silo of gold coins? News doesn't do that anymore, but more importantly, Scrooge McDuck is not a villain.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  We wouldn't want children to get the wrong idea about rich people!
monocasa 6y ago
Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?
- bhupy 6y ago
  Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for that to happen.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.
        bhupy 6y ago
throwawayfire 6y ago
It would be unsurprising to me if Amazon had buried this claim and didn't want it to be repeated, because in my opinion that would be clear evidence that they were breaking labor laws.
tpush 6y ago
??? Amazon's POV is explained directly in the article. There's also this link [0] from the article elaborating on the firing. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/amazon-threatens-fire-outspoken-employee-critics-its-environmental-policies/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/amazon-...
jessaustin 6y ago
I hope they have better luck with WaPo!
anotherman554 6y ago
Since corporations aren't alive how can they have a "point of view??? That's a funny euphemism for "statement written by a corporate PR person who may not have any clue about what they are talking about, and may be repeating someone's lies."
wayoutthere 6y ago
> You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazon a cartoon villain ran by a duck who swims in a silo of gold coins? This kind of “both sides” journalism has been weaponized by bad actors to the point it does a disservice to readers. They use it as a way to inject talking points into the public discourse. I think the last 10 years have showed us that there are definitely some points of view that are more valuable than others, and that treating all points of view as carrying equal weight is a false equivalency that simply creates openings for bad-faith actors (and Amazon is hardly the first company / politician to act in bad faith).
boomboomsubban 6y ago
They link to their original article about the firing, which says >Amazon told the employees that they had violated its policy against solicitation, which forbids Amazon workers from asking their co-workers to donate to causes or sign petitions. The article is part of a briefing with a headline about the airline industry, somewhat understanding how you would miss it.
8note 6y ago
Yeah, where's the side that's for dissolving amazon? And the side that wants to get rid of all labour standards? Where's the Islamic fundamentalist view that they shouldn't be outside without something covering their hair in that picture? The NYT is doing a horrible job portaying the relevant sides in this event
confusion123 6y ago
I remember their advocacy from internal mailing lists. They were staunch critics of Amazon's effect on the climate and environment. I don't recall either of them calling for a union, but I do remember them as passionate, eloquent, and consistent advocates of the environment, and I was very sad to see them be fired.

baloney1 6y ago

NYT is clearly left leaning and usually does not provide both sides.

brightstep 6y ago
Maybe socially, but NYT leans right economically.

sokoloff 6y ago

> You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum 30 years ago, I would have had that expectation from NYT and other trustworthy media sources. I haven’t had that expectation for at least a decade now.

tyingq 6y ago

There's 2 quotes from an Amazon spokesperson there: “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, all of which are lawful,” said Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokeswoman. “We terminated these employees not for talking publicly about working conditions, safety or sustainability but, rather, for repeatedly violating internal policies.” Ms. Anderson, the Amazon spokeswoman, said the company disagreed with allegations made in Mr. Bailey’s case. “We are proud to provide inclusive environments, where employees can excel without fear of retaliation, intimidation or harassment,” she said.

slibhb 6y ago
Right. But it would interesting to hear how Amazon claims these employees violated internal policies. That seems newsworthy.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Their spokesperson did not wish to say what policies they claim were violated. They were presented an opportunity to state their side, and chose not to.
  - slibhb 6y ago
    Maybe an intrepid journalist could find out... Perhaps, in doing so, that journalist would discover that Amazon had no real argument for any internal policy being violated at all. Or perhaps they would discover that these employees did, in fact, violate some internal policy, whether or not their firing violated their rights.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The intrepid journalist linked to it, why is reprinting it necessary?
    - danaliv 6y ago
      I generally don't like the New York Times either, but you're grasping at straws here.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Which is why these things shouldn’t be decided in a court of public opinion. If you’ve ever been involved in the employment dispute world, you know there is a lot of liability for employers talking about internal investigation matters publicly. It’s not realistic to expect Amazon or any employer to talk openly with the press about an ongoing dispute with an employee in detail. Meanwhile, an individual fighting the company has every incentive to air everything (as they understand it) and little liability for doing so. Consequently, news stories are seldom going to give you a full accounting of facts.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazon a cartoon villain ran by a duck who swims in a silo of gold coins? News doesn't do that anymore, but more importantly, Scrooge McDuck is not a villain.

jessaustin 6y ago
We wouldn't want children to get the wrong idea about rich people!

monocasa 6y ago

Apparently the NLRB didn't think the specifics of Amazon's explanation for why they were fired was compelling. Why should the NYT then?

bhupy 6y ago
Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for that to happen.
- monocasa 6y ago
  They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.
      - bhupy 6y ago

throwawayfire 6y ago

It would be unsurprising to me if Amazon had buried this claim and didn't want it to be repeated, because in my opinion that would be clear evidence that they were breaking labor laws.

tpush 6y ago

??? Amazon's POV is explained directly in the article. There's also this link [0] from the article elaborating on the firing. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/amazon-threatens-fire-outspoken-employee-critics-its-environmental-policies/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/amazon-...

jessaustin 6y ago

I hope they have better luck with WaPo!

anotherman554 6y ago

Since corporations aren't alive how can they have a "point of view??? That's a funny euphemism for "statement written by a corporate PR person who may not have any clue about what they are talking about, and may be repeating someone's lies."

wayoutthere 6y ago

> You'd expect the NYT's to give both side's at a minimum, or is Amazon a cartoon villain ran by a duck who swims in a silo of gold coins? This kind of “both sides” journalism has been weaponized by bad actors to the point it does a disservice to readers. They use it as a way to inject talking points into the public discourse. I think the last 10 years have showed us that there are definitely some points of view that are more valuable than others, and that treating all points of view as carrying equal weight is a false equivalency that simply creates openings for bad-faith actors (and Amazon is hardly the first company / politician to act in bad faith).

boomboomsubban 6y ago

They link to their original article about the firing, which says >Amazon told the employees that they had violated its policy against solicitation, which forbids Amazon workers from asking their co-workers to donate to causes or sign petitions. The article is part of a briefing with a headline about the airline industry, somewhat understanding how you would miss it.

8note 6y ago

Yeah, where's the side that's for dissolving amazon? And the side that wants to get rid of all labour standards? Where's the Islamic fundamentalist view that they shouldn't be outside without something covering their hair in that picture? The NYT is doing a horrible job portaying the relevant sides in this event

confusion123 6y ago

I remember their advocacy from internal mailing lists. They were staunch critics of Amazon's effect on the climate and environment. I don't recall either of them calling for a union, but I do remember them as passionate, eloquent, and consistent advocates of the environment, and I was very sad to see them be fired.