3 ms·
Right. But it would interesting to hear how Amazon claims these employees violated internal policies. That seems newsworthy.
by slibhb 6y ago
Right. But it would interesting to hear how Amazon claims these employees violated internal policies. That seems newsworthy.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoTheir 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 agoMaybe 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 agoThe intrepid journalist linked to it, why is reprinting it necessary?
- danaliv 6y agoI generally don't like the New York Times either, but you're grasping at straws here.
- aksss 6y agoWhich 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.
- lupire 6y agoThe spokesperson had no choice. Speaking publicly in ways that harm the company's brand is against policy, a fireable offense.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoThe spokesperson is a representative of the company, what they say is what the company wants said publicly about the issue. I wasn't blaming them personally, I was saying the company's point of view was given in the article.
- hh3k0 6y agoThey violated their internal policy of not talking publicly about working conditions.