6 ms·

It seems like they called the cops because they thought there were uninvited individuals on their property. To go from that to the idea that they did it "to sto

It seems like they called the cops because they thought there were uninvited individuals on their property. To go from that to the idea that they did it "to stop unionization" is a leap. Would they have done the same thing if animal rights protesters, or the Proud Boys, or whoever came and someone thought they were on Amazon property illegally? I think so.

dundarious 4y ago
Mistaking employees for trespassers, and mistaking your own property boundaries, combine to make a fairly large mistake. You would think the union-busting agents they’ve hired would have better intel on this type of thing...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Why is it a mistake? They sent an intimidating message, which their targets have helpfully amplified by telling the world: Take on Amazon and they may have you arrested.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    GP was being facetious, showing how ridiculous the OP's claim that this is just Amazon calling the cops to stop trespassers is.
    - dundarious 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. Without any further info, and given the context of union-busting and intel collection especially at this facility, I think it’s unlikely this was a just a dumb mistake, and quite likely it was intimidation, seeking a pretext to fire the employee/organizer.
- googlryas 4y ago
  "A fairly large mistake" - What do you think the consequences should be for the person who called 911 in this situation?
  - dundarious 4y ago
    If it’s a genuine mistake, absolutely nothing. I’m implying that it was far more likely to be intimidation rather than a mistake.
    - oh_sigh 4y ago
      What exactly is intimidating about a sheriff showing up, seeing that everything is okay, and then moving on with their life?
      - dundarious 4y ago
        It seems pretty obvious to me that calling the police on someone for some activity, is intended as a way to stop that activity, potentially by force, and potentially giving a pretext for terminating that employee. The "everything is okay" outcome was not what the caller wanted, and was in no way guaranteed. If you call the police on your neighbors for spurious reasons, and the cops come and discover it was a spurious complaint, your neighbors are going to think you are targeting them and trying to get them in trouble, even if in the end "everything is okay". Especially if you have a cosy relationship with the cops, and you actually own the home your neighbors are renting, for example.
        googlryas 4y ago
        I think the caller wanted them off Amazon property. And they got that in a sense, because apparently they were never on Amazon property. If you think this was some kind of corporate intimidation, how many people would you guess were involved with the decision? Why isn't Amazon hiring scary bike gangs with plausible deniability to come harass the organizers instead of cops who generally enforce the law? Sorry. But I just can't see it. "We're a trillion dollar organization with hundreds of thousands of employees with global reach. Our preferred intimidation methods involve a bumpkin county sheriff who knows how to enforce the law"
        dundarious 4y ago
inerte 4y ago
I too make mistakes that happen to align with my dubious motivated activities.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Quasi-categorically, you can state that protestors outside of an Amazon warehouse are attempting to get Amazon to change something about their operations, so of course Amazon will be at odds with most protesters there - if they weren't there probably wouldn't be protestors because Amazon would have already made the change. In any case, Amazon may also make mistakes that help the protesters, but that would never be reported on(e.g protesters illegally trespassing, but no one at Amazon realizes it and calls the police)
eyelidlessness 4y ago
I’m not going to say you’re naive, but I will say that they generally don’t have to answer that question regarding Proud Boys, because they’re often already authorized employees.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  I was just picking a group that had as little overlap with animal rights protestors as I could imagine. And I have no idea where you're getting your information about Proud Boys "often" being authorized employees. Mind to share any kind of source?
  - elicash 4y ago
    Not to speak for the person you responded to, but in context they were saying that union organizers are also employees. Unions do hire organizers, too, no doubt. But it's the organizing committee (made up of employees) that generally does the most important work. It was almost certainly meant to be IN CONTRAST to Proud Boys. Edit: apparently not, see below!
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      I appreciate your charitable reading, and the better point it makes. I was in fact saying that a lot of Proud Boys are employed by Amazon, and that I doubt Amazon would particularly care about PB demonstrations. And of course I can’t answer GP with proof of that, quite a lot of the group operates with aliases. But I live in the company town and people get to know each other. That said, again your point is much more salient.
      - oh_sigh 4y ago
        Any reason you think Amazon would not care about PB demonstrations? Why are these groups operating in secret if they're supported by Amazon? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. This is like saying that Taco Bell employs racists. Yes, undoubtedly it does, because 200,000 people work for taco bell and at least some of them are bound to be racist. But how exactly are you going from that fact, to the idea that Taco Bell condones racists?
elicash 4y ago
From the third sentence of the article: "the officers eventually determined that Litrell wasn’t on Amazon’s property and left." He was on public property. Are you arguing that Amazon doesn't know where their property line is? (Also, comparing classic union organizing to white supremacists who are charged with "seditious conspiracy" in the violent attack on the nation's capital in an attempt to overthrow an election is wild.)
- lovemenot 4y ago
  Your parent was using those two examples to make a logical point. Not by way of of comparison. You might have got that from the wide political difference between the two examples.
  - elicash 4y ago
    It's an absurd example. If you were walking by my apartment building and I called the cops on you, would it be appropriate for me to say "well if you were the KKK, and I mistakenly thought I owned the sidewalk, I'd be right to call the cops!"? Bringing up a violent group like this makes no sense at all. And yes, examples are given specifically as points of comparison.
    - lovemenot 4y ago
      I am pleased to see your rebuttal. Frankly, I initially thought your indignation was disingenuous. Now, I think we have both read that comment differently. >> Would they have done the same thing if animal rights protesters, or the Proud Boys, or whoever came and someone thought they were on Amazon property illegally? I think so. I read it as: take any arbitrary group of people who might organise a protest from any arbitrary political or social position "or whoever". Regardless, Amazon would have reacted the same. There is no implicit comparison to insurrectionists in such a reading.
      - elicash 4y ago
        Maybe it just struck a nerve because I've been watching the Jan 6 hearings with videos of the violent mobs attacking police in my home city, a few blocks from where I used to live. In contrast, people who do this union work are heroes as far as I'm concerned. Using the Proud Boys as an example during a discussion about lawful, non-violent efforts makes no sense at all; this group isn't merely a group with a different political or social position than the union organizers.

dundarious 4y ago

Mistaking employees for trespassers, and mistaking your own property boundaries, combine to make a fairly large mistake. You would think the union-busting agents they’ve hired would have better intel on this type of thing...

wolverine876 4y ago
Why is it a mistake? They sent an intimidating message, which their targets have helpfully amplified by telling the world: Take on Amazon and they may have you arrested.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  GP was being facetious, showing how ridiculous the OP's claim that this is just Amazon calling the cops to stop trespassers is.
  - dundarious 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. Without any further info, and given the context of union-busting and intel collection especially at this facility, I think it’s unlikely this was a just a dumb mistake, and quite likely it was intimidation, seeking a pretext to fire the employee/organizer.
googlryas 4y ago
"A fairly large mistake" - What do you think the consequences should be for the person who called 911 in this situation?
- dundarious 4y ago
  If it’s a genuine mistake, absolutely nothing. I’m implying that it was far more likely to be intimidation rather than a mistake.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    What exactly is intimidating about a sheriff showing up, seeing that everything is okay, and then moving on with their life?
    - dundarious 4y ago
      It seems pretty obvious to me that calling the police on someone for some activity, is intended as a way to stop that activity, potentially by force, and potentially giving a pretext for terminating that employee. The "everything is okay" outcome was not what the caller wanted, and was in no way guaranteed. If you call the police on your neighbors for spurious reasons, and the cops come and discover it was a spurious complaint, your neighbors are going to think you are targeting them and trying to get them in trouble, even if in the end "everything is okay". Especially if you have a cosy relationship with the cops, and you actually own the home your neighbors are renting, for example.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        I think the caller wanted them off Amazon property. And they got that in a sense, because apparently they were never on Amazon property. If you think this was some kind of corporate intimidation, how many people would you guess were involved with the decision? Why isn't Amazon hiring scary bike gangs with plausible deniability to come harass the organizers instead of cops who generally enforce the law? Sorry. But I just can't see it. "We're a trillion dollar organization with hundreds of thousands of employees with global reach. Our preferred intimidation methods involve a bumpkin county sheriff who knows how to enforce the law"
        dundarious 4y ago

inerte 4y ago

I too make mistakes that happen to align with my dubious motivated activities.

oh_sigh 4y ago
Quasi-categorically, you can state that protestors outside of an Amazon warehouse are attempting to get Amazon to change something about their operations, so of course Amazon will be at odds with most protesters there - if they weren't there probably wouldn't be protestors because Amazon would have already made the change. In any case, Amazon may also make mistakes that help the protesters, but that would never be reported on(e.g protesters illegally trespassing, but no one at Amazon realizes it and calls the police)

eyelidlessness 4y ago

I’m not going to say you’re naive, but I will say that they generally don’t have to answer that question regarding Proud Boys, because they’re often already authorized employees.

oh_sigh 4y ago
I was just picking a group that had as little overlap with animal rights protestors as I could imagine. And I have no idea where you're getting your information about Proud Boys "often" being authorized employees. Mind to share any kind of source?
- elicash 4y ago
  Not to speak for the person you responded to, but in context they were saying that union organizers are also employees. Unions do hire organizers, too, no doubt. But it's the organizing committee (made up of employees) that generally does the most important work. It was almost certainly meant to be IN CONTRAST to Proud Boys. Edit: apparently not, see below!
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    I appreciate your charitable reading, and the better point it makes. I was in fact saying that a lot of Proud Boys are employed by Amazon, and that I doubt Amazon would particularly care about PB demonstrations. And of course I can’t answer GP with proof of that, quite a lot of the group operates with aliases. But I live in the company town and people get to know each other. That said, again your point is much more salient.
    - oh_sigh 4y ago
      Any reason you think Amazon would not care about PB demonstrations? Why are these groups operating in secret if they're supported by Amazon? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. This is like saying that Taco Bell employs racists. Yes, undoubtedly it does, because 200,000 people work for taco bell and at least some of them are bound to be racist. But how exactly are you going from that fact, to the idea that Taco Bell condones racists?

elicash 4y ago

From the third sentence of the article: "the officers eventually determined that Litrell wasn’t on Amazon’s property and left." He was on public property. Are you arguing that Amazon doesn't know where their property line is? (Also, comparing classic union organizing to white supremacists who are charged with "seditious conspiracy" in the violent attack on the nation's capital in an attempt to overthrow an election is wild.)

lovemenot 4y ago
Your parent was using those two examples to make a logical point. Not by way of of comparison. You might have got that from the wide political difference between the two examples.
- elicash 4y ago
  It's an absurd example. If you were walking by my apartment building and I called the cops on you, would it be appropriate for me to say "well if you were the KKK, and I mistakenly thought I owned the sidewalk, I'd be right to call the cops!"? Bringing up a violent group like this makes no sense at all. And yes, examples are given specifically as points of comparison.
  - lovemenot 4y ago
    I am pleased to see your rebuttal. Frankly, I initially thought your indignation was disingenuous. Now, I think we have both read that comment differently. >> Would they have done the same thing if animal rights protesters, or the Proud Boys, or whoever came and someone thought they were on Amazon property illegally? I think so. I read it as: take any arbitrary group of people who might organise a protest from any arbitrary political or social position "or whoever". Regardless, Amazon would have reacted the same. There is no implicit comparison to insurrectionists in such a reading.
    - elicash 4y ago
      Maybe it just struck a nerve because I've been watching the Jan 6 hearings with videos of the violent mobs attacking police in my home city, a few blocks from where I used to live. In contrast, people who do this union work are heroes as far as I'm concerned. Using the Proud Boys as an example during a discussion about lawful, non-violent efforts makes no sense at all; this group isn't merely a group with a different political or social position than the union organizers.