7 ms·

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/18/amazon-wrongful-death-lawsuit-illinois-tornado-warehouse https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/18/a

• ornornor 4y ago
  Non AMP link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/18/amazon-wrongful-death-lawsuit-illinois-tornado-warehouse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/18/amazon-wr...
• moring 4y ago
  I could not find any evidence of Amazon literally killing an employee in that article. What I did find was this: > claims that Amazon failed to warn employees of dangerous weather or provide safe shelter before a tornado slammed the Edwardsville facility Such behaviour certainly warrants a lawsuit, and I hope Amazon gets into deep trouble for that, but what killed that employee was a tornado. Now the meaning of "kill" would probably include using force to have an employee being hit by that tornado, but the article doesn't seem to mention anything like that either. The details are left out, so what most likely happened is that the employee was threatened with being fired (explicitly, implied, or at a different time) if they don't continue to work, so they did, and then got hit by a tornado. So to clear this up: Are we actually talking about a case of manslaughter happening at Amazon, or is this a weird way of pointing out their abysmal workplace safety?
  • bheadmaster 4y ago
    Amazon built the warehouse. Amazon hired the people and ordered them to work in that warehouse. Amazon failed to warn employees of dangerous weather or provide safe shelter before a tornado slammed the Edwardsville facility on 10 December. McEwen and five others were killed in the disaster. If a mining company doesn't warn their miners of an earthquake, and it kills their workers, it's absolutely the mining company's fault. So how can this be anyone else's fault, but Amazon's? > So to clear this up: Are we actually talking about a case of manslaughter happening at Amazon, or is this a weird way of pointing out their abysmal workplace safety? Is there really a difference? The definition of manslaughter depends on the juridistiction, but I think this is clearly a case gross negligence manslaughter, by Amazon.
    • moring 4y ago
      > So how can this be anyone else's fault, but Amazon's? Why are we even discussing this? I never asked whose fault it is, and actually asserted from the beginning that I think it is Amazon's fault. Such working conditions should not even be allowed by law. What I did ask for is evidence that "Amazon literally killed their employee", which nobody has provided yet, and probably never will, because it is becoming very clear that it never happened, and that this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect.
      • oblio 4y ago
        I think you're taking the word "literally" too literally.
      • vidarh 4y ago
        The word "literally" has long meant both "literally" and "figuratively" to the point that the latter meaning is in some dictionaries at this point, and is reasonably used in this context to imply indirect responsibility. If the person above literally meant literally in its original meaning, then I agree it was misused for dramatic effect. if the person above meant to use it in the sense of figuratively, then it was merely ambiguously written.
        • NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
          I prefer to promote the term "veritable" as well as "virtually" which are good actual substitutes for what someone means when they mix up "literally". See also, nerds favorite superhero: https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A
      • pyth0 4y ago
        Nowadays "literally" is often used as "figuratively" in a somewhat ironic way to emphasize a point. In this case, the point being that Amazon's actions directly led to the deaths of workers.
      • anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  • naasking 4y ago
    > I could not find any evidence of Amazon literally killing an employee in that article. Negligence causing death is a thing.