5 ms·
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
by moring 3y 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 3y agoAmazon 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 3y 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 3y agoI think you're taking the word "literally" too literally.
- vidarh 3y agoThe 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 3y agoI 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 3y agoNowadays "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 3y agoA trolley is hurtling down a track towards your employees, who are working on the tracks at your direction. You have time to warn them but do nothing. An employee gets hit and dies. Did you "kill" them? We're descending into semantics. But I think many justice systems would classify the above as some type of homicide.
- psychoslave 3y agoIt seems that the legal term is corporate manslaughter, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoWait a minute, failure to warn of an impending earthquake constitutes corporate liability? Warn of an EARTHQUAKE? Am I reading your words right? Are you accusing hypothetical companies of negligence because they fail to do the impossible? Bad analogy: tornadoes are predictable. Try to stick with reality.
- bheadmaster 3y agoTrue, it's not a perfect analogy, I missed the unpredictability factor. But you understood what I was trying to say, so for what it's worth, it served it's purpose.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIt doesn't seem clear how a company can have liability to have 'safe shelter' from tornados in a warehouse. Can you explain?
- bheadmaster 3y agoSure, I'll simplify it: 1. company pays workers to work in warehouse 2. tornado warnings happen 3. company doesn't warn workers in warehouse 4. warehouse in a country where tornadoes happen often doesn't have a tornado shelter 5. tornado kills workers I hope this makes it more clear! Feel free to ask if things are still confusing.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoCan you cite the law that says or implies this must be provided for tornado prone areas? As far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada it's legally considered an 'act of god', a natural disaster, etc...
- bheadmaster 3y agoNo, I cannot. I am not a lawyer, I don't consider this particular question (whether it's legal to kill your workers or not) relevant to the question of whether they're responsible for their death (they are), and I don't consider lawmakers as the ultimate authority of ethics.
- naasking 3y ago> I could not find any evidence of Amazon literally killing an employee in that article. Negligence causing death is a thing.