3 ms·

I'm having such a difficult time parsing this comment. What do you mean to say with those first two paragraphs?

karaterobot 3y ago
I read it as: commenter works in a physical job with older colleagues who, despite getting older and struggling more, are not attempting to get promoted or moved into a role they can continue to do as they age.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Accurate. And they will tell you that themselves.
- card_zero 3y ago
  What about the third paragraph? I can see how taking photos of a corpse might save lives, since it implies the death was suspicious, and might be part of whistleblowing about some sort of violation of regulations, or negligence. But how can it jeopardize the livelihood of millions? Is the idea that their jobs might all have to vanish if a whistleblower reveals them to be fundamentally dangerous?
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    No, we have a strict policy of not taking pictures or video at work unless it has gone through a rigerous process and is explicitly approved. This protects company IP in the only way that should matter, but it also literally saves lives. Someone tried to bomb the building I used to work in. I do not need the layout of my site on public display, the security measures, the blast proof structures, the safe places to hide. Sorry, whatever pictures the interviewee took takes a backseat to personnel safety. It is the paramount value at amazon, existing above any and all leadership principles.
    - card_zero 3y ago
      Sounds less than completely ingenuous. * The (putative) photos weren't published. * They aren't photos of the building. Perhaps a hundred frivolous public photos could present a risk in this way. A few secret ones taken for a good reason do not. * They were taken to protect safety, just not in alignment with the employer's particular idiosyncratic perspective on safety (which seems muddled up with concerns about IP and PR). So this has no relation to the risk of bombings or shootings, and I still don't see the connection to risk to other workers' livelihoods (AKA jobs). Maybe Amazon are monitoring what you write here, so you're obliged to say this weird stuff?
      - Geisterde 3y ago
        You know whats better than trying to strategize and hypothesize around a million employees taking pictures with no approval or accountability? An iron rule that everyone is subject to. You might be right in the particular scenario, that is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets alerts regarding every incident at amazon regardless of whether anyone was hurt. We have a very robust infastructure for identifying issues and correcting them globally. The best the interviewee could have accomplished is adding political complications that produce inferior results.
        card_zero 3y ago
        There are institutions for public safety outside of Amazon, such as regulatory bodies and laws, to which it is subject. Amazon is not yet a sovereign country, so the alleged robustness of its suspiciously self-serving internal safety procedures is not relevant here, since there can and should be such a thing as whistleblowing, in the civil society within which Amazon awkwardly sits prior to its secession.
        Geisterde 3y ago
        Right, the epa did a great job with east Palestine and flint. Not having accidents is something amazon has an economic incentive for, what incentives do these other institutions have?
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    And for that matter, very senior people have been fired without a second thought for taking pictures at work.

I read it as: commenter works in a physical job with older colleagues who, despite getting older and struggling more, are not attempting to get promoted or moved into a role they can continue to do as they age.

Geisterde 3y ago
Accurate. And they will tell you that themselves.
card_zero 3y ago
What about the third paragraph? I can see how taking photos of a corpse might save lives, since it implies the death was suspicious, and might be part of whistleblowing about some sort of violation of regulations, or negligence. But how can it jeopardize the livelihood of millions? Is the idea that their jobs might all have to vanish if a whistleblower reveals them to be fundamentally dangerous?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  No, we have a strict policy of not taking pictures or video at work unless it has gone through a rigerous process and is explicitly approved. This protects company IP in the only way that should matter, but it also literally saves lives. Someone tried to bomb the building I used to work in. I do not need the layout of my site on public display, the security measures, the blast proof structures, the safe places to hide. Sorry, whatever pictures the interviewee took takes a backseat to personnel safety. It is the paramount value at amazon, existing above any and all leadership principles.
  - card_zero 3y ago
    Sounds less than completely ingenuous. * The (putative) photos weren't published. * They aren't photos of the building. Perhaps a hundred frivolous public photos could present a risk in this way. A few secret ones taken for a good reason do not. * They were taken to protect safety, just not in alignment with the employer's particular idiosyncratic perspective on safety (which seems muddled up with concerns about IP and PR). So this has no relation to the risk of bombings or shootings, and I still don't see the connection to risk to other workers' livelihoods (AKA jobs). Maybe Amazon are monitoring what you write here, so you're obliged to say this weird stuff?
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      You know whats better than trying to strategize and hypothesize around a million employees taking pictures with no approval or accountability? An iron rule that everyone is subject to. You might be right in the particular scenario, that is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets alerts regarding every incident at amazon regardless of whether anyone was hurt. We have a very robust infastructure for identifying issues and correcting them globally. The best the interviewee could have accomplished is adding political complications that produce inferior results.
      - card_zero 3y ago
        There are institutions for public safety outside of Amazon, such as regulatory bodies and laws, to which it is subject. Amazon is not yet a sovereign country, so the alleged robustness of its suspiciously self-serving internal safety procedures is not relevant here, since there can and should be such a thing as whistleblowing, in the civil society within which Amazon awkwardly sits prior to its secession.
        Geisterde 3y ago
        Right, the epa did a great job with east Palestine and flint. Not having accidents is something amazon has an economic incentive for, what incentives do these other institutions have?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  And for that matter, very senior people have been fired without a second thought for taking pictures at work.