3 ms·
> but they didn’t know, because no one saw it The English is a little confusing - "they fired me for allegedly taking pictures or videos — but they didn’t know
by helsinkiandrew 3y ago
> but they didn’t know, because no one saw it
The English is a little confusing - "they fired me for allegedly taking pictures or videos — but they didn’t know, because no one saw it" implies she admits she did take pictures/videos of the dead colleague but Amazon couldn't have known.
If she had had taken photos and shared them with police to prove an accident or bad working practices fair enough, but otherwise I think I would have sacked her too if there was even anecdotal evidence that she had taken photos.
- tremon 3y agoFiring someone based on hearsay?
- SoftTalker 3y agoTaking photos at work is almost always a bad idea. I do it for stuff like recording how a bunch of cables are connected to a server so I can put them back, but anything that includes identifiable locations, brand names, and employees is potential trouble.
- saintfire 3y agoShould you be fired if there is anecdotal evidence that you commit misconduct?
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoIt depends on how anecdotal. A grainy surveillance camera, or colleagues saying she did it, or the photos had appeared somewhere then yes.
- kelnos 3y agoIf that anecdotal evidence can't be corroborated or substantiated, certainly not.
- metabagel 3y agoThere’s no implication in her statement that she did it. Her statement is neutral on that. You’re reading more into it than is there.
- whimsicalism 3y agothere certainly is... i think it was not intentional
- ToValueFunfetti 3y agoI don't think it's intended to imply she did it; there's a language barrier that is probably confusing things. But "I allegedly did it but they don't know because they didn't see me do it" absolutely implies she did. e: (because she is only denying the existence of evidence and could just as easily deny the claim itself)