3 ms·

Eh, they really shouldn’t be using Amazons name for their group while doing advocacy in their private life. I had to get pretty far down in the article to find

by lovich 4mo ago

Eh, they really shouldn’t be using Amazons name for their group while doing advocacy in their private life. I had to get pretty far down in the article to find that bit, when I was fully ready to pull out the pitchforks against Amazon initially.

FabCH 4mo ago
Where does it say that in the article, except from the extremely unreliable source of the Amazon HR rep?
- lovich 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - FabCH 4mo ago
    If multiple people are calling you out, you should probably consider you are wrong. They are Amazon Employees. It is factually correct to name the group „Amazon Employees …“. It doesn’t automatically mean they are representing the company. And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint.
    - lovich 4mo ago
      If multiple people are calling me out for factually incorrect information that is easily understood by reading the fucking article, I will not consider my self wrong but consider the others bots or idiots who cant be assed to do a minimum level of effort of reading the article in question. They are Amazon employees, however by making a separate group titled with "Amazon Employees" they are inferring that its a position of the company in question. They are using another entity's name for their own clout. It is not surprising that the group they are leeching clout off of, does not want that to happen and even has the right to go against said leaching. >And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint. Show me where its legally permitted. Are you referring to the sub linked article here[1]. I found in that article > By reaching a settlement, Amazon avoids what could have been a potentially lengthy trial, complete with witnesses and a dissection of its treatment of employees. Had the NLRB sided with the employees, Amazon could have been forced to rehire Cunningham and Costa or award them back pay, among other remedies. It was a settlement that never went to trial. There was no finding of fact on legality. Companies settle all the time for smaller amounts than the cost of a trial. I personally have gotten settlements from companies where we never found which side broke the law but agreed that the settlement amount was good enough to not waste time and money on lawyers. If you think a settlement means that a legal decision was made, I hope you are never involved in any capacity as a lawyer. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/amazon-settles-with-employees-who-said-they-were-fired-over-activism.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/amazon-settles-with-employee...
      - FabCH 4mo ago
        They are not leeching clout off anyone. And they are not using another entity's name. They _are_ Amazon Employees. They are in no way factually incorrect by calling their group "Amazon Employees in support of <insert topic here>" and are entitled to call themselves that, because that is who they are. Just because the words "Amazon Employees" contains the word "Amazon", that doesn't mean they are not allowed to use it. If Amazon would prefer them not to call themselves "Amazon Employees", Amazon is free to not employ them in the first place. Now that Amazon did employ them, it has to allow them to use the objectively correct way to describe their group. And apparently, if Amazon would like to stop employing them, it gets to pay a settlement to them or explain it in a court, because there are rules against that.
        lovich 4mo ago
        It is giving the implication that they are speaking on behalf of the company. You are being purposefully obtuse if you claim otherwise.
golly_ned 4mo ago
The article says that the company /may/ have been speaking in their capacity as Amazon employees and not citizens. Even if they described themselves as working for Amazon, that doesn't mean they were posing as representatives of the company. Further, even if this violates Amazon policy -- the policy itself violates Seattle law: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code/279637?nodeId=TIT14HURI_CH14.04FAEMPR_SUBCHAPTER_IIIADEN&utm_source=chatgpt.com https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
- lovich 4mo ago
  Bruh, read the article. They were part of an activist group they named “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice” There is no nuance there to say they weren’t trying to tie their speech to Amazon with that name. Hell if they had even made it anonymous with like “FAANG Employees for Climate Justice” or “Former Amazon Employees for Climate Justice“ there would be some wiggle room. I am generally on the left for most political views, so I am saying this from a “the call is coming from inside the house” energy. The leftist groups tend to be dogshit at naming things and getting burned for it. The right will make a horrible bill removing our rights and call it “The Patriot Act” and get low information voters on board, the left will push for comprehensive legislation that restructures emergency services to split it out so that police don’t show up to situations that don’t need violence and send social workers instead and call it “Defund the Police” Naming their group as associated with the company was an unforced error.

by lovich 4mo ago

FabCH 4mo ago

Where does it say that in the article, except from the extremely unreliable source of the Amazon HR rep?

lovich 4mo ago
[flagged]
- FabCH 4mo ago
  If multiple people are calling you out, you should probably consider you are wrong. They are Amazon Employees. It is factually correct to name the group „Amazon Employees …“. It doesn’t automatically mean they are representing the company. And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint.
  - lovich 4mo ago
    If multiple people are calling me out for factually incorrect information that is easily understood by reading the fucking article, I will not consider my self wrong but consider the others bots or idiots who cant be assed to do a minimum level of effort of reading the article in question. They are Amazon employees, however by making a separate group titled with "Amazon Employees" they are inferring that its a position of the company in question. They are using another entity's name for their own clout. It is not surprising that the group they are leeching clout off of, does not want that to happen and even has the right to go against said leaching. >And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint. Show me where its legally permitted. Are you referring to the sub linked article here[1]. I found in that article > By reaching a settlement, Amazon avoids what could have been a potentially lengthy trial, complete with witnesses and a dissection of its treatment of employees. Had the NLRB sided with the employees, Amazon could have been forced to rehire Cunningham and Costa or award them back pay, among other remedies. It was a settlement that never went to trial. There was no finding of fact on legality. Companies settle all the time for smaller amounts than the cost of a trial. I personally have gotten settlements from companies where we never found which side broke the law but agreed that the settlement amount was good enough to not waste time and money on lawyers. If you think a settlement means that a legal decision was made, I hope you are never involved in any capacity as a lawyer. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/amazon-settles-with-employees-who-said-they-were-fired-over-activism.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/amazon-settles-with-employee...
    - FabCH 4mo ago
      They are not leeching clout off anyone. And they are not using another entity's name. They _are_ Amazon Employees. They are in no way factually incorrect by calling their group "Amazon Employees in support of <insert topic here>" and are entitled to call themselves that, because that is who they are. Just because the words "Amazon Employees" contains the word "Amazon", that doesn't mean they are not allowed to use it. If Amazon would prefer them not to call themselves "Amazon Employees", Amazon is free to not employ them in the first place. Now that Amazon did employ them, it has to allow them to use the objectively correct way to describe their group. And apparently, if Amazon would like to stop employing them, it gets to pay a settlement to them or explain it in a court, because there are rules against that.
      - lovich 4mo ago
        It is giving the implication that they are speaking on behalf of the company. You are being purposefully obtuse if you claim otherwise.

golly_ned 4mo ago

The article says that the company /may/ have been speaking in their capacity as Amazon employees and not citizens. Even if they described themselves as working for Amazon, that doesn't mean they were posing as representatives of the company. Further, even if this violates Amazon policy -- the policy itself violates Seattle law: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code/279637?nodeId=TIT14HURI_CH14.04FAEMPR_SUBCHAPTER_IIIADEN&utm_source=chatgpt.com https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...

lovich 4mo ago
Bruh, read the article. They were part of an activist group they named “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice” There is no nuance there to say they weren’t trying to tie their speech to Amazon with that name. Hell if they had even made it anonymous with like “FAANG Employees for Climate Justice” or “Former Amazon Employees for Climate Justice“ there would be some wiggle room. I am generally on the left for most political views, so I am saying this from a “the call is coming from inside the house” energy. The leftist groups tend to be dogshit at naming things and getting burned for it. The right will make a horrible bill removing our rights and call it “The Patriot Act” and get low information voters on board, the left will push for comprehensive legislation that restructures emergency services to split it out so that police don’t show up to situations that don’t need violence and send social workers instead and call it “Defund the Police” Naming their group as associated with the company was an unforced error.