3 ms·

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

by FabCH 4mo ago

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.

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

by 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.