3 ms·
Amazon employees say they're facing termination for backing data center limits
- Traubenfuchs 5mo ago[flagged]
- CrimsonRain 5mo agoAnd the employers should have the backbone to resign if they don't agree with the direction of the company. Bunch of clowns.
- voakbasda 5mo agoYeah, I am genuinely confused how anyone could think otherwise.
- watwut 5mo agoAbsolutely not. There are literal law protecting employees in such situations. Sensible companies allow people use their lawful speech and be active in local politics.
- mbmbn 5mo agoI’m not sure about the law protecting them or not, but it’s deeply hypocritical from their part. It’s just people used to virtue signaling that aren’t willing to pay any price, no matter how small, for what they defend. They really think they are up to something when all they do is speak and “look good”. If they think their company is doing something really problematic, then resign.
- watwut 4mo agoNah, there is nothing hypocritical about it. And complains about virtue signaling are usually just people disagreeing but not wanting to say it out loud. There is nothing wrong with virtue signaling anyway. It is certainly better then "vice signaling", "cynism signaling" and "look how smart I am that I dont care signaling". > that aren’t willing to pay any price, no matter how small, for what they defend. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting others to harm you. It is entirely absolutely ok to avoiding unnecessary harm to you. There is no virtue in allowing others to mistreat you. > If they think their company is doing something really problematic, then resign. People who try to create change are better then those who passively resign staying silent. You don't have to become jobless before you push for legislation that limits what companies have to do. You are just trying to create rules that will silence and punish people you disagree with. That is weak.
- Traubenfuchs 5mo ago[flagged]
- xyzsparetimexyz 5mo agoEven when it's illegal to do so?
- Traubenfuchs 5mo ago[flagged]
- handoflixue 5mo agoSorry, three employees had a talk with HR? That's it? That's the whole story? No one was fired? No laws were broken? I'm not one to give HR the benefit of the doubt, but it is actually quite reasonable for them to find out about something like this and call people in to make sure they're aware of the rules around stuff like "don't represent your personal stance as an official Amazon stance". And, surprise, if they represent themselves as Amazon, they CAN actually be fired, so it would be perfectly truthful to say "HR said they can be terminated" and also "HR did absolutely nothing illegal"
- soraminazuki 4mo agoThe whole story is about alleged illegal retaliation by Amazon. Nice try pushing your narrative in the hopes that nobody will read the article. I find arguing based on technicalities and aggressive rhetoric to be dishonest, really.
- tyleo 4mo agoThis doesn’t seem like a technicality. Did you read the article? They used Amazon’s name for their group. They literally named it, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”.
- Planktonne 4mo ago> They literally named it, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice” They are Amazon employees. If they'd called it "Amazon for Climate Justice", then that would be representing as the company, but I don't think it's wrong for them to accurately label themselves.
- tyleo 4mo agoYeah, I wouldn’t recommend that either. In general, you shouldn’t put your company name in your political organization unless it has specific protection. You can figure that out beforehand by getting internal HR or external legal advice. In general I’d be surprised if this isn’t covered by the employee agreement. I don’t think these employees did anything illegal but they probably did break that agreement and could face termination.
- ChrisArchitect 4mo ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48590891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48590891