4 ms·

I skimmed the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, the complaint is about getting 4 x 15 minute extra breaks during the day and lighter work. Amazon did grant them, b

I skimmed the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, the complaint is about getting 4 x 15 minute extra breaks during the day and lighter work. Amazon did grant them, but the complaint is that they didn't do it fast enough. There's also something of a disagreement where she expected to be paid for the extra hour of break time every day, but Amazon was counting it as unpaid. She was reassigned to lighter work at her request, but the complaint is that she still had to lift heavy things and they didn't give her a job where she could sit down. The word "bathroom" shows up a lot but that doesn't appear core to the lawsuit. I think an editor was engineering the headline for maximum clickbait to link back to the previous Amazon bathroom break stories. Regardless of what you think about Amazon, this reporting could use a little less clickbait and little more details from the actual lawsuit.

FpUser 1mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
devindotcom 1mo ago
headline is factual: Lawsuit: Amazon refused to give pregnant workers bathroom breaks and chairs all the info you point out is in the first few paragraphs, much more context also provided as well as responses from amazon and context from the women
- Aurornis 1mo ago
  I'm talking about the actual lawsuit, which is linked in the article. That's what I was reading. Amazon did grant extra breaks. The dispute is that they didn't grant them fast enough and that she expected to be paid for them, among other things. Obviously nothing will ever satisfy people who are out for blood and would never give a corporation the benefit of the doubt, but I'm trying to point out that the headline's implication that pregnant workers weren't allowed any bathroom breaks is false.
  - selcuka 1mo ago
    It's not that "they didn't grant them fast enough". They made it unreasonably hard to request them. > Despite the PWFA’s requirements, Amazon’s policy is to unlawfully demand medical documentation prior to granting predictable assessment requests and unreasonably does not provide predictable assessments to qualified employees pending such documentation. I'm not "out for blood" but I would call this "refusing to give bathroom breaks" as well.
  - devindotcom 1mo ago
    >this reporting could use a little less clickbait and little more details from the actual lawsuit talking about the article
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
thefz 1mo ago
> I skimmed the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, the complaint is about getting 4 x 15 minute extra breaks during the day and lighter work. Amazon did grant them, but the complaint is that they didn't do it fast enough. There's also something of a disagreement where she expected to be paid for the extra hour of break time every day, but Amazon was counting it as unpaid That was exactly the point, or the worker would have requested vacation. Stop kissing corporate's ass.

FpUser 1mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]

devindotcom 1mo ago

headline is factual: Lawsuit: Amazon refused to give pregnant workers bathroom breaks and chairs all the info you point out is in the first few paragraphs, much more context also provided as well as responses from amazon and context from the women

Aurornis 1mo ago
I'm talking about the actual lawsuit, which is linked in the article. That's what I was reading. Amazon did grant extra breaks. The dispute is that they didn't grant them fast enough and that she expected to be paid for them, among other things. Obviously nothing will ever satisfy people who are out for blood and would never give a corporation the benefit of the doubt, but I'm trying to point out that the headline's implication that pregnant workers weren't allowed any bathroom breaks is false.
- selcuka 1mo ago
  It's not that "they didn't grant them fast enough". They made it unreasonably hard to request them. > Despite the PWFA’s requirements, Amazon’s policy is to unlawfully demand medical documentation prior to granting predictable assessment requests and unreasonably does not provide predictable assessments to qualified employees pending such documentation. I'm not "out for blood" but I would call this "refusing to give bathroom breaks" as well.
- devindotcom 1mo ago
  >this reporting could use a little less clickbait and little more details from the actual lawsuit talking about the article

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

thefz 1mo ago

> I skimmed the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, the complaint is about getting 4 x 15 minute extra breaks during the day and lighter work. Amazon did grant them, but the complaint is that they didn't do it fast enough. There's also something of a disagreement where she expected to be paid for the extra hour of break time every day, but Amazon was counting it as unpaid That was exactly the point, or the worker would have requested vacation. Stop kissing corporate's ass.