Amazon Threatens To Fire Employees Who Speak Out On Climate Change (cnbc.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: A group of Amazon employees say the company has threatened to fire two workers for speaking out against the company's environmental policies. In a statement posted to Twitter on Thursday, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice said that several employees were contacted by legal and human resources representatives, who said they were in violation of the company's external communications policy. Two employees were told their roles would be terminated if they continued to speak out about Amazon's business, a spokesperson for the group told CNBC.
Maren Costa, a user experience designer, was one of the employees Amazon threatened to fire. In the statement, Costa said: "This is not the time to shoot the messengers. This is not the time to silence those who are speaking out." Amazon also threatened to terminate Jamie Kowalski, a software development engineer, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the news on Thursday. Kowalski and Costa said they received letters from one of Amazon's lawyers after speaking out publicly in October, the Post reported. The group claims Amazon changed its policy in September and that the updated policy "requires employees to seek prior approval to speak about Amazon in any public forum while identified as an employee."
However, Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson says the company's communications policy isn't new. "In September, Amazon actually tried to make it easier for employees to speak out by adding a form on an internal website where employees could seek approval; prior to that, they had to get direct approval from a senior vice president," reports CNBC. "She added that employees are 'encouraged to work within their teams' and can suggest 'improvements to how we operate through those internal channels.'"
Maren Costa, a user experience designer, was one of the employees Amazon threatened to fire. In the statement, Costa said: "This is not the time to shoot the messengers. This is not the time to silence those who are speaking out." Amazon also threatened to terminate Jamie Kowalski, a software development engineer, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the news on Thursday. Kowalski and Costa said they received letters from one of Amazon's lawyers after speaking out publicly in October, the Post reported. The group claims Amazon changed its policy in September and that the updated policy "requires employees to seek prior approval to speak about Amazon in any public forum while identified as an employee."
However, Amazon spokesperson Jaci Anderson says the company's communications policy isn't new. "In September, Amazon actually tried to make it easier for employees to speak out by adding a form on an internal website where employees could seek approval; prior to that, they had to get direct approval from a senior vice president," reports CNBC. "She added that employees are 'encouraged to work within their teams' and can suggest 'improvements to how we operate through those internal channels.'"
Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
So the text contradicts the headline: it is not about climate change, but about criticizing the company in public.
This is a fake news headline. Please fix it.
(I worked with Maren briefly. She was great to work with. I also worked at Slashdot for many years, and this headline is trash.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why, slaves must always ask permission from their masters before they are allowed to speak. I got to be honest the very second I got that from my employer I would be publicly speaking about what ever the fuck I wanted and then fight it out in court, I AM NO FUCKING SLAVE.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not speaking out as private citizens but literally as "Employees of Amazon".
The company has the honor of setting its own public statements, and, no, as an employee you don't get to speak on behalf of the company in opposition to it.
Also, the owners of Amazon have free speech as well, and it's wrong to force them to fund their detractors.
Re: (Score:2)
. I got to be honest the very second I got that from my employer I would be publicly speaking about what ever the fuck I wanted and then fight it out in court
and losing.
I AM NO FUCKING SLAVE.
Indeed. You are always able to quit your job if you disagree with your employer's policies.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Per the policy, the employees are free to express their views publicly about public matters -- they just can't identify themselves as Amazon employees while doing so.
This avoids confusion between the personal views of an employee and the corporate views of Amazon. It's not unlike police and military personnel being prohibited from wearing their distinctive uniforms while espousing personal political views.
And, obviously, employees can't talk about aspects of Amazon that are covered by their NDA even if they don't identify themselves as an employee of Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You simply say that in this situation your employer does not allow you to reveal you work for them and that your views do not necessarily reflect those of your employer in the matters at hand.
Or, you ask HR or read the corporate policy to see if either gives you other guidance on how to handle this situation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a subscriber and have seen articles in Washington Post that could be characterized as "negative" towards Amazon. However it's entirely possible that there are fewer such articles than there would be if Bezos didn't own WaPo -- that would require additional study which I'm not sufficiently motivated to undertake.
Prohibiting employees from publicly expressing personal opinions on their own time AND identifying their employer is not a restriction on "freedom of thought" as that policy does not prevent the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You said you read the article, but it seems you missed the salient point. It's not restricting what they can say in general, it's restricting what they can say while they identify themselves as working for the company.
This is typical in many industries and settings, because unfortunately when someone says "I work for X and think Y" many assume the company has the same position. And these employees are not (unless they receive approval) authorized to speak on behalf of the company itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Amazon has been a huge contributor to people like Bob Dornan et al.
RIGHT WING all the way down to supressing speech
Re: (Score:3)
Now see, you wasted a perfectly good fp on a relevant and insightful matter that sums this entire thing up in a nutshell. Let me fix that.
In soviet russia employees set fire to amazon to change climate!
Natalie portman's hot grits!
I for one welcome our new climate change overlords!
Creimer something or other...\
There, now that is what a fp is supposed to look like.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I’ll do better next time my bad
Almost... (Score:2)
Re: Sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(I worked with Maren briefly. She was great to work with. I also worked at Slashdot for many years, and this headline is trash.)
When you worked with Maren, did she complain about Amazon then? And when you worked at Slashdot, did you leave because of the crappy management? You're right, the article is trash, but really most are these days. Slashdot has nothing to do with "News for Nerds and Stuff that Matters anymore. It's all boiled down to "News for Herds and Stuff that Flatters" instead. ...which is a good preface for many of the comments that follow.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t know if she did, and don’t care. She was great and we were sad to see her go.
I left because the company was bought, and the new owners laid off some of its more expensive long-tenured employees, since they were putting the site effectively into maintenance mode, trying to sell if off. They just wanted to keep ThinkGeek and didn’t care to improve the other properties. I was forced out, but I was there a long time, and it was good for me to move on when I did.
Re: (Score:2)
I also worked at Slashdot for many years, and this headline is trash
So nothing has changed then.
Re: (Score:2)
And even then, you're allowed to criticize the company in public (as long as you don't say that you're an employee of theirs).
Re: Sigh (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Amazon employees have increasingly pressured the company to address its environmental impact. At Amazon’s annual shareholders meeting in May, thousands of employees submitted a proposal asking CEO Jeff Bezos to develop a comprehensive climate change plan and reduce its carbon footprint... The proposal was based on an employee letter published in April that accused Amazon of donating to climate-delaying legislators and urged the company to transition away from fossil fuels.
Alas, as "per usual", the "corporate responsibility" pledges turned out to be largely bullsh
Re: (Score:2)
it is definitely about climate change. It is rather disingenuous and dishonest to paint it otherwise
Except that, it's about publicly challenging the corporate position while representing the corporation.
The precise nature of that challenge is not the relevant factor. It could be a challenge on climate change, on the provision of gender neutral toilets, on the terrible working conditions in warehouses, on how the company works to prevent slave and child labour, or about the colour of the wall in Jeff's office. The issue is that someone representing the company is damaging the company's reputation, in brea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
while representing the corporation.
That, of course, is a lie, nobody in the group of those employees claims such a thing. They are employees, but they represent only themselves when they ask the company to change its policies. The fact that a bunch of trolls here keep repeating this lie nicely confirms what I already said, that this trolling is about 120% dishonest. Unless, that is, you're so dumb that you don't know the difference between "work for" and "represent".
What the fuck is 'recent' about it?
Reading comprehension used to be a thing... Not anymore. Maybe you are sinc
Re: (Score:1)
Which part of this was I failing to read correctly?
Jaci Anderson, an Amazon spokesperson, said the companyâ(TM)s communications policy isnâ(TM)t new. In September, Amazon actually tried to make it easier for employees to speak out by adding a form on an internal website where employees could seek approval; prior to that, they had to get direct approval from a senior vice president.
Looks to me like this is a long standing policy. Perhaps before querying the reading comprehension of others you should work on your own.
That, of course, is a lie, nobody in the group of those employees claims such a thing.
Oh fuck you and your disingenuous spinning. "My employer's policies suck" means that you're representing the company in public.
You keep trying to insult my intelligence; trying showing some of your own.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh fuck you
You can't, you need a dick and balls for that, and you ain't got any. Just a big, foul mouth. Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh fuck you and your disingenuous spinning. "My employer's policies suck" means that you're representing the company in public.
It means no such thing... but it IS what the PR muckety mucks will claim when they go after those employees.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you did not read the story. OK.
Nothing unusual here (Score:5, Insightful)
Every company I've worked at has strict policies about external communications by employees. They have a public relations department for that.
Shut up and code, or get the hell out.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Yep, here in the good ole USA, you have the right to remain a slave.
Enjoy it while it still lasts.
You have the right to leave any time (Score:2, Insightful)
you have the right to remain a slave.
In what way is having a job at Amazon slavery?
If you want you can leave any time. Care to tell a real slave they should just leave if they don't like it?
If you don't perform well, you'll be let go and be able to find some other job - again let us contrast an actual slave, who would be beaten or killed.
So why devalue the word slave just because you are upset you cannot pretend to speak on behalf of Amazon just because you work there?
Re:You have the right to leave any time (Score:4, Insightful)
I have left a job before because I had ethical issues on what was going on. Being a software developer isn't a rare job that you cannot find an other place to work that will pay the bills. And have a company policy good enough where you can sleep at night.
There have been other jobs which I have worked other employees left because they had ethical issues with the job, but they were for things I didn't feel bothered by, so I had stayed.
There are problems in the US Market around employment, such as how the corporate structure in general as forgotten to create a promotion path in the organization and tend to prefer to hire someone from the outside vs promoting someone on the inside (even if their HR documents say otherwise) So we no longer can start in the Mail Room and work up the CEO in 20 years. However this system isn't slave labor. As you can indeed quit your job, and if you are smart, you find a new job first then quit your job.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have left a job before because I had ethical issues on what was going on. Being a software developer isn't a rare job that you cannot find an other place to work that will pay the bills. And have a company policy good enough where you can sleep at night.
I have tried to choose jobs that at least don't cause me problems sleeping at night, and if I can find ones that are morally better I'll go there. I'm guessing I might have a salary $10k higher right now if I was less picky, but, well, sleeping at night is important. Paying bills is also important.
To an extent, if you can't find at least a way to think neutrally about your employer then at least looking around quietly should be on your to do list. Of course if something about your particular job annoys y
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ideally, yes.
In practice, that "find some other job" part doesn't always work out so well, even for people who might otherwise be qualified.
Sure it's a minority of people that it happens to, but when you are faced with the reality of losing your home and every thing that you may have worked for over your entire life, the fear of what will happen if you should lose it is no less of a trap than actual slavery... the only differe
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon employs mostly software developer and warehouse workers. Software developer is a very easy job to change employers, especially if you have Amazon on your resume. Warehouse work at Amazon is a dystopian nightmare, though it does pay OK. Most people working there have been there lees than a year IIRC, so "finding some other job" is pretty much normal. It's just not the sort of environment most people can keep working in for long.
the fear of what will happen if you should lose it is no less of a trap than actual slavery
Don't be such an ass. No one will hunt you down and torture you to de
Re: (Score:2)
Not in my experience.
If you hated working at Amazon, there's a good chance that you probably wouldn't get a good recommendation from them, and putting it on your resume as your last job without being willing to put them down as a reference probably isn't going to go over too well with that job search.
You're right... you'll only lose your house
Re: (Score:2)
If you hated working at Amazon, there's a good chance that you probably wouldn't get a good recommendation from them
What the fuck?
"We can confirm that they were employed at Amazon between date-1 and date-2" is the only recommendation you're going to get no matter what you did there, how much you or they liked it, and why you left.
The informal network may be a little more forthcoming. "Yeah, it was a shame to lose him. Hard worker, very capable, always acted professionally and a team player."
Did I just describe someone that liked working there or someone that didn't like working there?
if you don't latch onto another similar paying job soon enough
It's almost as though you should be i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure.... but it's not always easy to do. The time you will have available to look for work is much more limited if you are already working full time, not to mention arranging to be available for interviews.
During my last software developer job search, it took me over 9 months, and that was when I was looking for work *FULL TIME*, and was still able to get rock solid references from my previous employe
Re: (Score:2)
Looking for work full time as a developer: 20 minutes each night checking whether any new jobs have been put online.
Once a week, another 20 minutes applying for one.
Attending interviews: Non-issue. Any developer can make the time to attend an interview.
Your job hunting technique needs some serious streamlining.
Re: (Score:2)
And in my experience it's generally easier to get a new job if currently employed in a similar job.
None of those "why were you let go" or "why couldn't you find a job for 6 months" questions.
I have never had a problem being honest about why I am switching jobs, whether it was because I believed I should be paid more, or I didn't like the work environment of my current employer. When I got my current job and they asked me why I left my last employer I told them the truth, that it was because we worked out o
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if the interviewer is willing to interview outside of regular business hours.
Unless you start taking half-days off to go to interviews nearly every week... which is going to be raising some suspicion and may get you fired before you've actually landed another job.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? Sounds like the economy is miserable there.
The only time it's taken me more than a couple months of serious looking to switch jobs was when I was seeking to relocate across the country, which limited to pool of potential employers quite a bit.
If you hated working at Amazon, there's a good chance that you probably wouldn't get a good recommendation from them, and putting it on your resume as your last job without being willing to put them down as a reference probably isn't going to go over too well with that job search.
Is that a thing where you live? Sounds awful. I've never heard of anyone checking references (beyond confirming employment) except for senior roles in startups or consulting work, where the company can fail on a single bad hire. And it's certainl
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you like, just don't identify the company you work for. I was certainly critical of Amazon publicly while I was working there, including many times on Slashdot, but I never said that I worked there during that time.
There is a vast difference between claiming to speak on *behalf* of Amazon, and expressing an opinion "while identified as an Amazon employee".
Obviously, every company in the world has rules to prevent the former. For example, a forklift driver in an Amazon warehouse is not allowed to call the New York Times and inform them that Amazon has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.
But the forklift driver *should* be able to post publicly that he thinks work conditions at his warehouse are unsafe, or that he th
Re: (Score:3)
Whistleblower protects exposure of illegal activity, not policy differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Whistleblower protects exposure of illegal activity, not policy differences.
From wikipedia: "Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
So, going back to my two examples: A warehouse worker talking about unsafe work conditions would seem to be protected under whistleblower laws. A warehouse worker talking abou
Re: (Score:2)
There is a vast difference between claiming to speak on *behalf* of Amazon, and expressing an opinion "while identified as an Amazon employee".
In your employers eyes, there isn't. Get used to that.
But the forklift driver *should* be able to post publicly that he thinks work conditions at his warehouse are unsafe,
Sure, and his employer should be able to fire him for no reason, or any reason. Freedom! But such complaints are better presented to the appropriate regulatory authorities, where you often have legal protection, and where it might make a difference.
And whistle-blower protection only applies to illegal activity.
Re:Nothing unusual here (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean the science behind climate change is now called a gospel so that you can then feel justified in whining about it. I think whiners such as you are really worried the science actually does hold up and that you'll have to change your life style. Time for you to take another course in Ayn Rand, she'll support any selfish impulses you may have and thus you can interpret her as reason to feel good about yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
But all I hear is that everyone but them needs to change.
Ahh the American way. Blame someone else or bend reality enough so it isn't even a problem in your own tiny warped reality.
But all I hear is that everyone but them needs to change.
Ahh the American way. Blame someone else or bend reality enough so it isn't even a problem in your own tiny warped reality.
Yes, that's exactly what DNS-and-BIND was complaining about with regard to the wealthy taking private jets to Davos. They blame everyone else while being blind to their own behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Publicly criticizing your employer gets you fired, even if your employer truly *is* a scuzzbag. Unironic isn't it? In an ironic way.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, "for publicly criticizing the company" (Score:5, Informative)
They're not being targeted for speaking out against climate change, they're being targeted for publicly criticizing their employer. The context of climate change here is irrelevant, they'd have gotten that HR call for literally any other public criticism.
Of course it's against communication policy to publicly bad-mouth your employer. Amazon is being fair and reasonable by giving them a warning before actually firing them. As an employee, if you have concerns about the company, you keep it in-house. If those concerns aren't addressed to your satisfaction, then you quit. You can talk about them all you want, but you can't expect to continue to be paid by a company while you give them bad press.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a strong feeling these employees will be fired in a few days. After all publicly complaining about their warning to stoke further news against amazon is a blatant violation of the warning they were just given.
I've written in forums and such about my employer when they come up in the news on an issue I happen have an opinion about but I have never said in at any point online I was an employee. It's common sense in corporate world to have a layer of anonymity if you want to speak about your boss.
Re:You mean, "for publicly criticizing the company (Score:4, Interesting)
This is actually a smart move: If they protest louder and louder until Amazon fires them, they'll become Internet famous and will be quickly hired by a more enviro-conscious company, AND even more attention will be drawn to Amazon's CO2 footprint. Win-win!
If they quiet down and go out with a whimper rather than a bang, then they'll just have a black mark on their records and will likely be squeezed out of the company anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
The general Rule of thumb is to not bite the hand that feeds you.
First amendment rights make sure that you will not be arrested for stating your views. But it isn't about having no consequences for stating your views.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way capitalism is done in the US, but not every country does it the same way. In Nordic countries workers are considered to have more rights than they do in the US.
Anyhow, perhaps someone from that area could comment on how employees who criticize their employers are treated. Here in the US they can be terminated, unless you can show that the employee was being discriminated against (e.g. if the treatment of black employees who do this differs from the treatment of white employees).
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Virtually every company has a policy that defines who the official spokespeople are and in some way limits what can be said to the media by the rank-and-file employees. Leaking any kind of internal information /should/ be a fireable offense.
Every company does this (Score:2)
Every company requires that you get permission before speaking about the company in public, regardless of the topic. Would this be a news item at all if we couldn't tack on "climate change"? A bit disingenuous, guys.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what they do?
Accepting bribes for good reviews?
Posting fake reviews?
Selling your personal details?
Attaching spyware to their apps and downloads?
Bullying employees to work more (without compensation) under treat of getting fired?
Disregarding worker safety standards?
Dumping toxic waste into the environment?
Slaughtering animals in inhumane conditions?
Complete disregard for human life? (Quite a few companies here...)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, all of those things. Typically the whistleblower takes heat in some fashion, including losing their job or even getting sued. It often takes a court win to restore their position or get restitution (whatever is appropriate).
I mean, what is a company going to say, "you can't speak to the press about new product offerings, but feel free to tell them all about those fake reviews"?
The "don't speak to the press" clause is standard boilerplate for any job. If you rat out your company, you have to expect t
requires employees to seek prior approval = union (Score:2)
requires employees to seek prior approval to speak about Amazon = can be used to stop UNION TALK.
Re: (Score:3)
requires employees to seek prior approval to speak about Amazon = can be used to stop UNION TALK.
Union solicitation is specifically protected by laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
**Fired (Score:1)
Misleading title is misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be:
Amazon Threatens To Fire Employees Who Speak Out
Re:Misleading title is misleading (Score:4, Informative)
It should be:
Amazon Threatens To Fire Employees Who Speak Out
Actually it's "Amazon Threatens to Fire Employees Who Speak Out While Identifying Themselves As Amazon Employees"
Okay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can criticize the company all they want - just not while being identified as an employee of the company.
This is why I do not identify my employer anywhere in any of my social media accounts - I don't want there to be any possible confusion between my personal opinions and those of the company I work for (and many companies have the same type of media policies - if you are going to speak as an employee of the company you need to have permission...)
what? (Score:2)
adding a form that people need to use doesn't make it easier to get approval , it just make denying it faster.
Re: (Score:2)
it just make denying it faster thereby wasting much less time on the part of everyone.
Actually the external communications policy is not at all difficult to comply with. Essentially if they want to speak as a representative of Amazon then they need to get approval, if they want to speak as a private citizen they don't. If they're going to reveal internal procedures or plans the company may have then they need approval, if they want to tell someone how to do something generic like code an interface for ea
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially if they want to speak as a representative of Amazon then they need to get approval, if they want to speak as a private citizen they don't.
They've never claimed to have any authority to represent Amazon, they've been speaking out while identified as Amazon workers which is something different. Unless you're an anonymous nobody talking to other anonymous nobodies on an online forum, people will know who you are and where you work even if you don't explicitly say it. Pretty much any speaker at a conference will have a short bio about themselves. Many will have a LinkedIn page. In ye old days you were handing out business cards left and right lin
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not the case at all. I work at Amazon doing physical security, the pertinent portion of the External Communications doc says "external communication by employees about Amazon’s business, products, services, technology, or customers must be approved in advance by Public Relations." That's it. Later in the doc it says that employees, including in the FCs, "may freely communicate about their personal work experiences at Amazon without PR approval". It's not hard to comply with, really.
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone still say smacktard (Score:1)
This article is flamebait (Score:1)
I don't understand why this is news or controversial...or really even interesting.
I often brag about Slashot... then there's this... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need clickbait here. If anything, Slashdot should take clickbait headlines and improve them if they're articles are going to be posted.
No, Amazon didn't "Threaten(s) To Fire Employees Who Speak Out On Climate Change". They threatened to fire employees to speak to the public about internal business matters. FTFA: "In the statement, the employee group claimed that Amazon changed its policy in September and that the updated policy “requires employees to seek prior approval to speak about Amazon in any public forum while identified as an employee.” "
They could have been complaining about climate change or a potential halt to selling triangular toilet seats-- it doesn't matter. You don't talk about company business in a public forum while identifying as an employee.
We're better than this (after 24 hours of peer moderation).
Seems its comme il faut (Score:1)
Don't talk bad about your work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech (Score:3)
I know all that freedom of speech stuff is about the government not being able to shut you up, but ...
I'm sitting here, reading the comments, and everyone agrees that corporations have and SHOULD have the power to make people shut up about Harmful Things. Seriously, guys? Is this the 21st century we want?
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Informative)
Not the point.
People above me have said plenty about why the title of this post is complete click bait and why it's completely misleading if not straight wrong.
To this comment specifically: Corporate Communication Policies are for (maybe more but) 2 very important purposes:
1) (NOT relevant to this article) Keeping company secret information secret: You, as an employee, have access to information that is not public and the company has a right to make policies keeping it that way. Your access to that information is a privilege not a right and so they give it to you with limitations clearly expressed as terms of your employment.
2) (Pertinent to this article) Limiting Liability: This point is spelled out in TFS even: "...while identified as an employee" You as an individual can generally go around speaking your mind as much as you want so long as you're not violating #1 and are clearly speaking as yourself. BUT when "identified as an employee" you are speaking as a Representative Of The Company and so what you say falls under the jurisdiction of that companies policy for how they want to communicate to the world.
Badmouth your employer all you want but do it on your own time and on your own pedestal not theirs. That doesn't mean they won't try to go after you for it BUT at least you have a better legal footing for the wrongful termination suit. A friend of mine was canned for a rant he made on his personal Facebook page that impacted the reputation of his employer. He isn't getting his job back (doesn't really want it after this) but is doing quite well with his lawsuit. These people screwed themselves the minute they named their organization "Amazon Employees for Climate Justice"
PS. I live in an At-Will state meaning your employer can fire you for anything they want so long as it doesn't violate federal discrimination or whistle-blower laws SO the only bearing any of this would matter here is whether they have "cause" to not pay you unemployment which frankly is an uphill battle in this state no matter what you were fired for unless you shoot up the workplace or provably rob the place.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want to pay someone that trashes my business or doesn't agree with my business practices. You are telling me that I should be forced to? Is that the 21st century that you want?
Businesses don't have the power to make people shut up. They have the power to remove bad apples. These people can keep talking all they want, just as long as they find a different employer.
"while identified as an employee.” (Score:2)
First off, as others have covered this is not about "speaking out about climate change", this is a standard company policy about employees not speaking on behalf of or about the internal matters of the company without some kind of review (usually through HR or public relations). From the article Amazon doesn't appear to care if you express yourself (even about the company) as long as you aren't also screaming "I'm an Amazon employee" through a bullhorn as well. We sadly live in a society that has become h
Personally ... (Score:2, Funny)
... I welcome our paycheck-distributing overlords.
Slashdot sucks.... (Score:2)
I mean seriously. This headline is the biggest pile of BS yet.
They are being told not to talk negatively about their company if they want to stay an employee. They can talk about climate change (or deny it) all they want!
Slashdot, this is a new low.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Stop the press (Score:2)
Large multinational company doesn't like being publicly criticized by their employees.
Film at 11.
Quit using gas/diesel vehicles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At least China had electric carts to deliver last mile crap you don't even need.
Headline and and article don't match (Score:1)
Headline should be:
"Amazon threatens to fire employees who publicly trash them"
Suddenly the article becomes rather pointless. What employer doesn't do this? Would you fire someone who you employ that trash talks your business on their own time?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)