Yes, headline should have just been "Amazon threatens to fire employees that say things in public that does not agree with the company line". I read the article and am surprised a bit. I was expecting the employees to be at least senior or in marketing/PR roles, but nope. It is getting very weird in the US. Bezos a left leaning guy restricting peoples thoughts. Similar to Bloomberg when he told employees there will be no stories about him at Bloomberg News. So no freedom of thought, no freedom of press, an
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
So curious, not a WaPo subscriber, but has WaPo published any negative articles about amazon in the past year? How about Walmart? Target? Google mini? Microsoft cloud? Anything on FedEx lately not that they are not part of the amazon empire? I don't have a subscription to WaPo, but if I did, I'd be cancelling. Freedom of thought does not seem to be a strong point of Bezos.
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
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.
Seriously, in today's world, or even back to the 1920's or earlier, how hard is it, was it to find out where someone worked? Did they self identify or did the reporter find out and confirm it? I think my point stands, you should be able to express your opinion when working for a company unless you are a senior exec or PR person. And when senior exec's say something bad, they usually get a golden parachute that would make any poster on/. think they hit the magamillions jackpot.
They're not speaking on behalf of the company. They're criticizing it, and that's what Amazon is threatening to fire them for.
Really it's just Amazon curtailing their right to free speech, just because what they're saying doesn't jive with the Amazon image.
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.
(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.
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.
Wish I had mod points to get this post to 11.
Employees don't have "rights" to publicly trash their employer when the employer does stuff they don't like. Employees DO have the duty to report employers violating the law. They must think they work at Google where they can veto deals that their company does which involves the USA, alm the while building internet filtering capabilities for a Chinese dictatorship.
If the company is criticized by its employees for its policies that contribute to climate change, as seems to be the case, then criticizing it is definitely about climate change. It is rather disingenuous and dishonest to paint it otherwise, when the whole thing is obviously an effort by these people to reduce Amazon's environmental impact.
They have also tried, apparently without initial success, the "company way":
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
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
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
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.
In addition, the policy apparently only applies *if you also identify yourself as an Amazon employee*. In other words, you claim to be part of Amazon, then you need our assent.
Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language
yet developed. -- T. Cheatham
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:2)
So you did not read the story. OK.
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)