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.
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, 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:Sigh (Score:0)
Interesting. You manage to be wrong about everything.
I'd pity you, but you're not worth the emotional effort.