zlacker

>>vanusa+(OP)
Alternate title: Amazon employee was given a warning by HR after she explicitly broke company policy regarding talking to the press

I know it's fun to hate on the big tech companies recently and act like they are bullies (and indeed in many ways they are), but this is a bad example of that. Most companies I know of would outright fire you if you, against explicit company policy, went to the press and started badmouthing your employer. The fact that Amazon only gave her a warning is the only surprising thing in this article.

>>tidepo+y6
This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.

>>uoaei+n9
There are proper channels for affecting change internally at a company. It's clear that these channels are working to some degree since an internal faction just pressured the company into adopting an aggressive climate pledge.

My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.

>>tengbr+Tb
This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument.

Appeals to authority all the way down.

>>uoaei+ec
Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.