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
Right, that's part of working in a large organization. Sometimes the rest of the organization doesn't want to do what you'd prefer, and you need to either disagree and commit or disagree and leave. The idea that you have to get your way, that any strategy becomes appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, is incredibly toxic.

>>SpicyL+md
The rest of the organization, comprised almost entirely of workers, has almost no say in what is written in the "explicit company policy", so I don't see how your point is relevant.

>>uoaei+Ue
I don't agree. Company policies are definitely influenced, although not fully determined, by what employees think the company policies ought to be.