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
Is it not toxic to allow a company to treat workers in the way that some firms do? Is it not toxic to defer to a corporation's actions over that of citizens? It feels like the word "toxic" is used in this context to whitewash degenerate status quo corporate behavior as acceptable.

Sometimes, any strategy does become appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, depending on the issue at hand. At some point, being reasonable may no longer be an effective strategy.

>>toomuc+Ve
It's true that companies also do toxic things sometimes, but I feel you're critically missing the point here. Effectiveness is not the appropriate metric. You generally should be reasonable even if it's not effective at getting your way.

>>SpicyL+Kh
It's okay to burn bridges that lead to nowhere. Be reasonable if it helps your cause or improves the odds of arriving at your desired outcome; if not (and you have the leverage), be unreasonable. Winning > being polite.

>>toomuc+1j
I dunno what to tell you. Most people learn in early childhood that it's not okay to get what you want by throwing tantrums. If you missed that lesson, I'm unfortunately not sure how to guide you through it. But I'd recommend trying to find a way to learn; you should be aware that you're hurting both your organization and your personal reputation when you throw one.

>>SpicyL+Rj
You choose the language you want to use. One person's tantrum is another person's negotiation. If it accomplishes your goal, that's all that matters. Objective success metrics will always trump feelings.

Don't trust internet randos, of course, but I preach what I practice and it has served me well in life.