Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval.
Neither of those elements strikes me as shocking. 1) Companies are sensitive—including for legal reasons—to employees clearly noting that "their opinions are their own" and may not reflect the corporate entity. And, 2) media perception, particularly in a negative light.
Maren Costa is quoted as saying, “Any policy that says I can’t talk about something that is a threat to my children – all children – is a problem for me.”
Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want!
Victoria Liang is quoted as saying, “Amazon’s newly updated communications policy is having a chilling effect on workers who have the backbone to speak out and challenge Amazon to do better. This policy is aimed at silencing discussion around publicly available information. It has nothing to do with protecting confidential data, which is covered by a completely different set of policies.”
Which... yep. The entire point is media and PR relations, not confidentiality agreements. To limit one's own employees from making you a pariah in the media.
So none of this is shocking to me.
Note also that this is different from a thesis of, "Workers should be protected for criticizing their employers in the media" or "Amazon should be doing more for climate change."
What does "titular" mean here? They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees and therefore, according to Amazon, broke company policy. Luckily, giant tech companies have no right to curb employees free speech. Our world isn't that Orwellian yet.
> Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want!
"The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.
Simply those employees referenced in the title of this post.
> They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees something Amazon was in breach of company policy.
Well, and identifying themselves as such. That second part is key. It's not just, "I think XYZ about climate change." It's, "I, bjorne, an Amazon employee, think XYZ about climate change."
> So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.
Why is that insane? It happens all the time. I don't feel the need to trumpet my employment status when talking about things that are entirely unrelated to my work there.
These activities have nothing to do with work, so Amazon has no moral right to try to control them.
Do you think it is good that Amazon employees are afraid of speaking to the press?
1. I suspect you'd have "protection" to use your title as a credential in a relevant professional forum.
2. Most companies also have policies on running for public office, usually because of legal oversight to public procurement or policymaking.
3. Neither of your examples are explicitly "to the media", which is being discussed here.
4. Most companies are thrilled to help you advance your cause and theirs in things like running for public office or industry leadership, and will give you great resources like media training.
5. Straw-men: I bet the company would care if you were running on a policy platform of reducing sanitation in minority neighborhoods, or speaking at a KKK rally.
If these activities have nothing to do with work, then why are you bringing work into it? And if you're bringing work into it, then it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to tell your company about it.
It's not about "being afraid to talk to the press"... that's my point.
2. Citation needed.
3. What is being discussed is "talking in a public forum." See the quote from the article: "The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee.
4. Citation needed.
5. Indeed, you've brought forward a straw man.
> If these activities have nothing to do with work, then why are you bringing work into it?
That is none of your business! E.g don't shift the blame unto the victim. Neither Amazon nor any other company has any moral right to tell someone that they can't disclose that they work there while talking in a public forum.
I guess your point is that Maren Costa is lying when she claims the warning she got from HR for speaking to the Press frightened her?