Survey sent in the email: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZSJH2G3
I could understand this from the AMZN shareholders point of view: as an employee of the company you are paid to defend private interests, not public interests.
So all that "stakeholder capitalism" recent discussion was pure BS? [1]
[1] https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry...
No, they are not. Maybe it is true for a select group of people (computer programmers, some lawyers, some medical professionals), but the vast majority of people are not "free to work" and choose any company that matches "their values". Which makes protests like this one even more important and noteworthy, as those people protesting are risking a lot more compared to the "privileged" professions I mentioned above.
The profession doesn't matter at all, because anyone can go to the streets and protest to defend public interests. But attacking your own employer is not a solution. Why not to look for a job at NGO, or get involved in a non-profit startup instead? Oh, it doesn't pay well enough? Then you have to come into an agreement with yourself.
Took me a tour in the military to change my overall chances in life.
And there aren't enough NGOs and startups to absorb thousands of Amazon workers anyway... hence having to get the warehouse jobs in the first place.
If employees aren't allowed to lobby / strike / speak out for better behavior of their own employer, no one else is going to have better leverage to encourage change either.
These climate protesters are not warehouse workers – they are Amazon's tech employees, making hundreds of thousands per year.
People working for a minimum wage are far too busy fighting for their own survival. In fact, many blue collar workers in the US are concerned that any new environmental policies might reduce their jobs and income.
It's the highly-educated white collar workers, who are protesting against climate change. And they have more than enough options in choosing whom to work for.