zlacker

>>blago+(OP)
Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after his 5 min exposure. From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of quarantine to cover it up.

Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company's PR response when they're trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-strik...

> According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March.

> Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until 28 March, three weeks after the exposure.

> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.

> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.

> According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.

>>Boiled+x7
While I personally am leaning towards retalation explanation, both statements could be true. Assuming Corona exposure was just happy coincidence that would allow company to fire employee and maybe even suggest that the fired employee was responsible for endangering others health.

Somewhat related, I have been receiving a lot unsolicited communications for signing various anti-amazon documents.