zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions, but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies,” Herdener said.

> Amazon’s external communications policy prohibits employees from commenting publicly on its business without corporate justification and approval from executives. Herdener previously said the policy did not allow employees to “publicly disparage or misrepresent the company.”

Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions. Amazon isn't even claiming they lied, or pretend to speak officially, or any other reason.

>>advise+ce
That quote is straight up incorrect. Amazon doesn't restrict, and actually encourages employees to talk about their work conditions, as long as said employee makes sure to say "these opinions are my own and do not represent Amazon's official stance" and that anything you are saying is actually true. You certainly do not need "corporate justification and approval from executives". I am curious where Reuters pulled that from.

Both this and the WaPo article are extremely light on the details what exactly these employees said or did. WaPo says that these employees "violated company policy", which leads me to believe they must have been saying something that Amazon felt was untrue, because again, official policy is that you can speak as much as you want about working conditions at Amazon as long as they are factual. I would like to see what exactly these people said that apparently upset Amazon, but I can't find it anywhere.

>>roches+Kg
as long as they are factual*

* make sure to use corporate-approved facts

>>aabesh+pn
Exactly. If Amazon is the final arbiter of what's false or what's disparaging, then the policy is not valuable as worker protection.