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
Uhh, I don't want to be Amazon defender, but in US most of the employment is at will. In practical terms, they can fire you for any or no reason at all. There are practicalities that come into play that have to do with unemployment insurance and whatnot, but company policy violation is a defensible 'cause' for firing.

I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts.

edit: added play

>>A4ET8a+kf
All US states recognize at-will employment. This does not mean that people can be fired for any reason, there are numerous laws that define reasons that are prohibited.

But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.

>>kube-s+Rj
Discussing your working conditions with other workers or with the press is legally protected concerted activity by the NLRB. Firing workers for that is explicitly illegal.

You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.

>>YokoZa+st
You're 100% right.

Let me further clarify my statement: While shit talking your employer, you must be very careful not to step outside the bounds of what is legally protected. And with attention comes scrutiny.