zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
In general, trash talking one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer.

>>PopeDo+Eh
I've reread this comment a few times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's obviously true, but why post something with such a smug and gloating tone? Are you happy about how Amazon warehouse workers are treated and pleased to see people speaking out being fired in the midst of a pandemic?

>>sfkdjf+om
Not to engage in ageism, but speaking from the benefit of having the benefit of being younger, and older, I can say that when I was younger, I was blissfully unaware of the huge list of things that would result in a person's employment ending, that I thought was absolutely reasonable for one to do. And maybe it was reasonable for one to do. But it also ended one's employment. I think the GP was mostly just trying to surface one of the laws of reality - you shit talk your employer - you will likely no longer be employed. And unless you were reporting some illegal activity, (in which case whistle blower laws may afford some level of protection, check with your lawyer first though) - there isn't much you can do about it. Just kind of a law of nature.

>>ghshep+fo
Its very far from a "law of nature"

>>throwa+ru
Let's not be pedantic here. If something reliably happens, without any explicit ruleset like a law triggering it to happen that way, I feel it is fair to call it a "law of nature", as it occurs "naturally".

If you talk smack about someone, expect them to talk smack back about you.

If you talk smack about your employer, the employer will talk smack back about you (a lot of times, in the form of ending their involvement with you).