> 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.
I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts.
edit: added play
It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)
Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.
Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.
Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it.
>Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.
There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be?
In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns.
>Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.