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
do you think they deserved it? or are you trying to point out some axiom of employment that exists objectively and independent of exploitative working conditions?

>>rkacho+6v
Few people want to associate with others who trash talk them.

>>Walter+Qx
Let's look at this from a very slightly different perspective:

Few people who are doing things that will, with a high degree of certainty, result in harm to others for their own profit want others to be publicly pointing those things out.

Painting this as "trash-talking Amazon", however the fired workers' words are phrased, is hugely disingenuous. We're not talking about someone going out there and saying, "Man, Amazon is just such a loser! They're so ugly, their mama dropped them when they were born and wouldn't pick them up!"

Amazon is putting their workers' lives and health in danger, knowingly and deliberately, for their own profit. Anyone who is truthfully bringing the details of this to the public is a whistleblower, and needs to be considered as such and granted the full protection of the law.

>>danari+dB
Is that actually the law, though? If so, I'd be happy to see Amazon get slapped hard for this. If it's not, then this is just an unsurprising consequence of airing your employer's dirty laundry in public.

>>kelnos+4N
Really? Your reaction is, "If there's a law protecting whistleblowers, that's great! Protect them and hurt Amazon for doing bad things! But if there's no law, pff, what idiots, they deserve whatever's coming to them."??

Like...you know legality and morality are not the same thing, right?