zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
> Previously, Costa said Amazon attempted to intervene in the group’s efforts to organize the panel by deleting invitations sent to other workers internally, which the group claims were accepted by more than 1,500 employees.

It’s Amazon’s internal network, and Amazon’s email system, so they have the full right to control what happens on their resources.

At the same time, I find that deleting the an email after it has been sent by the sender unknown to the sender to be a kind of gaslighting, and dystopian. Having a policy to not organize using work resources might be harsh, but at least it is more transparent as in the proverbial line is drawn in the proverbial sand.

>>tareqa+i8
The issue is, you're undermining the rights of your laborer's to organize, and I'd even be willing to make a case that you may be shooting yourself in the foot in the long run, because if you annoy them to the point they organize anyway, you can expext compensation to be elevated even more than it would have been to satisfy the collective bargaining unit since they will pass on the cost of paying for their own organizing infrastructure (since you can't be trusted to let your employees use yours).

So they need to nut up and shut up. If you can't be trusted to let your laborer's organize in good faith, they have no ground on which to stand when the bill comes for a second labor specific communication network comes due.

All that waste they could avoid by just being decent disinterested network operators. Sad really.