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
No, actually, none of that is true under US labor law. People can organize at their workplaces. It’s a protected action.

>>claude+69
You can organize at your workplace, but you don't have a right to use work resources to do it. (Workers used to have the right to use their work email, but the NLRB has recently overturned that precedent.)

>>SpicyL+G9
Calling work email a "resource" seems a little dubious to me. I.e. if I use office stationary to write my union manifesto, they have to buy more stationary. If I send an email they don't have to buy more of anything.

Especially in the world we live in right now - email and other work-hosted communications platforms are not a resource provided by work, they are the WORKPLACE.

>>kennyw+vc
Email servers, electricity, the time spent setting it all up, the server room that stores the machines, the IT department that maintains the machines and keeps things running, the client hardware that the employee interacts with...

>>benben+Re
The marginal cost of everything you mentioned is zero per email.

>>tantal+9h
Essentialy zero isn't Zero at Amazon scale (or the scale of any large business)

>>michae+Di
There's still some drain from resources spent monitoring and stopping it. Even though you're already monitoring, you just end up with two cancelling out "essentially zeros."