zlacker

Every company I’ve ever worked for has had language that forbids me from speaking to the media on behalf of the company. This has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with violating the agreement you signed when you joined the company.

>>jbob20+(OP)
"On behalf of"? That's a characterization that's doing a whole lot of heavy lifting for you. Where did anyone imply she was saying anything "on behalf of" Amazon?

A person's personal time and personal views are theirs, theirs alone, and must be protected from their employer. The best way to keep an employee from speaking up when you're doing dirty is to not do dirty. And we, as that society that grants Amazon and similar megacorporations the privilege of (for it is not a right to exist, they aren't people) existence, should break straight in half any of them that tries to curb its employees from speaking up when that company is doing dirty.

"Shut up and be a cog." No. Do no such thing. Be a citizen and be a human, and help others do the same.

>>jbob20+(OP)
It shouldn’t be that way?

>>radica+x1
Why not? The company has a marketing and/or public relations department, it’s their job to control the messages that the company sends out. If you want to speak on behalf of the company, then join that department and learn how to do it properly.

>>eroppl+K
You can have your own views and you are allowed to speak them as you wish. What you can’t do is make your personal views appear as if they are also the company’s views.

>>radica+x1
If the company has 100,000 employees, any of them should be allowed to "speak for the company"? That's not likely to be workable...

>>jbob20+05
Where, in the article referenced in another comment, does that employee imply they speak for the company?

The policy prevents employees from speaking, period, if they are identified at all as Amazon employees.

In my view, saying "I wish I were permitted to bring my values to my job doing UI design at Amazon" is not in any way speaking for the company.

>>radica+x1
Should or shouldn't is up for debate, but until such a time when consensus is reached, the contract that was agreed-upon between the parties should stand. Otherwise we have chaos, and that's a bad recipe for people to go on with their lives.

If we as a society don't like it, we should enact laws for/against it. Though, I agree with another poster here that it is practically impossible to change any laws at this point. The whole system seems to almost be designed for snail-paced gridlock.

>>jhaywa+i7
Well, to be fair, they go under the group name "Amazon Employees for Climate Justice". Let's be reasonable and see it from the employers view that this sort of title has some sort of greater than zero implication that this entity speaks for Amazon.

What do we think Amazon would/should do if someone external to Amazon went under an entity name such as "Amazon Executive Committee" and posted controversial/activist like content? I would imagine that Amazon would attempt to deal with the negative PR of some people thinking that this is some sort of official Amazon group.