zlacker

As an ex-Amazonian (having been surrounded by thousands of exceptional people whose second nature is risk management) I can tell you that coming to work with a cold was frowned upon.

It was not "corporate policy" - it was culture.

Coming to work sick and potentially infecting others is the opposite of failure isolation.

>>ukj+(OP)
Right - and that's fine. But the article didn't state he was sick. In fact, only a spokesperson for Amazon said he was to self-isolate after coming into close contact with an associate - which is a very convenient accusation (if it was in fact not true) to keep someone from coming in to organise a walk out, and then getting to fire them under the pretext of risk management.

>>neuman+Af
>which is a very convenient accusation (if it was in fact not true)

The key here is that you don't know if the accusation was true or false, but you arguing as if you do.

Which, in the language of Information Theory, is called a bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy

>>ukj+ch
Apologies, I wasn't trying to argue that I do know. I was arguing the same as you imply here.

That because we don't know, you have to view the statement from the Amazon spokesperson as another unverified fact. Which, if you read your original response, you didn't. In this case, the information bias came from you. I was (possibly not clearly) trying to point out that lack of verification of the claim he was sick and/or in contact with somebody who was is important, specifically because it is advantageous for Amazon that everyone believe it to be true. I am not saying it isn't. We just don't know. Hope that makes it clearer.