zlacker

[parent] [thread] 33 comments
1. boombo+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-03-31 16:51:10
>Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true.

From Vice

>Amazon did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday morning asking how many people at the site have been ordered into self-quarantine

Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.

replies(2): >>rumana+P2 >>Anthon+Db1
2. rumana+P2[view] [source] 2020-03-31 17:05:30
>>boombo+(OP)
> Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.

It would be harder to explain why Amazon didn't put on quarantine an employee who was vocal about his exposure to the virus.

At most it sounds like malevolent compliance.

replies(2): >>pergad+v6 >>sudosy+cs
◧◩
3. pergad+v6[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 17:24:32
>>rumana+P2
No, at most it sounds like retaliation.

They did not follow health guidelines until the person complained and then they still don't follow them but instead claim to follow them. Why just claim? After the 14 day phase the guidelines don't suggest any quarantines unless people show symptoms.

replies(1): >>rumana+Fd
◧◩◪
4. rumana+Fd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 17:56:52
>>pergad+v6
> No, at most it sounds like retaliation.

Full paid leave is not what most people in the US would call retaliation, particularly in the case of a warehouse worker.

replies(1): >>throwa+gg
◧◩◪◨
5. throwa+gg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 18:10:37
>>rumana+Fd
The retaliation part is where they got fired.
replies(1): >>jaywal+er
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. jaywal+er[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 19:05:24
>>throwa+gg
He got fired for showing up to work when he was told to stay home.
replies(2): >>sudosy+3D >>lonela+k31
◧◩
7. sudosy+cs[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 19:10:45
>>rumana+P2
No, of course not. The employee complains about not being quarantined for 14 days after exposure. That makes sense. The only way to fix that was to have made a better decision. Quarantining him 18 days later is entirely pointless and adresses nothing.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
8. sudosy+3D[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 20:09:37
>>jaywal+er
So what's your solution then, companies can just tell employees to stay home for no valid when they try to plan a strike or organize, and then fire them if they still try to do so?
replies(1): >>jaywal+wE
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
9. jaywal+wE[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 20:17:05
>>sudosy+3D
It's unclear whether there was "no valid reason" or not in this case. But if they're paying the employee to stay home (like Amazon was in this case) it's hard for me to see a huge problem.
replies(1): >>sudosy+MI
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
10. sudosy+MI[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 20:39:43
>>jaywal+wE
The issue is that this prevents him from organizing strikes effectively. That is very problematic.
replies(2): >>root_a+rO >>Camper+WY
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
11. root_a+rO[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 21:12:47
>>sudosy+MI
To me, this seems like retaliation, but he offered Amazon plausible deniability by not complying with job instructions. If you're told to work from home but you refuse, it seems within reason that you might be let go.
replies(1): >>sudosy+fV
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
12. sudosy+fV[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 21:52:54
>>root_a+rO
I don't know that he can work from home, as a fulfillment center employee. It seems to me that Amazon was just trying to find a way to keep him away from other workers in order to collapse strike efforts. And I don't know that it's reasonable for a company to bar you from the office if you're trying to get the company unionized.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
13. Camper+WY[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 22:15:15
>>sudosy+MI
How about not trying to organize a strike in the middle of a national emergency? Is that an option?
replies(1): >>throwa+i11
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
14. throwa+i11[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 22:29:39
>>Camper+WY
You realize why he wanted to organize a strike right? Amazon knew that one of his co-workers was infected, and said and did nothing.
replies(2): >>Camper+351 >>rumana+NJ1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
15. lonela+k31[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 22:44:22
>>jaywal+er
And if we was told to stay home because to prevent unionizing, that's retaliation. Intent matters in law.
replies(1): >>rumana+FJ1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
16. Camper+351[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 22:57:04
>>throwa+i11
Hosing everybody -- your company, your coworkers, your customers, yourself -- with a strike isn't the way to address that issue.

We have these things called "courts" that are well-suited to addressing complaints like this one.

replies(1): >>throwa+B61
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
17. throwa+B61[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 23:10:41
>>Camper+351
You sound like you have it all figured out, perhaps you can point at which law amazon violated.
replies(1): >>Camper+G71
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
18. Camper+G71[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 23:17:50
>>throwa+B61
Honestly, it's not a good look for them if they tried to order him into quarantine 18 days after his exposure. I can't defend that based on what I've read from the Amazon supporters here.

But a strike, right now, is not the answer. It's just pouring gasoline on the fire. Counterproductive at all levels. Labor organization is all about picking your battles, and this is the wrong fight in the wrong place at the wrong time. His beef with Amazon needs to be settled in a courtroom, not on a picket line.

The only worse thing he could have done would be to try to lead a strike during a world war.

replies(2): >>throwa+291 >>Apocry+jj1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳
19. throwa+291[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 23:26:51
>>Camper+G71
Its a shame they didn't seek your approval to make sure it was the appropriate time to strike, when the least amount of people would be upset, after all strikes are definitely not about inconveniencing people.

Perhaps the workers should just continue to allow amazon to get away with exposing them to covid-19 with no notification, for the greater good.

20. Anthon+Db1[view] [source] 2020-03-31 23:45:44
>>boombo+(OP)
> Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.

Not that hard. If everyone in the office had contact with someone infected then the best thing to do would have been to quarantine them all right away. Because without that, you now have the possibility that one of them had an asymptomatic case which they could have still had and given to any of the others less than a week ago, which means the others are still inside the window for being infected but not having either recovered or showed symptoms. Which means they still need to be quarantined.

replies(1): >>boombo+2x1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳
21. Apocry+jj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 00:55:32
>>Camper+G71
> The only worse thing he could have done would be to try to lead a strike during a world war.

That’s how we came to have employer-provided healthcare:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...

replies(1): >>Camper+Zl1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿
22. Camper+Zl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 01:24:43
>>Apocry+jj1
Did you read the article you linked to? Employer-provided insurance had nothing to do with strikes or unions. It became popular as a way to improve competition in the job market in the presence of wartime wage controls.

And it's arguably a terrible system that we're still stuck with today, with the effect of handcuffing productive people to their desks in dead-end jobs. We'd be far better off with universal coverage that's not tied to employment... and yes, that means better-off economically.

◧◩
23. boombo+2x1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 03:39:41
>>Anthon+Db1
Why are they quarantining people because they may have been in contact with the virus but did not quarantine people they know were in contact with the virus?
replies(1): >>Anthon+OH1
◧◩◪
24. Anthon+OH1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 05:46:59
>>boombo+2x1
Could be the usual bureaucratic reasons. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Or the left hand is correct and they should all be quarantined and the mistake wasn't sending this guy home, it was not sending the others home too.
replies(1): >>boombo+Xa2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
25. rumana+FJ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 06:13:06
>>lonela+k31
> And if we was told to stay home because to prevent unionizing,

But the worker was placed on a 15 day paid leave to self quarantine because he stated he had direct contact with someone infected with covid19.

And then he not only broke his quarantine but also made it his point to go to work, potentially risking his colleagues.

Even if you argue that he did't carried covid19, that action is not justifiable, neither safety-wise nor legaly-wise.

replies(1): >>throwa+jU1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
26. rumana+NJ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 06:16:48
>>throwa+i11
> You realize why he wanted to organize a strike right? Amazon knew that one of his co-workers was infected, and said and did nothing.

If he took health and safety so seriously then he wouldn't be breaking his quarantine after he claimed he had direct contact with someone carrying the virus to drive up to work potentially exposing all his co-workers to the virus.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
27. throwa+jU1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 08:45:33
>>rumana+FJ1
over and over in this thread you have been repeatedly told that amazon waited well over 2 weeks to "quarantine" him (and only him, nobody else that was exposed) despite knowing he was exposed (and also did not tell him).

Yet in every post you make, you continue to misrepresent the situation.

You are being hugely dishonest

◧◩◪◨
28. boombo+Xa2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 12:20:47
>>Anthon+OH1
If these reasons exist, the company put lives at risk for weeks and then fired someone for doing the same thing for one day. Many members of management should have been fired before Monday for this to seem legitimate.
replies(1): >>Anthon+003
◧◩◪◨⬒
29. Anthon+003[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 17:12:19
>>boombo+Xa2
Not necessarily. Choosing whether to quarantine people is a judgement call, but going into work after being ordered not to is insubordination and trespass.
replies(1): >>boombo+yC3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
30. boombo+yC3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-01 21:00:25
>>Anthon+003
>Choosing whether to quarantine people is a judgement call,

This judgment call changed. If bureaucratic ineptitude was to blame, those people ignored proper procedure, making them insubordinate, and risked lives. And if they found the issue confusing enough to take eighteen days to issue the quarantine notice, they should understand why this employee might think they are being targeted for their labor practices.

replies(1): >>Anthon+j34
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
31. Anthon+j34[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-02 00:35:22
>>boombo+yC3
> This judgment call changed.

The available information changed. This very quickly went from something many people weren't sure wasn't going to be maybe a nasty flu to something that has half the world staying home from work and hospitals getting overrun. Changing your procedures in response to new information is what managers should be doing.

replies(1): >>boombo+hm4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
32. boombo+hm4[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-02 04:43:46
>>Anthon+j34
This is just wrong, this disease was not some mystery three weeks ago and implying that the Amazon managers just learned of the dangers last weekend is absurd.
replies(1): >>Anthon+uY6
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
33. Anthon+uY6[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-03 04:33:21
>>boombo+hm4
Three weeks ago there were less than 5000 known cases in the US, now there are about a quarter of a million and the most in the world. The idea that what we know now is equivalent to what we knew then is absurd. Three weeks ago there was some hope it could be contained using ordinary measures.

They'd have been smarter to respond to it sooner, but better late than never.

replies(1): >>boombo+gK8
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
34. boombo+gK8[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-03 19:28:54
>>Anthon+uY6
The US declared a national emergency on the thirteenth. Every day past that in which they did not quarantine the employee is a far greater risk than the day he came in. And the idea that they didn't understand the risks until the 28th is ridiculous.

You're trying to spin it both ways. If Amazon was just idiotic about their response to the outbreak, why did they pick that moment to suddenly take things super serious and fire the employee?

[go to top]