zlacker

> 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.

>>rumana+(OP)
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.

>>pergad+G3
> 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.

>>rumana+Qa
The retaliation part is where they got fired.

>>throwa+rd
He got fired for showing up to work when he was told to stay home.

>>rumana+(OP)
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.

>>jaywal+po
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?

>>sudosy+eA
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.

>>jaywal+HB
The issue is that this prevents him from organizing strikes effectively. That is very problematic.

>>sudosy+XF
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.

>>root_a+CL
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.

>>sudosy+XF
How about not trying to organize a strike in the middle of a national emergency? Is that an option?

>>Camper+7W
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.

>>jaywal+po
And if we was told to stay home because to prevent unionizing, that's retaliation. Intent matters in law.

>>throwa+tY
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.

>>Camper+e21
You sound like you have it all figured out, perhaps you can point at which law amazon violated.

>>throwa+M31
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.

>>Camper+R41
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.

>>Camper+R41
> 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...

>>Apocry+ug1
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.

>>lonela+v01
> 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.

>>throwa+tY
> 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.

>>rumana+QG1
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