> the employer is not aware of what they're getting in return for being deprived of that employee's compensation.

This would make sense except this article suggests that employees are not given a proper chance to actually present what they do give in return. Rather they spend the whole process defending accusations from their manager.

> She wasn’t invited to watch her boss’s presentation, and he got the last word.

In court, the accused does not get kicked out whenever the accuser is speaking. They should at least have the right to hear what is being said about them and be given the same time to both give a rebuttal and present their achievements and contributions.

The sense in which I meant it was: in the course of a termination, the employee is being deprived, by another person, of something. The latter person sets in motion the process. That's one way to figure out who is the accuser and who is the accused, because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.

> because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.

Does the employee have a right to unconditionally (employment law and preexisting agreements notwithstanding) continue depriving the employer of his compensation? That seems, to me, completely unjust. Not only is this unjust to employers, but it is hostile to prospective employees as well: How many companies that you've worked for would hire you if they knew they could never let you go? How many of them would avoid giving raises because they would be expected to continue that scale of compensation until you're dead?

One doesn't have a right to unconditionally do anything; and in this case it is governed by contract. Generally contracts are void if one or the other party fails to deliver.

In this case, Amazon has chosen to implement something modeled on a judicial process, and that's where it's relevant to talk about burden of proof and who is depriving whom of what.

>because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.

Employment is not a right, and a job not the possession of the employee (it's rather the other way around,) and employers in the US can in most cases terminate an employee without demonstrating any cause at all. This isn't a "real" court and jury system, so the rules of that framework don't actually matter here.

The purpose of this is not to find fact and arbitrate fairly, it's to discourage employees from engaging in lawsuits against Amazon.

> Employment is not a right,

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Fair enough. Employment at any specific business is not a right.

One could use the more generic term "stuff" instead, in this case, because the key thing is, someone wants to deprive someone of something, using a judicial process. (If they didn't want to use a judicial process, it would be different, but Amazon is choosing to use one here.)

> Well, the employee is depriving the employer of something as well.

Given that the employer is trying to get rid of the employee, this assertion seems questionable.

The whole premise of "right to work" is questionable because the employer and the employee are not equals. All else being equal, the employer has a big upper hand in any negotiation.