I am not a lawyer nor am I condoning this, but them is the facts.

edit: added play

It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)

My favorite which would work in much of the US is "We'll fire anybody who registers with the Republican party." (Or Democratic, if you prefer.) Especially in a state where registration is required in order to participate in the primary. It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone.

This is not true in my experience. Many people on the left, particularly under 35, earnestly believe that their political opponents are by definition racist and evil. In a manner similar to how I would not want a literal neo-nazi on my company's payroll, they do not want a registered Republican on the company's payroll.

Edit: In other words, this kind of bigotry is actually acceptable to a disturbingly large number of people.

I absolutely agree about the importance politics at local level. In fact, this is likely where regular citizens have biggest chance to actually influence an outcome.

I used to have a condescending attitude towards people who took sports 'way too seriously', but now I wonder if it is a net gain for society to give people a comparatively harmless outlet for these tendencies. Real harm is done when our policy discussions are dominated by the kind of tribalism, ideological intolerance, and rush-seeking engagement that seems to happen when people bring these tendencies to politics.

Tribalism in America goes deep, and you're right: rooting for a sports team is fairly harmless, and rooting for a political party is probably harmful, but I'd argue it's not nearly as harmful as as rooting blindly for an ideology. If you want your party to succeed, you should be engaged in your local politics, talk to people from the other side, listen honestly to their concerns, be willing to change your own opinion on specific policies, and push for those sensible policy changes to be adopted as part of your local party's platform. That's how you win people over, that's how you win elections, and how you enact real change that affects people's lives. Anything else is just yelling into your echo chamber, or getting into bar fights with the guys wearing the "wrong" jerseys.

Ideologies form the axes of socioeconomic space, they're not an ideal point, and the push toward an "us versus them" mentality in politics is embarrassing. It's a quirk that's arisen out of new media, an easily exploitable bug, and the sooner people see through the bullshit and we outgrow this, the better.

As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though..

So where is the line for you?

Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong.

We are in absolute agreement. Frankly, I have argued before that they are already too big.

"There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices."

I am not sure I agree with that statement. Would you feel the same if the employee publicly criticized a company for using non recycled paper AND they have to change course now and use recycled paper; afterwards the story "went viral" and employee got fired for that specific action. Is employee justified in doing that without any repercussions? It is genuinely hard for me to argue for the employee here.

"Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case."

To you it may be clear, but clearly not to everyone since we are having this discussion. Whether the pendulum should swing ( it should ) is a worthwhile conversation to have.

"If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong."

I don't know if I buy this argument. HR does not like troublemakers seems like more plausible explanation.

I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%?

To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.

The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal.

That's patently false. Plenty of people want to make those unethical things illegal, it's just that the people who engage in those unethical things have had the political power to thwart many of those efforts so far.

I do think that it would be helpful to make the decision making public though. Limited legal liability isn't limited moral liability. Rather than saying "amazon fired" someone they should tell us "Jane Doe a manager at Amazon made the decision to fire."

People shouldn't hide behind the company logo when they do shitty things to other people. And if you want to rationalize it, cool, do it with your name attached so your pastor, spouse, friends, and kids know the things you'll do for a paycheck and you can justify it all you want to your community.

It's pretty telling to me that I'm being downvoted for saying that I think people should own up to their decisions in the workplace that impact other people and are questionable ethically. Removing any kind of moral liability for those decisions is how we wind up with businesses that employ good people that do shitty things to other good people.

I don't know what the policy is explicitly or if it's justified, but there should be visibility into that kind of decision making from the outside. It's in the lack of visibility that we see bad shit happen with hiring and firing.

Imagine you are an engineering manager running a team of 10. You got an email from your boss that the project revenue is way lower than projected, so the funding is getting cut and you need to get rid of one of your worst performers, but you have to pick who it is yourself, as your boss probably doesn't even know the actual people on your team. You have to fire them, even though you personally don't want to, because they are performing fine, just worse than all your other engineers.

Whose fault is this? Is it your boss' fault? They don't even pick the person and neither do they know any of them. Is it your fault? You've made the decision to fire that person, even though you don't want to fire them.

That's not particularly non-sensical, at all. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.

"We'll fire anybody who plays a game" would qualify as "absurd".

Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.

Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.

This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.

Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.

You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.

Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.

You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it.

>Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.

There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be?

In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns.

>Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.

Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.

1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.

2. Start your own company.

3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.

> There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns“

I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.

> In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money.

A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.

> My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do.

From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.

The people who stole the land are dead. The people who were stolen from are dead.

The point is moot.

>1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.

Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.

>2. Start your own company.

Not everyone can do that, and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.

>3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.

There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.

>I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.

Coercion is the opposite of freedom, and in general coercion describes a party "forcing" another party to act in some way contrary to their preference either by force, implied force, or some form of a threat. As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.

>>In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. >A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.

Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die? How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?

>>My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.

>From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.

Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off? Are children worse off now that they're required to stay in schools instead of working in mines or textile mills?

Even in the case of this hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause, how exactly would it leave people worse off?

Most people will have to make major concessions to negotiate a clause like this into their contract. I am fine with this.

Do I think a hypothetical works where all employers guaranteed this power to laborers is an improvement over the current one? Maybe, but I am morally imposed to creating this world thru government intervention.

> I'm not claiming that this particular "freedom" to openly criticize your employer deserves government intervention

Noted.

> Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.

It takes hard work to get a better job with more money and benefits, but this is being human. This situation pleases me.

> Not everyone can do that [start a company], and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.

So prioritize learning these skills over starting a family or whatever else.

> There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.

I am suspicious of this because there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. People at the top of their field create new wealth.

> As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.

Children make the issue confusing. Let’s say that a man wants to use the WiFi at Starbucks, but he can’t get the password until he purchases something. This isn’t coercion. Starbucks is selling a service, the man can accept or deny the contract. If men with guns force him to buy the coffee, then it’s coercion.

(Edited)

> Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die?

Yes.

> How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?

If the government forces me to add this clause to employment contracts, then my right to free association has been violated.

> Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off?

Slavery is evil. I don’t know enough about American abolition to address the specific point. But it is certainly possible to do something evil while intending to resolve some other evil.

0: or religeous, or familial, or any other source.

I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man.

* And I am suspicious of market cartels (wage collusion, price fixing, labor unions, etc), but as they are freely made contracts between private individuals I can’t in good conscience support government intervention.

(I heavily edited this message)

That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.)

(I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)

Yes, the barricader has “initiated force” because “man” owns his body and his possessions. Vandalizing the possessions is analogous to assaulting the body. (My language is clumsy.)

> I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)

Noted.

You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.

That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.

Punching someone is coercion.

Advertising is not coercion.

Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion.

Stealing a wallet is coercion.

Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion.

An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers.

Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.

A better definition of coercion is to use power over someone to make them do something you want. Might even be a dictionary definition.

All of the examples could be coercion using this definition, and its clearer how to treat the grey zones:

the punch uses physical power over you; without trying to make you do something it's not coercion though

Advertising might be if they're using tricks to bypass your judgement

Threatening to punch someone is definitely coercion, unless you are stronger than them/they don't have that power

Stealing your wallet definitely is

Firing somebody sometimes is. The big questions are:

- does the company(or manager) have power of the individual? Eg. Can the employee easily replace the company; do they even need a job? Are they on a work visa? - is the company trying to make them do something?

Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense.

> Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce".

Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.

This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.

I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.

edit: corrected fallacy to argument

Right leaning people are fired all the time for their views on social issues, and no one seems to have a problem with that normally.

Further if these employees would have been fired to taking a counter view I bet there would have been cheers for their firing

no the outrage here is not really because " people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them" no it is more "I agree with these employee opinions and am outraged they were fired for an opinion I share"

Nobody's questioning the legality. The question is whether it should be condoned.

Private censorship is legal, but IMHO it can be unethical, especially when the balance of power is so far askew. An employer firing or threatening to fire an employee for speaking can have a large chilling effect.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

But yes, shit talking your employer is generally not one of those reasons.

You _cannot_ sign away these rights in an employee agreement or policy you agree to. Amazon having a "policy" against speaking out about unsafe working conditions is not a legal (or moral) defense of their behavior.

Didn't help that Google guy. The NLRB itself even issued some sort of opinion stating that he had violated corporate policy and that his firing was thus justified.

If by "that Google guy" you mean the one who got fired for posting critical memes about pay on Facebook, I'm pretty sure they were ordered reinstated and the notice was issued.

The Amazon folks fired here did nothing more than say they were concerned about working conditions on Twitter. It's hard to have a more explicitly protected activity.

Let me further clarify my statement: While shit talking your employer, you must be very careful not to step outside the bounds of what is legally protected. And with attention comes scrutiny.

Yes, employment at-will allows both the employer and employee to terminate employment at anytime without cause.

However, it seems pretty clear Amazon did not terminate these employees without cause...you can argue the termination was for violation of a company policy all you want (Amazon certainly will), but the evidence seems to support Amazon fired these employees in retaliation for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.

The employees will sue and Amazon will settle. This is a major win for Amazon because it will be far less costly to pay these employees off rather than make any meaningful change to work conditions.

Yes, you certainly do have that right so long as what you say is true.

But lets assume your misunderstanding of the law were true, or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement...who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon? No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.

>or these statements were in violation of some otherwise unknown confidential settlement agreement

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What confidential settlement agreement?

>who is to say the employee statements were disparaging? Amazon?

Yes.

>No whether a statement is disparaging or otherwise violates the terms of an agreement is an issue of fact for a fact finder (i.e. jury or more rarely a judge) to determine.

No it's not. This isn't a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether the "agreement" was violated or not, and there is no need for anyone to do any "fact finding". This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

>This is an employment arrangement which can unilaterally be ended at any time by either party, and Amazon has chosen to do so.

Yes, at will employment gives the parties the right to terminate the employment...but, Amazon can not terminate an employee for any reason. For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. You may want to Google "workplace retaliation cases", because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.

The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities.

>For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.

Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.

This is generally true but there are exceptions, which funny enough you acknowledge one of them in your comment.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives private-sector employees the right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.” They can share information about pay, benefits, safety and other work-related issues — and they can do it in the break room, at happy hour or on social media (such as Facebook and Twitter).

Real-world example of workplace freedom of speech:

Situation: A group of employees who worked for a retail store in San Francisco were concerned about their safety due to their store’s closing an hour later than other nearby stores. After unsuccessful discussions with the manager and later, the owner, the employees posted their frustrations on Facebook. An employee who saw the posts showed them to the owner, and subsequently, the other three employees were fired.

Ruling: The National Labor Relations Board reviewed the Facebook posts and determined they were acceptable. The employees were discussing the store’s legitimate safety concerns, so the posts were considered protected under the NLRA. It was determined that the employer committed an unfair labor practice by firing the employees.

What is otherwise not protected speech becomes protected speech.

>Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

Amazon published a press release on the matter acknowledging they fired the employees for their posts about safety in the work place...it doesn't matter Amazon claims the post violated company policy, these employees have legal right to discuss their working conditions, which is considered “protected concerted activity.”

As you may or may not know the NLRA protections come from the Constitutional Right to association, which is an essential part of freedom of speech. While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

I don't think it is absurd not to want to employ someone who is an activist against you.

These tweets, made on 27 March, allegedly broke the camel's back:

@marencosta I am matching donations to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse colleagues and their communities, while they struggle to get consistent, sufficient protections and procedures from our employer. DM or comment for match. [1]

@emahlee I'm matching donations up to $500 to support my Amazon warehouse worker colleagues. "The lack of safe and sanitary working conditions" puts them and the public at risk.

It's bad ya'll... [2] and @marencosta re-tweeted it.

@marencosta had been warned by Amazon, in late 2019, to not publicly disparage them.

---

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...

[1] https://twitter.com/marencosta/status/1243585580736237568

[2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1243441985173651456.html

You can agree or disagree with that policy, but it's not new. Source: first heard of this policy when I was hired at Amazon in 2007.

It depends on the specifics of this case.

If you were employed by a company and disparaged them publicly, breaking company policy, would you believe that your employment with them is in any way protected?

That’s not to say I disagree with workers’ protections only tat if you believe strongly then protections or not should not be much of a consideration.

That said, is Amazon acting illegally so you’re calling that out or do I just disagree with their position?

Do I get outraged at them? Should they be outraged at me? Did anyone of us do anything illegal?

It doesn't sound like Amazon is attempting to hide anything here.

I assume they want less buzz about work conditions.

>I assume they want less buzz about work conditions.

I don't think this is the case. They have been public about responding to the media and have been posting daily updates through their own site. The link to their blog discussing workers' conditions is on the front page of Amazon.com.

Google had a similar policy and, after losing NLRA cases, had to issue a notice to all employees saying that its previous policies no longer included discussing working conditions with the public.

Amazon will likely get sued over this, and very likely lose in a similar matter, as their conduct here is even more egregious.

While warehouse workers could file suit under the National Labor Relations Act if fired for speaking publicly of their own working conditions, I'm not sure that Amazon's UX team would qualify (but again, IANAL).

To draw an analogy: Would a DoorDash engineer be safe speaking out against the working conditions of DoorDash drivers?

They should be, but you might be right that the National Labor Relations Act (or other applicable law) isn't doing its job.

Firing designers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing warehouse workers for complaining about their unsanitary working conditions is illegal. Firing designers and warehouse workers for attempting to organize together is illegal.

Firing designers for talking about someone else's working conditions isn't "one weird trick" for avoiding the law here.

You are a lawyer and are making this claim as someone who is educated in labor law? Or you have a citation to share with us, or something of that nature? Perhaps the chapter and verse of the law that makes this move illegal? Or a case where it was found that workers have the right to publicly comment on other workers' working conditions as long as they work at the same company?

> Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to:

> Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce your hours or change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you join or support a union, or because you engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, or because you choose not to engage in any such activity.

You can get a basic overview of this topic by googling things like NLRA, NLRB, and protected concerted activity, including very recent examples of how these concepts have applied. They're much broader protections than you think, and Amazon has very clearly broken them. That's why their spokesman is giving out contradictory statements like saying that they allow employees to discuss eachother's working conditions, then firing them for exactly that.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that "the company has a policy" or "at-will employment" means "you have no legal rights".

That's not exactly uncommon in the modern world. Especially with the prevalence of social media, expressing your opinion on anything publicly could cost you your job. Same thing happened to James Damore.

If you want to remain employed, you need to be quite cautious about what you post on non-anonymous social media. In fact, I'd advise most people not to post on social media at all.

This, on the other hand, is just about Amazon trying to control people to keep their poor treatment of employees hidden. There's nobody at Amazon who's saying, "Man, I'm quitting if those people keep trying to improve worker conditions here."

It is uncommon in the parts of modern world that have reasonably modern employee protection laws. Yes, most jurisdictions recognize that employers may expect a certain degree of loyalty from their employees. But unless you're a very high-level executive, just disagreeing with your employer's conduct is absolutely no legal grounds for termination.

Both this and the WaPo article are extremely light on the details what exactly these employees said or did. WaPo says that these employees "violated company policy", which leads me to believe they must have been saying something that Amazon felt was untrue, because again, official policy is that you can speak as much as you want about working conditions at Amazon as long as they are factual. I would like to see what exactly these people said that apparently upset Amazon, but I can't find it anywhere.

* make sure to use corporate-approved facts

factual: Amazon does this factual thing X and this factual thing Y, and it shouldn't be happening this way.

First one is just an opinion piece, regardless of its truthfulness, because it cannot be evaluated objectively (how to objectively determine whether amazon cares or not? who counts as "amazon" in this scenario? what factual event led to this statement? and on and on).

Second one is a factual statement that can be evaluated on a true/false basis. Events X and Y either happened or they didn't. If they did, the responsibility for those can be traced and evaluated. It leads to actual results, while the former is just an emotional opinion sort of statement, but that's exactly what sells the headlines.

A lot of companies will do that. For instance, I never identify on social media (including here) which company I work for. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. Even giving it praise on social media is a form of communication, and I am not PR. Therefore, not authorized (of course, retweeting official communications or linking to them is fine). We may not like these policies (and it is kinda dystopian if you think about it), but once we identify as employees, we are representing the company.

Should I then decide to criticize the company publicly, I would expect the hammer to fall down, hard Not sure about termination, but it is always a possibility. Especially in the US, with at will employment.

You can blow the whistle. But that doesn't make one immune to consequences. Should it be like that? I don't know, but the matter of the fact is that it is like that today, across most corporations. Google is (Was?) somewhat of an exception, but even then most of it was on internal forums.

This has been the policy at every company I've worked for since the 90's. It's usually in the employee handbook, and at a couple of places I had to sign a separate paper acknowledging it.

Amazingly, several of those companies were news organizations. It's usually the first indication that a company is more interested in its stock price than doing the right thing.

But no one changes the policies until the NLRB requires them to after losing a case, even an easy case. Sometimes all they do is write "except where allowed by law" into the policy, then hope workers don't know what their rights are.

But if Amazon negotiated a deal with them by which both employer and employee bilaterally agreed to end the contract between them, then fair enough! Rest assured it was probably quite expensive for Amazon, or at least for that micro-pod’s balance sheet.

No one is entitled to be a hostile employee, just as no employee has to tolerate a hostile workplace. I think they’ll be happier working somewhere else (and I hope they continue the activism.)

Every large company very clearly states, one way or another, that speaking about the company to the public without being a designated spokesperson is seriously grounds for termination.

Amazon should be protecting their warehouse workers. Taking a stand, getting fired under media spot-light for it is actually a really powerful message against Amazon.