NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
▲Amazon investigating engineers who criticized AI data center expansion (self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__=self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__||[];self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__.push("2:I[\"aadde9aaef29\",[],\"default\",1]\n3:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Children\",1]\n5:I[\"bc2946a341c8\",[],\"LayoutSegmentProvider\",1]\n6:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Slot\",1]\n7:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"ErrorBoundary\",1]\n8:I[\"a9bbde40cf2d\",[],\"default\",1]\n9:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"NotFoundBoundary\",1]\na:\"$Sreact.suspense\"\n:HL[\"/assets/index-BLEkI_5r.css\",\"style\"]\n")="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">cnbc.com)
Rendered at 15:22:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
"The complaint accuses Amazon of violating a Seattle ordinance that prohibits companies from discriminating against employees for their political ideology, race, religion and age, among other things."
Wonder how this will go.
I don't think it provides sweeping protection to use your employer's name in the name of your political organization which is what these employees did, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”.
At most it would be an issue in one aspect of a political ideology (like say a green party is against using coal fired electric power plants and data centers consume fossil fuels, lets say) but being against data center in itself is not a political ideology. I think if they were Amish, I can see it being part of their ideology since they eschew many modern conveniences.
There’d be no question, for example, that you can be fired for publishing Amazon’s full internal datacenter buildout plans, even if your city council says they’d like to see them.
You really have to question the motives of somebody who is anti data center working at Amazon to the point they may only work there to throw wrenches into plans for such.
Making it a “political issue” should not result in a company dealing with such issues.
You would never stand up for having doctor or nurses plotting to prevent abortions and potentially taking action on the job to prevent them.
I had to get pretty far down in the article to find that bit, when I was fully ready to pull out the pitchforks against Amazon initially.
> The staffers are part of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, a group of current and former employees that has repeatedly pressed the company on its climate stance, treatment of its workforce and other issues.
> Two employees who founded AECJ were fired by the company in 2020 for “repeatedly violating internal policies” after they criticized the company publicly, including circulating petitions calling for greater coronavirus protections for Amazon warehouse workers. Amazon in 2021 settled with the employees after they filed a complaint with federal labor regulators.
They are Amazon Employees. It is factually correct to name the group „Amazon Employees …“.
It doesn’t automatically mean they are representing the company.
And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint.
They are Amazon employees, however by making a separate group titled with "Amazon Employees" they are inferring that its a position of the company in question. They are using another entity's name for their own clout. It is not surprising that the group they are leeching clout off of, does not want that to happen and even has the right to go against said leaching.
>And obviously it’s legally permitted, since they had to settle the complaint.
Show me where its legally permitted. Are you referring to the sub linked article here[1]. I found in that article
> By reaching a settlement, Amazon avoids what could have been a potentially lengthy trial, complete with witnesses and a dissection of its treatment of employees. Had the NLRB sided with the employees, Amazon could have been forced to rehire Cunningham and Costa or award them back pay, among other remedies.
It was a settlement that never went to trial. There was no finding of fact on legality. Companies settle all the time for smaller amounts than the cost of a trial. I personally have gotten settlements from companies where we never found which side broke the law but agreed that the settlement amount was good enough to not waste time and money on lawyers.
If you think a settlement means that a legal decision was made, I hope you are never involved in any capacity as a lawyer.
[1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/amazon-settles-with-employee...
They _are_ Amazon Employees. They are in no way factually incorrect by calling their group "Amazon Employees in support of <insert topic here>" and are entitled to call themselves that, because that is who they are.
Just because the words "Amazon Employees" contains the word "Amazon", that doesn't mean they are not allowed to use it. If Amazon would prefer them not to call themselves "Amazon Employees", Amazon is free to not employ them in the first place. Now that Amazon did employ them, it has to allow them to use the objectively correct way to describe their group. And apparently, if Amazon would like to stop employing them, it gets to pay a settlement to them or explain it in a court, because there are rules against that.
Even if they described themselves as working for Amazon, that doesn't mean they were posing as representatives of the company.
Further, even if this violates Amazon policy -- the policy itself violates Seattle law: https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code...
They were part of an activist group they named “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”
There is no nuance there to say they weren’t trying to tie their speech to Amazon with that name.
Hell if they had even made it anonymous with like “FAANG Employees for Climate Justice” or “Former Amazon Employees for Climate Justice“ there would be some wiggle room.
I am generally on the left for most political views, so I am saying this from a “the call is coming from inside the house” energy. The leftist groups tend to be dogshit at naming things and getting burned for it.
The right will make a horrible bill removing our rights and call it “The Patriot Act” and get low information voters on board, the left will push for comprehensive legislation that restructures emergency services to split it out so that police don’t show up to situations that don’t need violence and send social workers instead and call it “Defund the Police”
Naming their group as associated with the company was an unforced error.