NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
▲Amazon employees say they're facing termination for backing data center limitsself.__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")="_source_ka9gd_36"> (theverge.com)
Rendered at 13:42:38 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
That's it?
That's the whole story?
No one was fired? No laws were broken?
I'm not one to give HR the benefit of the doubt, but it is actually quite reasonable for them to find out about something like this and call people in to make sure they're aware of the rules around stuff like "don't represent your personal stance as an official Amazon stance".
And, surprise, if they represent themselves as Amazon, they CAN actually be fired, so it would be perfectly truthful to say "HR said they can be terminated" and also "HR did absolutely nothing illegal"
I find arguing based on technicalities and aggressive rhetoric to be dishonest, really.
They are Amazon employees. If they'd called it "Amazon for Climate Justice", then that would be representing as the company, but I don't think it's wrong for them to accurately label themselves.
You can figure that out beforehand by getting internal HR or external legal advice.
In general I’d be surprised if this isn’t covered by the employee agreement. I don’t think these employees did anything illegal but they probably did break that agreement and could face termination.
But altogether, it's a business model now, not anythign else.
What's sensible? How do you measure it? I was only talking about shareholder value. At scale, the costs of breaking laws are business expenses.
It’s just people used to virtue signaling that aren’t willing to pay any price, no matter how small, for what they defend. They really think they are up to something when all they do is speak and “look good”.
If they think their company is doing something really problematic, then resign.
> that aren’t willing to pay any price, no matter how small, for what they defend.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting others to harm you. It is entirely absolutely ok to avoiding unnecessary harm to you. There is no virtue in allowing others to mistreat you.
> If they think their company is doing something really problematic, then resign.
People who try to create change are better then those who passively resign staying silent. You don't have to become jobless before you push for legislation that limits what companies have to do.
You are just trying to create rules that will silence and punish people you disagree with. That is weak.