Two things:
- I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee.
- If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.
- I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee.
- If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.
You can leave an employer less than amicably, and not have done anything wrong. Even Amazons claims about the firing are just that, claims. They haven't posted any evidence that it occurred, or that it was against their practices. Its entirely likely that based on their culture, what he was doing was silently encouraged, up until the point they needed a scapegoat.
What is does tell you is that if you work at Amazon and ever disagree with them, they will burn your reputation to the ground, and you will have no real recourse. Thats a giant, flaming "go fuck yourself" to any potential hires in the future.
Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do?
What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood.
We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.
1. Many of the facts in your HR files are based on heresay - what your colleagues/managers/HR personnel think about you. These are highly subjective facts, very domain and company specific. Airing those out without context is a breach of privacy and can cause great damage to the employee down the line.
2. These files belong to the employer - he can alter them to show whatever he wants them to; either in real time, or after the fact, to justify wrongful termination etc. I've actually seen that happen, when a pregnant colleague of mine was let go, and the management later invented a non-existent reason (right before they settled out of court).
3. Privacy here goes one way: if you, the ex-employee, decide to protect your good name, or retaliate - maybe by discussing what you think really happened, you may be violating the NDA you signed. At worst, you could be sued for libel. Most of the time you have no facts on your side, and you can refer to #2 to see what happens to the facts aligned against you.
Finally, imho, if your employee was caught in the process of criminal activity, report him to the appropriate authorities and fire him. Letting him go quietly, only to use this fact against him later, smells of shoddy behavior to your current and past employees, and to your customers.
2. This pushes into the conspiracy area though, you'd have to have an entire chain of staff (at least in a company the size of Amazon) that couldn't not know this had occurred, and somehow convince them all to be silent. Not impossible, just unlikely.
3. If the company is releasing info about whatever occurred, an NDA would no longer apply. Why would it? The information is now public knowledge.
This I definitely agree with, when employees are found to be stealing it should be handled like any other matter; call the cops and let the process handle itself. Again I think we'd have a much less corrupt corporate culture in our society if we started treating these criminals like criminals.
2. Not far fetched at all, as I said, I saw it happen more than once. Usually we're discussing just the direct manager and one HR "specialist". I can put whatever I want in your file, whenever I want it. If it ever reaches a court, lawyers may discuss the what, why and when. But as someone else here mentions, people rarely sue their employers, so 99% of the time I can feel completely secure in retconning reality to fit my narrative.
3. Nope. Read through NDAs signed in big companies - they are very one-sided. Unless a court specifically negates an NDA, you may still be charged for violating it. Take again the case in point 1. Suppose said employee responds back to the leak about him being lazy by saying: "our project for customer Z was already behind schedule, due to us switching mid project from Java to Scala" - you just revealed privileged information: name of customer, status of project, technologies used. You may be sued for those. If customer Z decides to cancel their contract as a result of the leak, I'm sure the legal department of the former employer would be glad to talk to the employee about incurred damages.
Finally, remember that this is an uneven fight to begin with: ex-employees are usually in a vulnerable position (sometimes even financially), seeking their next job, and with no readily-available legal resources. Employers have legal departments, lawyers on retainer, and significant funds and time to tie you in court. That's why 99.9% of people keep below the radar even when they feel slighted.
I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.
What has been harmed by the NYT article is Amazon's ability to recruit. And what Mr Carney did makes it even harder. Why would you willing join a company that then goes all Scientology on you if you dare speak against it?
He's preaching to the kool aid drinkers when he should have been working on the ones that weren't sure if they should join.
This is PR 101.