Amazon threatened to fire employees for speaking out on climate, workers say
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I know it's fun to hate on the big tech companies recently and act like they are bullies (and indeed in many ways they are), but this is a bad example of that. Most companies I know of would outright fire you if you, against explicit company policy, went to the press and started badmouthing your employer. The fact that Amazon only gave her a warning is the only surprising thing in this article.
Legal obstacles aside, though, it would be pretty clearly inappropriate in this case. If I'm an entry-level SWE looking to unionize, the principal designers are by any reasonable metric management; they're the ones who go around telling me what I should do and how I should do it, often more so than the person I actually report to in the org chart. I don't think any union representing line employees would let those employees' managers join.
Some people are actually registered with an union but their challenge is to have people vote for them during compulsory elections for work councils.
Any employee can vite, and any employee can join a union. The mere fact of joining the union does not protect you form being fired (which by itself is very complicated in Europe where there are strong labour laws). The only people who are strongly protected are the ones who create a union, or are elected as a representative.
If your stance is that Amazon's policy regarding public speaking is wrong, then that again is your opinion. I reached out to a friend who knows about Amazon's public speaking policy. The policy does not prevent employees from speaking to the press, nor does it prevent employees from speaking negatively about Amazon. It actually even says that talking publicly about an employee's experience working at Amazon is encouraged as long as you say that "this opinion is my own and not my company's".
The policy does also say that employees must get prior approval before speaking publicly on behalf of the company or before sharing confidential information. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with this policy, and the employee in question definitely violated that. She explicitly identifies herself as "an Amazon insider" in her interview with TechCrunch where she then goes on to talk about Amazon's effort regarding climate change.
If I had to guess, I would say that this phrase is probably what got her into trouble. No company would be happy if one of their employees, without prior approval, represented themselves as an "insider" giving special information to the press, and I don't blame the company for that or see anything wrong with enforcing policies against that (except in cases of actual whistleblowing, which this is not).
We could say that about just about any major public policy move, now couldn't we? For example:
"In cases where the United States recklessly invades other countries, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and decades of instability -- as it did most recently in Iraq, for example -- it does so because voters have determined (indirectly, my electing leaders inclined to such actions) that it is in society's best interest to do so."
The second part should be changed to that they're voting in the United State's best interests, which doesn't necessarily have to be society's best interest.
> In cases where strikes are illegal, they are made so because voters have determined that it is in society's best interest to make them so.
Laws are seldom (never?) passed by popular vote, and I highly doubt this hypothetical outcome would occur if the question was ever presented to the people. Citizens have little say in legislative matters except when given a choice between 2-3 representatives, the winner of which gets the power to vote in their stead. This obviously makes it easier to influence the legislative process, since you only need to influence the representative and not all their constituents. The representatives are completely unaccountable until they're up for re-election, which occurs every 2-6 years. Passing a law can be done in much less time with zero input from citizens. So using the law as a basis for social approval of policy is obviously moot.
Another point: she never claims to speak for Amazon. Being an Amazon insider doesn't automatically imply that they are a spokesperson for Amazon, it just means they have access to information which does not exist outside Amazon. Your reading of this seems quite charitable to Amazon's case for seemingly no good reason.
Lastly, "confidential information" is often dubiously and vaguely defined to capture all information classified by laws as confidential, but also a lot more than that based on what the company thinks is bad PR. Take for instance the Google controversies last year regarding Search in China and image processing for military drones. When you give a single company the power to both define and enforce what falls under that umbrella, you can't expect them to do anything but use it to benefit the bottom line. This is the reason we have oversight bodies at all.
On the other hand, there’s been a rise in activist workers who believe they’re victims of authoritarianism whenever their subjective demands are not met immediately and in full. They often present themselves moral authorities, and by using an “appeal to authority” fallacy, they justify breaking policies, speaking on behalf of their coworkers, doxxing coworkers whom they don’t agree with, making false claims in the press, etc.
Whether or not I’m aligned with the underlying cause, the tactics and behavior on display has become increasingly indefensible.
My sympathies end when you get exactly what you were asking for from your employer in a negotiation and you continue bad mouth them to the press.
Appeals to authority all the way down.
Sometimes, any strategy does become appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, depending on the issue at hand. At some point, being reasonable may no longer be an effective strategy.
Don't trust internet randos, of course, but I preach what I practice and it has served me well in life.
How much should one be willing to sacrifice for the high road? Everything?
First off we are talking about benign matters like employees' opinions, not trade secrets (common sense would prevent the latter from leaking).
Second, I am not advocating to force anyone to disclose anything, but merely for them to have the potential to do so if they wish. If you trust them enough to complete the task then surely you should also trust their common sense about what to talk and not talk about (trade secrets, etc) to the press?
If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it?
There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect.
I trust people at the company to have common sense about what to talk and not talk about, as long as it is their job, as they are most likely able to have the full story and consider the situation from all angles.
However, I do not trust an average engineer's common sense to know what to talk/not talk about, especially considering how narrowly scoped most of the engineering work (and, conversely, their exposure to the overall big picture) is.
>There are tons of happy small businesses with no such thing as "PR" nor media policy (just employees' common sense) and they don't seem to implode, because either there's no dirty laundry or the employees are paid & treated well enough to not put the company in disrepute. It's like mutual trust & respect.
Agreed with this one, but it only seems to support my previous point about the big picture. If you work at a small company, you are way more likely to have an understanding of the big picture than a cog at a big tech company, who stands very little chance at doing so.
>If the thought of anyone being able to "ruin" the company's reputation by airing dirty laundry is scary, then maybe fix the root cause instead of the symptoms and ask yourself 1) why is there dirty laundry to begin with? and 2) why would the employee be unhappy enough to leak it?
There doesn't have to be any real "dirty laundry", it's all about how people on the outside can spin the story, even if the facts leaked are true. Just look at this submission post itself. Factually, it is true, because an employee spoke out about the company on the topic of climate change and got fired for it. Or, a more level-headed view, would be something more like "An employee acted as if they were representing company views while giving an interview regarding company policies and got fired for it regardless of their stance on the issue."
Which of the two do you think will be more unfavorable to the company and paint it in a bad light? Which one opens up the company more to the potential damage?
Why? There are many avenues for change, why limit yourself to just quitting? People are more than just workers and consumers.
Then again, if they choose to stay and their contract says they aren't allowed to do this (assuming its reasonable), then they should also accept it when they get fired and move along.
Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval.
Neither of those elements strikes me as shocking. 1) Companies are sensitive—including for legal reasons—to employees clearly noting that "their opinions are their own" and may not reflect the corporate entity. And, 2) media perception, particularly in a negative light.
Maren Costa is quoted as saying, “Any policy that says I can’t talk about something that is a threat to my children – all children – is a problem for me.”
Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want!
Victoria Liang is quoted as saying, “Amazon’s newly updated communications policy is having a chilling effect on workers who have the backbone to speak out and challenge Amazon to do better. This policy is aimed at silencing discussion around publicly available information. It has nothing to do with protecting confidential data, which is covered by a completely different set of policies.”
Which... yep. The entire point is media and PR relations, not confidentiality agreements. To limit one's own employees from making you a pariah in the media.
So none of this is shocking to me.
Note also that this is different from a thesis of, "Workers should be protected for criticizing their employers in the media" or "Amazon should be doing more for climate change."
What does "titular" mean here? They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees and therefore, according to Amazon, broke company policy. Luckily, giant tech companies have no right to curb employees free speech. Our world isn't that Orwellian yet.
> Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want!
"The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee." So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.
Simply those employees referenced in the title of this post.
> They were making comments to the press while being Amazon employees something Amazon was in breach of company policy.
Well, and identifying themselves as such. That second part is key. It's not just, "I think XYZ about climate change." It's, "I, bjorne, an Amazon employee, think XYZ about climate change."
> So the policy requires people to not disclose that they work for Amazon while talking in a public forum. That's insane.
Why is that insane? It happens all the time. I don't feel the need to trumpet my employment status when talking about things that are entirely unrelated to my work there.
These activities have nothing to do with work, so Amazon has no moral right to try to control them.
Do you think it is good that Amazon employees are afraid of speaking to the press?
1. I suspect you'd have "protection" to use your title as a credential in a relevant professional forum.
2. Most companies also have policies on running for public office, usually because of legal oversight to public procurement or policymaking.
3. Neither of your examples are explicitly "to the media", which is being discussed here.
4. Most companies are thrilled to help you advance your cause and theirs in things like running for public office or industry leadership, and will give you great resources like media training.
5. Straw-men: I bet the company would care if you were running on a policy platform of reducing sanitation in minority neighborhoods, or speaking at a KKK rally.
If these activities have nothing to do with work, then why are you bringing work into it? And if you're bringing work into it, then it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to tell your company about it.
It's not about "being afraid to talk to the press"... that's my point.
2. Citation needed.
3. What is being discussed is "talking in a public forum." See the quote from the article: "The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee.
4. Citation needed.
5. Indeed, you've brought forward a straw man.
> If these activities have nothing to do with work, then why are you bringing work into it?
That is none of your business! E.g don't shift the blame unto the victim. Neither Amazon nor any other company has any moral right to tell someone that they can't disclose that they work there while talking in a public forum.
I guess your point is that Maren Costa is lying when she claims the warning she got from HR for speaking to the Press frightened her?
>"The new policy requires staff members to seek permission from Amazon prior to talking in a public forum while identified as an employee."
Not really saying anything about if the policy is ok or not, just that it doesn't seem like this is really about climate change but rather speaking out against the company
I hope that there's some nuance I'm missing there, I was glad to see that Amazon had dropped the old social media etc. policy.
>investigation” into one employee, Maren Costa, over comments made to the media that called for the company to do more to tackle the climate crisis.
No major company appreciates random employees deciding to be self appointed spokesperson for what the company should do. Very different from the amazon is against climate change stuff being implied here.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethi...
If we as a society don't like it, we should enact laws for/against it. Though, I agree with another poster here that it is practically impossible to change any laws at this point. The whole system seems to almost be designed for snail-paced gridlock.
A person's personal time and personal views are theirs, theirs alone, and must be protected from their employer. The best way to keep an employee from speaking up when you're doing dirty is to not do dirty. And we, as that society that grants Amazon and similar megacorporations the privilege of (for it is not a right to exist, they aren't people) existence, should break straight in half any of them that tries to curb its employees from speaking up when that company is doing dirty.
"Shut up and be a cog." No. Do no such thing. Be a citizen and be a human, and help others do the same.
The policy prevents employees from speaking, period, if they are identified at all as Amazon employees.
In my view, saying "I wish I were permitted to bring my values to my job doing UI design at Amazon" is not in any way speaking for the company.
What do we think Amazon would/should do if someone external to Amazon went under an entity name such as "Amazon Executive Committee" and posted controversial/activist like content? I would imagine that Amazon would attempt to deal with the negative PR of some people thinking that this is some sort of official Amazon group.
What is un-natural is the fire suppression of the last 100 years.
I'm not familiar with Australian politics deeply, and I think drier conditions can make fires worse (by adding more plant matter to the fuel stores in the bush), but I think there are many factors involved, especially considering Australia has a regularly recurring bushfire season historically.
There have been less controlled burns than desired, but that's mostly because of budget cuts and a much longer fire season due to climate change.
As for my news sources - I don’t think they should be dismissed due to association with Murdoch. One of the articles responds to claims that the Greens aren’t against controlled burns with lots of links to evidence that they were indeed against it, at least for certain time periods or in certain jurisdictions.
The only way to decide who does smaller footprint is to ask your government to introduce/increase carbon tax, and then simply buy what's cheaper.
It still is imo. You cannot really gain your 5 minutes of fame (rather than infamy) by spewing hurtful or toxic viewpoints. Self-expression, in this case, imo feels more like self-promotion, which is exactly what narcissism is all about.
If the "activist" in the OP was speaking about some other topic that wasn't as highly publicized and important as climate change, no one would have batted an eye if they got fired for breaking those same rules. But since it is regarding climate change, it can be easily twisted as big bad tech giant amazon firing the good small activist for doing the brave act of speaking out for the climate change mitigation. Whole nine yards with the martyr complex added in the mix.
Hospitals can't ban their patients from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a patient).
Airlines can't ban their passengers from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as a passenger).
The general rule is that if an individual is in an economic relationship with a large institution, it is important for them to be able to comment publicly on that institution. This is needed to address they myriad, well known ways that institutions can do stupid or even evil things. It is especially important when there is a huge power imbalance that tends to perpetuate sick institutional behaviours.
And so: Companies shouldn't be able to ban their employees from criticizing them (even if they identify themselves as an employee).
The one thing that will kill the growth of cloud is that if businesses feel that their contracts are at the whim of activist employees. This policy is Jeff Bezos sending out a strong signal that AWS will not listen to these activist employees in that regard.