Amazon employees say they're facing termination for backing data center limits
theverge.com
theverge.com
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.
Sorry, some employees organized?
That's it?
That's the whole story?
No one was harmed? No regulators were mislead?
It's actually quite reasonable for the people to find out about something like this and publicly reach out to make sure these companies are aware of the laws around stuff like "don't retaliate against employees acting in the public interest."
And surprise, if corporate sympathizers misrepresents acts of public service as "impersonation," it is perfectly reasonable to call them out for their BS. We all know no one's concerned about impersonation risks. They're furious about employees speaking up.
I don’t think either the employees or company are doing anything illegal here but certainly using the company’s name without permission is grounds for termination and usually in employee agreements.
Very critically, they weren't fired, which would be the typical retaliation. "Having a conversation with HR" does not qualify as retaliation.
"He said, she said" does not qualify as evidence.
There is simply no evidence that anything news worthy occurred.
But altogether, it's a business model now, not anythign else.