
Amazon threatened to fire employees for speaking out on climate, workers say - vanusa
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/02/amazon-threatened-fire-employees-speaking-out-climate-change-workers-say
======
tidepod12
Alternate title: Amazon employee was given a warning by HR after she
explicitly broke company policy regarding talking to the press

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.

~~~
uoaei
This is the "strikes are illegal therefore strikers are wrong" argument.

~~~
xenocyon
Interestingly, if Amazon _did_ have a union, it would be obvious that being
openly critical of the company wouldn't be grounds for firing (else no union
leader could ever retain their job). The only reason we're debating the
employees' right to criticize is because we don't have unions.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
A principal designer like Costa would almost surely be considered a
supervisor, and thus not be protected by or allowed to join the union.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
Is the ability to join a union limited in the US?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Most people in the US can be fired at will. Part of the US's basic labor law
(the Wagner Act) is a provision that you can't be fired for unionizing, but
the Wagner Act doesn't cover people in supervisory roles. So supervisors
technically could join a union, but can also be easily fired for doing it.

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.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
Ah, this is very different from how unions work in France (and, generally
speaking, in the EU).

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.

------
basseq
A lot of FUD here.

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."

~~~
bjourne
> 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.

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.

~~~
basseq
> What does "titular" mean here?

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.

~~~
bjourne
Because it is detrimental to free speech. For example, if you in your spare
time wants to get elected to a public office, you need to reveal your
employment status. E.g "John Doe, systems engineer at Blah Company, vote for
me as your Sanitation Commissioner." Maybe you're speaking at a rally or even
a tech event: Our next speaker is John Doe, systems engineer at Blah Company,
he will talk about ..."

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?

~~~
basseq
OK, there's lots of gray area here:

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.

~~~
bjourne
1\. Citation needed.

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?

------
rdiddly
The Amazon policy seems pretty similar to ones at other companies - if you're
being asked to speak as their employee, you're supposed to refer all those
inquiries to the corporate PR office or what-have-you. Because talking to the
press isn't part of your job description. But if you're speaking to the press
during non-work hours and off company premises, then I feel like you should be
able to say what you want, as long as it doesn't reveal trade secrets. But I
don't know what the policy or the law says about that. Anyway if it's a
problem, then it's a simple matter of having a journalist attribute the quote
to "...an Amazon employee who requested anonymity." It's not ideal for the
reporter, but they are mostly pretty accustomed to protecting sources.

~~~
bjourne
The idea is that you are not allowed to pretend to be the spokesperson of the
company you work for. But it is absolutely allowed to referer to yourself as a
<job description> at <Company> when speaking publicly. Amazon telling their
employees that they can't call themselves Amazon employees is unprecedented.

------
halfcreative
It seems like they were threatened termination for disobeying the new policy
they implemented as stated in 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."

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

~~~
Twirrim
That new policy sounds a lot like the old policy that prohibited Amazon
employees from speaking publicly.

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.

------
Havoc
Bullshit article. It conflated two very different things:

>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.

------
SpicyLemonZest
It seems critically important to note that Costa's speaking out was more than
comments in an article like this one. She was the subject of a full interview
article from Techcrunch, which billed her as an "Amazon principal UX design
lead", although there's no way for us to know if that's the specific thing
that Amazon objected to.

~~~
BryantD
The first chunk of that article is here[1]; worth deciding for yourself if you
think this qualifies as speaking for the company or not. As you say, this may
or may not be the specific objection.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-
ethi...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/24/climate-change-ai-and-ethical-
leadership-in-big-tech-with-amazon-principal-ux-design-lead-maren-costa/)

------
AcerbicZero
The situations in which media organizations support or demonize employee's
speech is bordering upon the absurd.

------
jbob2000
Every company I’ve ever worked for has had language that forbids me from
speaking to the media on behalf of the company. This has nothing to do with
the climate and everything to do with violating the agreement you signed when
you joined the company.

~~~
radicaldreamer
It shouldn’t be that way?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
If the company has 100,000 employees, any of them should be allowed to "speak
for the company"? That's not likely to be workable...

------
pjc50
And this kind of thing is why Australia is on fire.

~~~
throwawaysea
I recall also reading that Australia did not undertake sufficient controlled
burns this year to reduce the amount of combustible fuel in the bush. There
has been a lot of finger-pointing to suggest that this is because of the Green
Party (and their supporters) pushing back on controlled burns. This push back
has been around for some time now (2013:
[https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-
devine/green...](https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green-
arrogance-burns-fiercely/news-story/ed1f49f1e1ff11f820aa59059ea23e21)). It has
come to a head recently with arguments between the National Party and the
Greens ([https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-
polici...](https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-policies-
blamed-for-increased-fire-risks/news-story/bdf3d8ac083d06ba468f7135881f45b8)),
with the Greens now saying they do support controlled burns.

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.

~~~
flukus
What you've been reading is quite obviously BS (both your links are to Murdoch
media). The greens haven't been against controlled burns for decades but even
if they were against they've only got 3/135 seats giving them no power to
dictate policy.

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.

~~~
throwawaysea
My understanding is that in order to form a government, the Greens and others
form coalition deals, through which some of their policies get implemented
regardless of their actual number of seats.

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.

~~~
flukus
If the greens form a coalition with anyone it will be Labor who haven't been
in power since 2011 and back then the greens had zero seats in parliament.
Their policy on controlled burns is irrelevant, if they have no power and have
never had power then they are not responsible.

------
aurizon
do not buy from Amazon due to their huge carbon footprint produced by
individual box delivery

~~~
tengbretson
The carbon footprint of individual box delivery is unquantifiable compared to
their competitors since we have no way of knowing how much more efficient this
allows them to be with regard to logistics – reducing miles driven,
warehousing, personnel, etc. all of which contribute to the overall carbon
footprint of the operation.

~~~
aurizon
True, it is hard to asses, and as amazon rolls out e-trucks, that foorprint
will decline unless the internal combustion and the oil lobby bribe
politicians to charge e-vehiles road taxes

------
riyadparvez
I think we are in the acitvism bubble. The outrage culture and now this stir
the pot activism are fueling certain individuals narcissism to the detriment
of the cause and rest of us.

~~~
radicaldreamer
We’re in a self expression bubble. It threatens not only the those in power,
but people who believe in hierarchy and control as well.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists
agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed.

~~~
filoleg
> I don't think it's about expression in and of itself. Most tech activists
> agree that some viewpoints are hurtful or toxic and shouldn't be expressed.

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.

~~~
zo1
I hope this sort of thing doesn't become a trend to enact change, because it
strikes me more as a bully tactic rather than just promoting a noble cause. It
seems to be a formula almost. E.g. employee does something that they know will
force their employers hand, and employer does so (however reasonably or
tactfully), and then the employee goes to the media to drum up outrage.

------
advisedwang
Landlords can't ban their tenants from criticizing them (even if they identify
themselves as a tenant).

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).

~~~
papito
Those are not employees - those are clients. Any hospital and airline has the
right to discipline or fire an employee who talks crap about their place of
employment, publicly.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> A further 8,000 Amazon employees subsequently signed an open letter to Bezos
> calling for concrete climate goals; to cancel contracts with oil and gas
> companies; and to stop donations to politicians who deny the reality of the
> climate crisis.

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.

~~~
davidcbc
The climate crisis should be more important than AWS growth, even for Amazon.
A severe environmental collapse is gonna be pretty rough on Amazon's bottom
line

~~~
enitihas
It is like the tragedy of the commons. Even if AWS decided they will not serve
oil companies, those companies will simply take their business elsewhere, e.g
to Microsoft, or even worse, to Oracle. This will simply have the effect of
hurting the company caring about the climate, and benefitting the ones who
don't give a damn. Shared resources like the environment can't be protected by
the good will of anyone company. They need to be protected by the letter of
the law.

