Amazon Retaliated Against Workers Who Supported Regulating Data Centers, Complaint Says (nytimes.com) 45
Three Amazon employees have filed a civil-rights complaint alleging the company retaliated against them for publicly supporting Seattle regulations on data centers. "The complaint was filed on the workers' behalf by Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an independent group of corporate employees at Amazon that since 2018 has organized around climate issues," reports The New York Times. "It said the company started investigations and told the employees that they could face discipline, in one case up to potential termination, in an act of intimidation that violated the city's civil rights protections against discrimination for political beliefs." Amazon says it launched the internal investigations to determine whether the employees appeared to be speaking on the company's behalf rather than as private citizens. "As we looked more closely at how these employees represented themselves, and how their comments were received by others, it became clear that they may have been speaking in their capacity as Amazonians and not as private citizens," said an Amazon spokesperson. They said that the company does not allow retaliatory behavior and that when the investigation is concluded, Amazon "may or may not take action based on what we find." The New York Times reports: Five Amazon tech workers affiliated with Amazon Employees for Climate Justice testified at several different hearings before the Seattle City Council and two of its committees. Their testimony in the company's hometown drew national attention, and it put the tech giant in the awkward position of responding to public criticism of data centers and artificial intelligence from its own employees. Patrick Schloesser, who has worked as a software engineer at Amazon Web Services since 2020, said in an interview with The New York Times that Amazon told him he was under investigation last week, when he was called into a meeting with no notice. He had testified at two City Council hearings in early June. "I had this rising sense of anger that Amazon is attempting to infringe on my rights to speak out politically in my city," he said. "If we allow corporations to decide which speech is or is not allowed, that absolutely hurts democracy." [...]
[...] The Amazon employees testified that Seattle should consider conditions on allowing new data centers, such as requiring new renewable energy sources of power, banning the use of nondisclosure agreements between the city and developers, and limiting public subsidies. They offered to help create new rules based on their experience as tech workers. "Seattle needs to set the terms so the way any new data centers get built here actually moves us closer to the future we want," Darius Irani, who has worked as a software engineer in Amazon's grocery business since 2021, said at a June 3 hearing before the Council's Parks and City Light Committee. He suggested requiring public reporting of water and power use, banning shell companies and harnessing the heat emitted from the chips in data centers to warm nearby buildings.
Amazon told news organizations at the time that it respected 'our colleagues' right to voice their opinions and that the company did not have plans to build data centers within the city limits. On June 9, the Council unanimously voted for a one-year moratorium on new, large data centers in order to give it time to develop regulations. The next day, an Amazon employee relations staff member met the three workers in individual meetings and told them that they were under investigation for their testimony, according to the complaint. Mr. Irani said he was repeatedly questioned about his testimony and who else at Amazon was present at the hearings. "It feels like they say one thing publicly and try to silence and intimidate me privately, which I think is wrong," Mr. Irani said.
[...] The Amazon employees testified that Seattle should consider conditions on allowing new data centers, such as requiring new renewable energy sources of power, banning the use of nondisclosure agreements between the city and developers, and limiting public subsidies. They offered to help create new rules based on their experience as tech workers. "Seattle needs to set the terms so the way any new data centers get built here actually moves us closer to the future we want," Darius Irani, who has worked as a software engineer in Amazon's grocery business since 2021, said at a June 3 hearing before the Council's Parks and City Light Committee. He suggested requiring public reporting of water and power use, banning shell companies and harnessing the heat emitted from the chips in data centers to warm nearby buildings.
Amazon told news organizations at the time that it respected 'our colleagues' right to voice their opinions and that the company did not have plans to build data centers within the city limits. On June 9, the Council unanimously voted for a one-year moratorium on new, large data centers in order to give it time to develop regulations. The next day, an Amazon employee relations staff member met the three workers in individual meetings and told them that they were under investigation for their testimony, according to the complaint. Mr. Irani said he was repeatedly questioned about his testimony and who else at Amazon was present at the hearings. "It feels like they say one thing publicly and try to silence and intimidate me privately, which I think is wrong," Mr. Irani said.
Very fuzzy. (Score:3)
I am not expressing an opinion on the morality of any party in this drama. Taken on its face, ascertaining whether the claimants were speaking wholly as private citizens or as Amazon associates is a reasonable action to take. That matters. I worked for two decades for a very large industrial company in sensitive spaces. If I had gotten in public, declared my affiliation, and proceeded to undermine the company, no matter how right I was I would have expected to be fired. Would not even have occurred to me that it shouldn't happen.
What I think also matters is whether or not their testimony was volunteered, or court ordered. If it was the latter, they should be shielded. The former? Not so much,
Re:Very fuzzy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Voluntary testimony in a public hearing is still, I'm pretty sure, protected political expression, and it doesn't matter if you're speaking out against mulching babies as an employee of the Baby Mulching Company. The Amazon rep helpfully told them they're being investigated specifically for their testimony, which is without doubt on record. Assuming that they argued for general policy that should apply to everyone (which is everything the article mentions) rather than singling out and defaming Amazon for what Amazon is or what Amazon does, I don't see how Amazon would have a leg to stand on, even if they made it clear they're its employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that testimony from someone working there, with direct knowledge of the company's actions, is considered more important than, say, some sleepwalking, anti-woke idiot's comments.
Re:Very fuzzy. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a fine line between not talking about one's job and protecting the freedom to disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
A person is allowed to say baby-killing Satanists are bad. If that upsets the boss, tough.
In the US, you can be fired for freely expressing your opinion (source [thatcherlaw.com]).
The recourse is to start a union. When employers start policing social media, or opinions in general, it's time to join a union.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
Yeah. There's definitely a constitutional right to scrawl cartoons of your 9 to 5 supervisor as a subhuman animal on the breakroom wall...but only if it's about politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
I didn't say that's what they did. I'm saying if someone were to do that, it ought to be a firing offense, and I'm implying it's the sort of thing you might do if you have no qualms about talking that kind of trash at random strangers on the internet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or is the next democrat president going to pack the supreme court
Amen brother, from your lips to god's ears.
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
Of course. What better way to restore the people's faith in OurDemocracyTM than by openly planning to manipulate the machinery if government for narrow partisan gain?
Look guy, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, at least not this morning, and when I came up in the 90s and early 2000s the Dems at could at least claim with a straight face that they were some kind of adults in the room about stewardship of national institutions and traditions. But that eroded with Obama playacting as revolutionary and it
Re: (Score:2)
That's great and all, you're just making my reasoning stronger, you don't care about the rules so why should Dems? Because Dems have to act like adults while you fuck over every institution and norm and law?
Where is Marrick Garlands Senate vote?
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
Idunno dude. Maybe got lost somewhere in between the race-bating nutjob...I mean wise latina...Obama appointed at his first chance.
Not saying it wasn't hardball (and one hell of a gamble) but you gotta get out of your own head and understand when it is you're spooking your adversary into thinking he's got little to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so the rule is if Republican's don't like the President's nominee's politics they can just eschew their Constitutionally laid out responsibility eh?
This is why I 100% support packing it to 13 and Republicans can get fucked about it. . You cretins don't give a shit about the rules, it's all a game so why should we play fair while you are fine cheating. It's in the Constitution that the court can be expanded. It's just hardball buddy.
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
The hardball/no hardball train left the station a while ago.
The "I'm going to save democracy by blowing up a portion of it" line of messaging and action the Dems have taken up in the last decade is the thing that's both new and considerably more unpalatable than the regular back and forth.
Here's another example of how "fuck the republicunts" works in action. In my home state of Massachusetts, one may request a mail-in ballot by filling out an online form and then typing in an arbitrary mailing address. To a
Re: (Score:2)
The hardball/no hardball train left the station a while ago.
Exactly so, let's pack it. For you to handwave McConnell basically stealing 2 seats and then cry "muh norms" is so bad faith I don't even think you believe it. You know it's bullshit which is why you're so quick to avoid the subject.
"I'm going to save democracy by blowing up a portion of it"
The people who nominated and elected Donald Trump, the man who plotted to overthrow the election, who constantly undermines our election system at every oppurtunity for nothing but his own gain, who just today unveiled his illegal $400m illegal gift, let's just say your opinio
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
You appear to be reading from a songbook written for an audience I don't belong to, friend. I don't know what it is that you truly believe either.
Re: (Score:2)
You kinda know exactly what I believe, it's pretty obvious do but you can pretend all you like friend.
Just the same I'm glad to see the rats are jumping off the ship but we know who the rats are still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also if you think fucking Barack Obama was acting or playacting anything "revolutionary" that says way more about where your overton window is then it does about him.
It's been 11 years and you conservatives are still absolutely fucking obsessed with moderate normie liberal Obama. That's why everyone thinks it's based in racism because his demeanor and policy was like, just fine, middle of the road shit.
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
Demeanor...yes. Policy? Mixed bag at best. Some things obviously good like telling NASA to go full private sector for launch services. Some things obviously awful like incentivising mass illegal migration by de-facto legalizing a large swathe of illegals through very tenuous legal authority and/or prosecutorial discretion.
If congressional Republicans hadn't had their heads firmly up their asses at the time (but I repeat myself) they should have impeached and convicted Obama for exceeding his authority on da
Re: (Score:2)
Some things obviously awful like incentivising mass illegal migration by de-facto legalizing a large swathe of illegals through very tenuous legal authority and/or prosecutorial discretion.
Don't be scared, just say DACA and you want those kids deported. Republicans have been obsessed with them because they refused to pass any immigration reform so they keep electioneering on it. It's old hat. (Gang of 8 anyone?)
Also if that's impeachable you also say the Republican's in Congress should impeach Trump for multiple, similar overreaches of authority right, if your bar is so low? You couldn't possibly hold double standards!
If this is the most "revolutionary" example you have for Obama you guys are
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
Yes, I do want them deported. Every last one. You cannot enforce your border if you constantly find wink-and-nod exceptions to your immigration laws.
You lefties can't seem to see past ethnicity these days so it all looks like racism to you, but if you don't take my reasoning at face value there isn't much else I can say.
And yes, politics doesn't reward solving problems, it rewards harping on problems.
Here's a neat example: what did they impeach Trump for the first time? Any problematic EOs from his first te
Re: (Score:2)
it all looks like racism to you
Yeah because you leave us with little other explanation in the empiric s. Is it the economy? No. Is it crime? No. Is it jobs? No. Drill any of you down and it'll be "culture" which really, just means race. You also elected a admin who does it pretty explicitly about race, otherwise explain the exceptions for white South Africans?
An inflated story about a shakedown
Oh you mean illegally withholding funds that Congress had legislatively spent and against his authority? Also the embarrassment of having the President threatening a foreign lead
Re: Very fuzzy. (Score:1)
The "Emoluments" page in the dictionary became notably more dog-eared in 2017. But again: did they nail him on it when they got the chance in 2019? No. They didn't. And frankly they would have had a much stronger case since actual money and favors traded hands in full public view. So what does that tell me? It could be that the dems care more about the theatrics than the substance, it could be that they don't want to open the books too deeply on this stuff because *their* extracurricular activities would be
Re: (Score:2)
A person is allowed to say baby-killing Satanists are bad.
You can say what you want, but your conditions of employment depend on what you say. Say baby-killing Satanists are bad and expect to get fired if you work for a Satanist. It's really as simple as that.
The company I currently work for make it clear I could get fired for expressing any opinion about the company publicly (good or bad), beyond directing people to official press releases. I am still allowed to say what I want, and my company is allowed to fire me for it. It's as easy as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very fuzzy. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it's also true that it sucks. Employees do have a life outside work, and should not have their freedom of speech impinged by a corporation. People have been fired by Google because they disagree with Google working with Israel, for example. Silencing people doesn't change the disagreement, it just breeds dissatisfaction.
Employees do have recourse, and this is when I strongly consider joining a union. Don't want to be fired unfairly? That's what unions are for. Unions have drawbacks, but that is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Taken on its face, ascertaining whether the claimants were speaking wholly as private citizens or as Amazon associates is a reasonable action to take.
No, it is not, and suggesting that is only one thing involving a taste for leather.
If I had gotten in public, declared my affiliation, and proceeded to undermine the company, no matter how right I was I would have expected to be fired. Would not even have occurred to me that it shouldn't happen.
Thanks for really ramming your culinary proclivities home.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had gotten in public, declared my affiliation, and proceeded to undermine the company, no matter how right I was I would have expected to be fired. Would not even have occurred to me that it shouldn't happen.
What I think also matters is whether or not their testimony was volunteered, or court ordered. If it was the latter, they should be shielded. The former? Not so much,
This depends on your position in the company. An executive is an officer of the company, and is considered to be speaking for the company unless explicitly stated otherwise. A line worker is generally not authorized to speak for the company, and should not be presumed to be doing so unless they explicitly state that they are. Someone in a public-facing role (such as customer service, human resources, legal, or public relations) may be speaking for the company, and should always clarify.
Many employees hav
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear: As a business owner in a state with at-will employment, I would absolutely terminate an employee who spoke out publicly against the interests of my company. If their beliefs are counter to the company's needs, there is no longer a good match.
Do not threaten. Do not pressure them to change their views. Do not try to prevent them from exercising their rights. Just part ways. They have the right to feel what they feel, and the right to participate in public discourse. I have the right to no
Insider information (Score:2)
Some of Amazons software engineers and IT techs may be privy to proprietary Amazon corporate information. Whether they realize it or not. Amazon has an interest it how and when this information will be made public. And who will speak for their interests.
Many companies have policies regarding the release of their private information to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, they almost certainly are. Therefore, two things apply about that: (1) They need to be careful their statements, to make sure they do not reveal nonpublic or proprietary information. (2) Their ACTUAL statements must be evaluated to determine if they revealed any such information. They either did, or did not, reveal nonpublic or proprietary information, and it's fairly easy to determine that from
haha (Score:2)
Good one. Sabotage your company on the outside, but expect to still work there?