Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after his 5 min exposure. From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of quarantine to cover it up.
Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company's PR response when they're trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead.
> According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March.
> Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until 28 March, three weeks after the exposure.
> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.
> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.
> According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.
We should apply rigor to both sides. Each has incentive to cherry pick and mislead.
> key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th
Did they claim that? I'm looking for a source on this. "According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March", but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: "Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19".
> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said
Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though.
> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.
Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough/sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument.
It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn't prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it's unclear and sounds fishy on both sides.
I really hate it when people use he said/she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and 'rigorous'.
There is a reason that the courts have something called 'burden of proof'.
When an individual worker does something a large company doesn't like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time.
It isn't unclear. It is perfectly normal for companies to get rid of the whistle blowers. That's why there are (weakly enforced) laws against it.
Statements like this sound so reasonable but they ignore the massive power imbalance. Amazon is the largest company in the world whose owner has literally bought news papers. Given that power I’m way more likely to believe the workers...
One side has a long history of labour abuses however. It would be different if it was Patagonia or Columbia and they had a history of treating people great
These here are the important details about this and it looks pretty egregious on Amazon's behalf. Imagine the sort of leverage they could wield over their employees if they are able to get away with this kind of behavior?
If it took them that long to discover the exposure and notify the worker that really proves the workers' case that they're being subjected to an unsafe work environment. They're striking for protective gear and Amazon's response is to go 'oops, we didn't notice you were exposed weeks ago'? Ouch. Suddenly it's all Personal Responsibility when the worker's exposure happens even though Amazon could have prevented it.
I think you can be contagious 18 days after exposure, isn't the incubation period around 2 weeks? And we know there are asymptomatic cases so a lack of symptoms after that period doesn't mean he isn't contagious. However if he was indeed the only employee asked to quarantine that is highly suspicious.
While I personally am leaning towards retalation explanation, both statements could be true. Assuming Corona exposure was just happy coincidence that would allow company to fire employee and maybe even suggest that the fired employee was responsible for endangering others health.
Somewhat related, I have been receiving a lot unsolicited communications for signing various anti-amazon documents.
Tech companies in general and Amazon specifically seem scared to death of unionization. I think Amazon's actions in this matter are going to backfire tremendously.
Having worked with unions, is it because they tend to have better benefits and support for their employees? Having a union rep in their disciplinary activities?
I assume your comment is that Amazon would lose money if a union happened?
My girlfriend worked at Macys. She was paid $14hr to do white collar admin work and was in a "union". Each month we would walk a few blocks away downtown to a small office. This is where we paid "dues". We couldn't pay online or have it deduct from her check. The person we handed our check to would just roll their eyes and throw her check into a pile of checks. She couldn't afford these dues. The best part? You were required to be in the union.
The union helped Macys layoff thousands of workers including her with no severance in a nice streamlined fashion. I am wrong, but this is what I learned: Unions are basically fat cat organizations that leach hard working people.
Corporate lawyers are terrible at Opsec. Watch them go on a hunt to find and fire the leaker causing even worse PR. Let this be a lesson. "When you sling mud, you lose ground"
Devils advocate: if you're sent home on full pay and told not to come in, and you come in, that's fireable (doubly so with coronavirus happening). If you do that, you need some strong evidence that it's retaliation. You have away the benefit of the doubt...
no, that individual was exposed to someone confirmed positiv with covid-19. one of the workers he worked with. both public and private sources confirmed it to me.
if you ask me, that's a pretty dick move for someone. Can't you wait your strike protest after your 14 days of quarantine? just 14 days.
With everyone throwing a fit about pastors and churches gathering together during this, where's the outcry over this guy seemingly rounding up groups of employees to picket?
Is it ok to protest dangerous work conditions by actively creating dangerous protest conditions?
> With everyone throwing a fit about pastors and churches gathering together during this, where's the outcry over this guy seemingly rounding up groups of employees to picket?
Where did it say he was rounding up groups of employees and picketing?
> throwing a fit
Who is throwing a fit? I thought they were fining and/or arresting pastors that break the law and threaten the safety of entire communities?
This is a union busting, anti-labor and retaliatory firing. It is illegal in the United States.
Multiple employees have spoken out about the working conditions at Amazon's warehouse facilities over the last couple of weeks. Common complaints include a lack of protective equipment, sanitization, health monitoring, and working "shoulder to shoulder". Workers are getting sick, and Amazon isn't properly reporting the actual cases of COVID-19 at their facilities.
Mr. Smalls announced ahead of time that he was going to lead a general strike at his facility in solidarity with the instacart and wholefoods strike on the same day. This was reported in the media. Amazon knew this was being organized and waited to fire the worker until after the planned protest strike occurred.
Here is Mr. Smalls talking about this in detail: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/03/30/staten-island-whole-fo... - All he was asking for was for the building to be sanitized after a confirmed case of COVID-19 occurred at his facility, at Staten Island near the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States in New York.
The attorney general of New York recognized this issue for what it is.
---
New York Attorney General Letitia James said late Monday evening that "it is disgraceful that Amazon would terminate an employee who bravely stood up to protect himself and his colleagues."
"At the height of a global pandemic, Chris Smalls and his colleagues publicly protested the lack of precautions that Amazon was taking to protect them from COVID-19," she said. "Today, Chris Smalls was fired. In New York, the right to organize is codified into law, and any retaliatory action by management related thereto is strictly prohibited."
Here is another article discussing the actual conditions of Mr. Smalls Facility:
---
Despite Amazon’s efforts, Amazon employees at multiple facilities who spoke to CNBC argue that the measures aren’t enough to keep them safe. They say uneven safety precautions at facilities across the country have sown feelings of distrust between workers and their managers. Workers say they’ve become worried that managers aren’t being honest about whether employees are sick with the virus, so that they can keep the facilities open.
At some facilities, workers say essential supplies like hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes are rationed or there’s none available, putting them at risk of catching the virus. Warehouse workers say they’re forced to choose between going to work and risking their health or staying home and not being able to pay their bills.
Amazon is in the wrong here. They retaliated against Mr. Smalls. This was a labor movement action, and they illegally fired Mr. Smalls for organizing at this facility.
These workers aren't asking for more money. They are asking for safe and sanitary working conditions. Are they not entitled to a healthy working environment?
Edit: Formatting issues. This was a copy-paste from a comment I made on a /r/business thread on reddit. Formatting on HN is a bit different. :)
How does at-will employment work with union busting? I remember working at Amazon they were very adamant about everything being at-will. Furthermore, in their management training, they didn't even tiptoe around their hatred of unions. They basically have a formal system developed to rat out any union organizers. The only reason I can infer for the existence of such a system is so that they can bust unions. They seem willing to take the legal risks that come with retaliation.
>How does at-will employment work with union busting?
It's similar to the way at-will employment works with ADA protected classes - sure, they can fire you, but if you can show that them firing you was because of a protected action (union organizing), you can sue and will likely win.
Given the likely fact that Amazon only cared about quarantine for this individual, only after they organized a strike, and three weeks (!) after exposure, it's pretty clear that what Amazon did here was illegal.
It is my understanding, that from a legal perspective firing an employee in retaliation for engaging in organized labor even if their employment agreement is "at-will" (which is the default), is illegal. But IANAL.
“Union busting” is a pretty vague term. There’s no legal issue with a company hating unions or trying to prevent a union from forming, as long as they don’t prevent employees from talking or retaliate against them for it.
Is there a company out there that does full time employment, with benefits, and pays their taxes (no dutch sandwhich/offshoring) in the same space as Amazon? That is, an online megastore, not worrying about AWS/cloud.
I think there's more than a few of us who are ready to vote with their dollars.
I've been personally boycotting Amazon for years, and very happy with that decision. There are so many stories like this which are more or less egregious.
Now would be a great time to do this given the delays of the once-convenient fast shipping times. That said, what are the equal alternatives?
I think for most consumers, some things are absolutely required in order to switch away from Amazon: fast shipping, an inventory of hard-to-find items (e.g. car part or furnace element typically found on Amazon), a good refunds/returns system, and a massive crackdown on counterfeit products.
That last one is really important to me. Vendors are now filling legit containers of brand name items with fake product, then resealing them as new. This is becoming increasingly common now. I've noticed it with food (Pumpkin seeds, noticed a poor re-seal job), vitamins (a hole in the top seal beneath the cap despite being plastic wrapped), and Clorox bromine tablets for a spa (tablets didn't match store bought version). These products have all been obviously tampered with.
Not for show of solidarity but for practical reasons, India has realized the advantages of its vast network of neighbourhood mom-n-pop shops in these times. It is time that people take note of this and start supporting local businesses even if they can cost a bit more. Of course it is understandable to order online due to lack of local availability or very significant price differential on non-trivial purchases but if these small businesses close, then the impact would be great in times like this.
Readit News
Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company's PR response when they're trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/amazon-strik...
> According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March.
> Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until 28 March, three weeks after the exposure.
> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.
> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.
> According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.
> key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th
Did they claim that? I'm looking for a source on this. "According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March", but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: "Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19".
> “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said
Is this confirmed? You can't just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though.
> “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.
Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough/sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument.
It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn't prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it's unclear and sounds fishy on both sides.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/30/amazon-wo...
There is a reason that the courts have something called 'burden of proof'.
When an individual worker does something a large company doesn't like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can't tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time.
It isn't unclear. It is perfectly normal for companies to get rid of the whistle blowers. That's why there are (weakly enforced) laws against it.
From Vice
>Amazon did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday morning asking how many people at the site have been ordered into self-quarantine
Even if they did quarantine others, putting someone on a 14 day quarantine 17 days after contact is hard to explain.
Amazon has an abusive culture. Let's not "both sides" that out of existence, shall we?
Obviously, I mean the opposite ; )
The 2 weeks figure is because we're reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to.
Somewhat related, I have been receiving a lot unsolicited communications for signing various anti-amazon documents.
The 'ideological clarity' of the novel virus is quite fearful [& provocative] ..
I assume your comment is that Amazon would lose money if a union happened?
The union helped Macys layoff thousands of workers including her with no severance in a nice streamlined fashion. I am wrong, but this is what I learned: Unions are basically fat cat organizations that leach hard working people.
It very much depends on the legal framework that organized workers and organized employers interact in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/amazon-...
They won't be able to treat the employees like trash anymore, and profits will go down as a result.
Think about it logically, if the outcome was the opposite (profits go up) Amazon, etc. would love unions.
So it's just a question of whether you want more corporate power and profits, or you want employees to be treated well.
if you ask me, that's a pretty dick move for someone. Can't you wait your strike protest after your 14 days of quarantine? just 14 days.
With everyone throwing a fit about pastors and churches gathering together during this, where's the outcry over this guy seemingly rounding up groups of employees to picket?
Is it ok to protest dangerous work conditions by actively creating dangerous protest conditions?
Where did it say he was rounding up groups of employees and picketing?
> throwing a fit
Who is throwing a fit? I thought they were fining and/or arresting pastors that break the law and threaten the safety of entire communities?
In other words, is the claim that Chris Smalls was being vocal in reporting safety/health issues and was illegally fired as a result?
Those facts are not even in dispute.
Multiple employees have spoken out about the working conditions at Amazon's warehouse facilities over the last couple of weeks. Common complaints include a lack of protective equipment, sanitization, health monitoring, and working "shoulder to shoulder". Workers are getting sick, and Amazon isn't properly reporting the actual cases of COVID-19 at their facilities.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/amazon-warehouse-employees-g...
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/whole-foods-amazon...
Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/whole-foods-workers-to-strike-...
Mr. Smalls announced ahead of time that he was going to lead a general strike at his facility in solidarity with the instacart and wholefoods strike on the same day. This was reported in the media. Amazon knew this was being organized and waited to fire the worker until after the planned protest strike occurred.
Source: https://apnews.com/cf27e9bec86d846447aad7e632484bea
Here is Mr. Smalls talking about this in detail: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/03/30/staten-island-whole-fo... - All he was asking for was for the building to be sanitized after a confirmed case of COVID-19 occurred at his facility, at Staten Island near the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States in New York.
The attorney general of New York recognized this issue for what it is.
---
New York Attorney General Letitia James said late Monday evening that "it is disgraceful that Amazon would terminate an employee who bravely stood up to protect himself and his colleagues."
"At the height of a global pandemic, Chris Smalls and his colleagues publicly protested the lack of precautions that Amazon was taking to protect them from COVID-19," she said. "Today, Chris Smalls was fired. In New York, the right to organize is codified into law, and any retaliatory action by management related thereto is strictly prohibited."
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/tech/amazon-worker-fired-stat...
---
Here is another article discussing the actual conditions of Mr. Smalls Facility:
---
Despite Amazon’s efforts, Amazon employees at multiple facilities who spoke to CNBC argue that the measures aren’t enough to keep them safe. They say uneven safety precautions at facilities across the country have sown feelings of distrust between workers and their managers. Workers say they’ve become worried that managers aren’t being honest about whether employees are sick with the virus, so that they can keep the facilities open.
At some facilities, workers say essential supplies like hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes are rationed or there’s none available, putting them at risk of catching the virus. Warehouse workers say they’re forced to choose between going to work and risking their health or staying home and not being able to pay their bills.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/amazon-fires-staten-island-c...
---
Amazon is in the wrong here. They retaliated against Mr. Smalls. This was a labor movement action, and they illegally fired Mr. Smalls for organizing at this facility.
These workers aren't asking for more money. They are asking for safe and sanitary working conditions. Are they not entitled to a healthy working environment?
Edit: Formatting issues. This was a copy-paste from a comment I made on a /r/business thread on reddit. Formatting on HN is a bit different. :)
Deleted Comment
It's similar to the way at-will employment works with ADA protected classes - sure, they can fire you, but if you can show that them firing you was because of a protected action (union organizing), you can sue and will likely win.
Given the likely fact that Amazon only cared about quarantine for this individual, only after they organized a strike, and three weeks (!) after exposure, it's pretty clear that what Amazon did here was illegal.
Source: https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/10/can-you-be-fi...
No relation whatsoever.
I think there's more than a few of us who are ready to vote with their dollars.
Deleted Comment
I think for most consumers, some things are absolutely required in order to switch away from Amazon: fast shipping, an inventory of hard-to-find items (e.g. car part or furnace element typically found on Amazon), a good refunds/returns system, and a massive crackdown on counterfeit products.
That last one is really important to me. Vendors are now filling legit containers of brand name items with fake product, then resealing them as new. This is becoming increasingly common now. I've noticed it with food (Pumpkin seeds, noticed a poor re-seal job), vitamins (a hole in the top seal beneath the cap despite being plastic wrapped), and Clorox bromine tablets for a spa (tablets didn't match store bought version). These products have all been obviously tampered with.
It's Wal-Mart and walmart.com. Oh. Not much better from a workers' rights standpoint than Amazon, I guess...