This Vice story is just part of the smear campaign.
Strategy:
“We should spend the first part of our response strongly laying out the case for why the organizer’s conduct was immoral, unacceptable, and arguably illegal, in detail, and only then follow with our usual talking points about worker safety,” Zapolsky wrote. “Make him the most interesting part of the story, and if possible make him the face of the entire union/organizing movement.”
As applied:
“I was frustrated and upset that an Amazon employee would endanger the health and safety of other Amazonians by repeatedly returning to the premises after having been warned to quarantine himself after exposure to virus Covid-19,” he said. “I let my emotions draft my words and get the better of me.”
“I let my emotions draft my words and get the better of me.”
What a pathetic excuse from the General Counsel of one of the world's most powerful firms when caught engaging in employee retaliation. This isn't acceptable from any lawyer.
Oddly, it reminds me of the way big banks handled Occupy movement. That was the first time I saw memes used as a carrier for straight propaganda. It was a sad moment for me. Mostly because having seen one of those memes, I immediately understood how terrifyingly effective they can be. Amazon has clearly learned a lot over the past few decades.
odd edit: Just in case. I was kinda doing a fair amount of shorts on Amazon lately, so my opinion is not unbiased.
All I wanted to do was read the memo and I couldn't find the link. I'm not sure if I missed it or what but this is a common problem I run into on "news" sites. They quote (often out of context) parts of something but give no links to the actual source.
That's very much by design, in order to paint a certain picture, generate outrage, and ultimately clicks. Recall when the James Damore story was breaking? Many outlets like Motherboard (owned by Vice, authors of this story) circulated quotes and even modified documents that didn't show the full list of research references quoted by Damore, in an attempt to paint a certain picture.
Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.
The quote from Zapolsky is especially funny, because it exactly follows the PR strategy outlined in the leak notes the paragraph prior. What an incredibly fake, dishonest person. Not really the best candidate to be calling a union organizer "not smart, not articulate".
I also think it's deliciously ironic that his description of someone as "not smart, not articulate" is in and of itself the way a dumb or inarticulate person would speak :D
What are the legal implications for Amazon from these revelations? I already know it's illegal to discourage union activity, but I'm curious about how this evidence affects the situation.
All of this evidence would have been found as part of discovery if there would have been real litigation, anyway, so I doubt it's going to be particularly painful for Amazon.
Amazon really could be just as big as they are without going down the Walmart route of being actively shitty / evil. It sucks that they're choosing not to do that.
The only way to beat Walmart is to out Walmart them. Overwork and underpay employees, find the cheapest products forgoing legitimacy/quality/etc. It's not very shocking this is where we are.
I know that that's the title of the article but I read the article and came away mostly thinking nothing was all that bad. Is it because the notes said the organizer isn't eloquent or smart that there is reason to be upset?
Not because they said the organizer isn't eloquent or smart, but because Amazon wants to make this person the face of the movement.
They're trying to make the whole movement look dumb by proxy, or that anyone who joined the movement is dumb because they're following a dumb guy. The public PR angle is that only a dumb stupid babbling person would deny the goodness that Amazon does for its employees and try to organize a walkout.
I think it's interesting the contrast with the SVP who said he let his emotions got the better of him. If the union guy says something not-smart, he's dumb and the whole movement is dumb. If the SVP says something not-smart, he was just trying to protect the workers.
Mm got the same feeling as well. You could even argue that amazon holds a function that is critical to society. Postal workers elsewhere still would have to work as well as Police officers. If say Postal workers in Finland who does basically the same work wanted to organize a strike, the laws of how and when you can have a strike would work against them.
I worked warehouse and factory jobs once. The good ones are unbelievably better and safer than the bad ones. I feel bad for everyone who was not able to find one of the good ones
>You ideally want to take measures to reduce the likelihood of a given recipient seeing anyone else's copy and thus having a chance to spot the variance, but there are ways to do that
How, exactly? If you know someone else received what you believe to be the same document, what's the disincentive?
Is it mostly a matter of attempting to not give away any indication of who else may have received it, so that no one knows who could be a candidate to compare with? Or including some amount of explicitly-marked data specific to the recipient which they somehow would have difficulty censoring before sharing?
I don't really see a problem here. It's not smearing, just PR strategizing. They think Smalls is going to hurt himself and his cause and they want to let him do that. (If he really did break 14-day isolation early it's going to work too.)
From the article itself, which quotes meeting notes written ostensibly by "Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky":
> “He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers,”
This statement from the notes is not accusing the former employee in question of anything, and it is not making false statements about him either. It is expressing an opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, this article and others from Vice, Vox, Huffington Post, and others are proving why Amazon does not want to explain for the "umpteenth time" what they are doing in response to the virus. There is only so much that can be done within the confines of a physical operation like an Amazon warehouse, and it is crucial that online stores keep operating at this time, so that shoppers stay home.
And yet, all these articles make it seem like Amazon has done nothing. In actuality, apart from providing industry leading wages for warehouse workers, Amazon has increased baseline pay, overtime pay, and enacted numerous reasonable changes to alter the operations of their warehouse. Vice buries one of the most interesting bits, which is how Amazon has been trying to get PPE but has had difficulties:
> Zapolsky’s notes imply the company’s attempts to purchase N95 masks from China fell through. “China has deemed N95 masks as ‘strategic,’” Zapolsky wrote. “They’re keeping them for optionality. They also want to use them for ‘diplomacy.’ The masks in China that we thought we had probably got redirected by profiteers.”
Even the "protests" outside Amazon's warehouses in response to this news story are overblown. For instance https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-fires-chris-smalls-walko... notes that although activists claimed there were 50 employees protesting, the actual count was 15, and only 9 of those were Amazon employees. Yet mainstream left-leaning media keeps amplifying this story.
In actuality, it appears Amazon has been continuously attempting to improve working conditions, and were finally able to get masks based on orders they placed weeks ago - well before the recent social media / left-leaning journalists' attacks on Amazon began. See https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/02/amazon-begins-running-temp... for more on that:
> Amazon has already described some precautions it’s been taking, including mandatory paid 14-day quarantines for employees who test positive, as well as increased cleaning and sanitation efforts of facilities and infrastructure. The new measures to be introduced next week include taking temperatures of employees at the entrances to warehouses, with any individuals with a fever of more than 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit to be sent home, where they’ll have to have three consecutive days without fever to return to work. Employees will also be provided with surgical masks starting next week, the company says, once it receives shipments of orders of “millions” placed a few weeks ago.
Lastly, everyone seems to ignore that this employee violated a direct work order to not come on site, because he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Regardless of what people speculate about Amazon's reasons for firing this person, no one seems to be disputing that this employee violated a requirement to not come to the work site. That is clearly grounds for termination, irrespective of other considerations.
So can we please stop sharing these low quality articles over and over on Hacker News?
> Lastly, everyone seems to ignore that this employee violated a direct work order to not come on site...
Keep asking why. Why was this worker ordered to stay home. Was it because he had a brief, 5 minute contact with a covid-19 patient? Other news outlets say that Smalls was unique in his being sent home.
Or maybe was it because he was pushing for a union and the company wanted to find a way to keep him out. Given the article, the latter seems FAR more likely.
At the risk of making a generalization, it's interesting that political PR firms and/or workers from them tend to get companies in trouble. Recall that Facebook retained a republican PR firm that pushed anti-Soros conspiracies, for example.
Maybe the lesson here is that people who worked in politics/lobbying are not trustworthy and can be a liability to the integrity of your company if you hire them.
He's an SVP at Amazon... what does being an "Obama-era staffer" have to do with him supporting the company currently paying his paycheck? Not to mention he was Press Secretary for Obama, played literally no role in policy.
[+] [-] barryrandall|6 years ago|reply
Strategy: “We should spend the first part of our response strongly laying out the case for why the organizer’s conduct was immoral, unacceptable, and arguably illegal, in detail, and only then follow with our usual talking points about worker safety,” Zapolsky wrote. “Make him the most interesting part of the story, and if possible make him the face of the entire union/organizing movement.”
As applied: “I was frustrated and upset that an Amazon employee would endanger the health and safety of other Amazonians by repeatedly returning to the premises after having been warned to quarantine himself after exposure to virus Covid-19,” he said. “I let my emotions draft my words and get the better of me.”
[+] [-] anigbrowl|6 years ago|reply
What a pathetic excuse from the General Counsel of one of the world's most powerful firms when caught engaging in employee retaliation. This isn't acceptable from any lawyer.
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|6 years ago|reply
odd edit: Just in case. I was kinda doing a fair amount of shorts on Amazon lately, so my opinion is not unbiased.
[+] [-] notJim|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claudeganon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choward|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|6 years ago|reply
Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.
[+] [-] ahelwer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmeredith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emmelaich|6 years ago|reply
They mean eloquent, not "articulate".
[+] [-] j4nt4b|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarymax|6 years ago|reply
...Until events unfold more, we cannot speculate as to the charges (if any) will be brought against Amazon.
[+] [-] vkou|6 years ago|reply
All of this evidence would have been found as part of discovery if there would have been real litigation, anyway, so I doubt it's going to be particularly painful for Amazon.
[+] [-] MattGrommes|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gentleman11|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creddit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inerte|6 years ago|reply
They're trying to make the whole movement look dumb by proxy, or that anyone who joined the movement is dumb because they're following a dumb guy. The public PR angle is that only a dumb stupid babbling person would deny the goodness that Amazon does for its employees and try to organize a walkout.
I think it's interesting the contrast with the SVP who said he let his emotions got the better of him. If the union guy says something not-smart, he's dumb and the whole movement is dumb. If the SVP says something not-smart, he was just trying to protect the workers.
[+] [-] dougmany|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rijoja|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gentleman11|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brnt|6 years ago|reply
I'm wasn't counting, but I must be close to a 3 year no-Amazon streak. Who's with me?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Der_Einzige|6 years ago|reply
It was fucking horrifying reading up on that practice. It freaks me out to even type out this stuff but it's all true.
[+] [-] jshevek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thosmos|6 years ago|reply
https://cancelprime.com
[+] [-] meowface|6 years ago|reply
How, exactly? If you know someone else received what you believe to be the same document, what's the disincentive?
Is it mostly a matter of attempting to not give away any indication of who else may have received it, so that no one knows who could be a candidate to compare with? Or including some amount of explicitly-marked data specific to the recipient which they somehow would have difficulty censoring before sharing?
[+] [-] ipsocannibal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sct202|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignoramceisblis|6 years ago|reply
He threw himself under the bus.
[+] [-] jmull|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zooper|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdkee|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voz_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smoosh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|6 years ago|reply
Definition from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/smear...: "to publicly accuse someone of something unpleasant, unreasonable, or unlikely to be true in order to harm their reputation"
Second definition from https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/smearing: "the making of false statements that damage another's reputation "
From the article itself, which quotes meeting notes written ostensibly by "Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky":
> “He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers,”
This statement from the notes is not accusing the former employee in question of anything, and it is not making false statements about him either. It is expressing an opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, this article and others from Vice, Vox, Huffington Post, and others are proving why Amazon does not want to explain for the "umpteenth time" what they are doing in response to the virus. There is only so much that can be done within the confines of a physical operation like an Amazon warehouse, and it is crucial that online stores keep operating at this time, so that shoppers stay home.
And yet, all these articles make it seem like Amazon has done nothing. In actuality, apart from providing industry leading wages for warehouse workers, Amazon has increased baseline pay, overtime pay, and enacted numerous reasonable changes to alter the operations of their warehouse. Vice buries one of the most interesting bits, which is how Amazon has been trying to get PPE but has had difficulties:
> Zapolsky’s notes imply the company’s attempts to purchase N95 masks from China fell through. “China has deemed N95 masks as ‘strategic,’” Zapolsky wrote. “They’re keeping them for optionality. They also want to use them for ‘diplomacy.’ The masks in China that we thought we had probably got redirected by profiteers.”
Even the "protests" outside Amazon's warehouses in response to this news story are overblown. For instance https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-fires-chris-smalls-walko... notes that although activists claimed there were 50 employees protesting, the actual count was 15, and only 9 of those were Amazon employees. Yet mainstream left-leaning media keeps amplifying this story.
In actuality, it appears Amazon has been continuously attempting to improve working conditions, and were finally able to get masks based on orders they placed weeks ago - well before the recent social media / left-leaning journalists' attacks on Amazon began. See https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/02/amazon-begins-running-temp... for more on that:
> Amazon has already described some precautions it’s been taking, including mandatory paid 14-day quarantines for employees who test positive, as well as increased cleaning and sanitation efforts of facilities and infrastructure. The new measures to be introduced next week include taking temperatures of employees at the entrances to warehouses, with any individuals with a fever of more than 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit to be sent home, where they’ll have to have three consecutive days without fever to return to work. Employees will also be provided with surgical masks starting next week, the company says, once it receives shipments of orders of “millions” placed a few weeks ago.
Lastly, everyone seems to ignore that this employee violated a direct work order to not come on site, because he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Regardless of what people speculate about Amazon's reasons for firing this person, no one seems to be disputing that this employee violated a requirement to not come to the work site. That is clearly grounds for termination, irrespective of other considerations.
So can we please stop sharing these low quality articles over and over on Hacker News?
[+] [-] Pfhreak|6 years ago|reply
Keep asking why. Why was this worker ordered to stay home. Was it because he had a brief, 5 minute contact with a covid-19 patient? Other news outlets say that Smalls was unique in his being sent home.
Or maybe was it because he was pushing for a union and the company wanted to find a way to keep him out. Given the article, the latter seems FAR more likely.
[+] [-] rijoja|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfkajsdhf|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] booboolayla|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Mizza|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thawaway1837|6 years ago|reply
Is it possible that his current role is defining his response more than one he held at least 3 years ago?
[+] [-] TechBro8615|6 years ago|reply
Maybe the lesson here is that people who worked in politics/lobbying are not trustworthy and can be a liability to the integrity of your company if you hire them.
[+] [-] tw04|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehjoker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monocasa|6 years ago|reply