Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rumanator 2264 days ago
> No, at most it sounds like retaliation.

Full paid leave is not what most people in the US would call retaliation, particularly in the case of a warehouse worker.

1 comments

The retaliation part is where they got fired.
He got fired for showing up to work when he was told to stay home.
And if we was told to stay home because to prevent unionizing, that's retaliation. Intent matters in law.
> And if we was told to stay home because to prevent unionizing,

But the worker was placed on a 15 day paid leave to self quarantine because he stated he had direct contact with someone infected with covid19.

And then he not only broke his quarantine but also made it his point to go to work, potentially risking his colleagues.

Even if you argue that he did't carried covid19, that action is not justifiable, neither safety-wise nor legaly-wise.

over and over in this thread you have been repeatedly told that amazon waited well over 2 weeks to "quarantine" him (and only him, nobody else that was exposed) despite knowing he was exposed (and also did not tell him).

Yet in every post you make, you continue to misrepresent the situation.

You are being hugely dishonest

So what's your solution then, companies can just tell employees to stay home for no valid when they try to plan a strike or organize, and then fire them if they still try to do so?
It's unclear whether there was "no valid reason" or not in this case. But if they're paying the employee to stay home (like Amazon was in this case) it's hard for me to see a huge problem.
The issue is that this prevents him from organizing strikes effectively. That is very problematic.
To me, this seems like retaliation, but he offered Amazon plausible deniability by not complying with job instructions. If you're told to work from home but you refuse, it seems within reason that you might be let go.
How about not trying to organize a strike in the middle of a national emergency? Is that an option?