[b9a2cab5]

It sounds like you've never worked with people who intentionally "use the bathroom" to not work. If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

Blue collar work / retail is not like tech where your output is not necessarily a function of hours worked. In tech you can go to the bathroom 8 hours a day as long as you get your work done. Can you say the same for a warehouse worker?

[srswtf123]

So what you’re saying is: it’s reasonable to dehumanize blue collar workers because they might be lazy?

[mrmuagi]

> It sounds like you've never worked with people who intentionally "use the bathroom" to not work. If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

If it's perfectly reasonable, perhaps there's no need for a court case? Or maybe you could concede that there's more details to the story and it remains to be seen if Amazon was being perfectly reasonable. I think it's more the latter, and despite my biases due to the obvious negative press Amazon gets, it may not be the case. Let's be perfectly reasonable ourselves, I made assumptions that the manager was just trying to fire the lady because Amazon be Amazon. You are making assumptions that the worker is a freeloading grifter, and also this:

> If you step out of your white collar tech bubble for a moment you'd realize giving _two months_ to give a doctor's note before reprimanding this woman is perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it's productive to throw assumptions about my work history. I think it's laughable you are using this "you are privileged" argument I've seen time and time again used against to people supportive of Amazon's employment practices here, and swap the worker for the employer. I actually had to double take your stance, because I really had trouble with you assuming my personal work history, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are addressing the general audience having that viewpoint instead. I think you are bringing up a great point by the way, but I am no means in that "white collar tech bubble".

And hey, consider this, the fact you are typing on this forum right at this moment shows we both have a bubble of sorts, where we can type comments and yell at our monitors on a lazy sunday. Some people have to work, and I am pretty sure I'll still get deliveries by Amazon on Sunday.

[ctvo]

> If it's perfectly reasonable, perhaps there's no need for a court case? Or maybe you could concede that there's more details to the story and it remains to be seen if Amazon was being perfectly reasonable

Anyone can bring a civil claim against anyone in America. If lawyers think the reputation damage will get Amazon to settle they'll front all bills for a percentage. Your position is exactly what the lawyers hope for at this stage.

---

> But Amazon said she was expected to be seeking more than $75,000, one of the reasons it sought to move the case to federal court.

This is pennies for Amazon to settle. They won't since it'll open them up to more of these, and they'll spend as much time here as possible to send a message on the costs of litigating against them to others in the future.

[mrmuagi]

> Your position is exactly what the lawyers hope for at this stage.

My dread is complete. The avenue disgruntled employees have to air out injustices also lines the pocket of lawyers.

Jokes aside, I appreciate your analysis. There's always another layer to the onion. There's definitely someone at Amazon corporate weighing the scales as you so astutely elaborated. In the end though I am interested to hear about the disability protections afforded by NJ legislature and if they apply here.

[inter_netuser]

what costs?

some lawyer is picking this up on contingency. They'll have a confidential settlement at some point that will not be binding nor set precedent.

It'll be cheaper for Amazon to do that, than keep sending lawyers to court.

[b9a2cab5]

I took a quick look through your comments. You seem to work in tech and/or IT. Either of which can be considered white collar and neither of which has hourly work you need to get done.

Have you ever worked as a retail worker? Or teacher? Or anything that _isn't_ do your work any time during the day? Or for that matter, have you worked as an frontline IT tech before? If you've done any of these things I think it'd be obvious that this is a completely reasonable case. What would be _unreasonable_ and medical discrimination would be if the woman got fired 5 days after being notified to get a doctor's note. In this case she had 2 months to get a doctor's note, then got written up, then had 5 days to get a doctor's note after _she had already been notified for 2 months_.

Maybe step out of your "big tech and Bezos are evil" bubble for just a moment and consider things objectively. Amazon has plenty of _legitimate_ abuses but this isn't one of them. You seem to believe that all jobs should allow you to behave as if you're a white collar tech worker who can get their work done any time.