8 ms·

The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway. This strikes me as an egregious safety violation and a truly excellen

The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway. This strikes me as an egregious safety violation and a truly excellent reason to fire the worker.

lordleft 6y ago
I think the point is that more than just this worker was exposed to COVID-19...shouldn't the entire warehouse be shuttered?
- xur17 6y ago
  It sounds like they quarantined everyone that was in close contact with someone that got COVID-19. We can argue about whether or not they quarantined the appropriate number of people / wide enough, but given the size of a warehouse, I don't agree that it is reasonable to shutter the entire warehouse based on 1 person.
- sl1ck731 6y ago
  Depends on the circumstances of his contact, what parts of the site he was in, who he came into contact...etc. I'm not sure one potential case warrants the entire warehouse being shuttered if appropriate disinfection and continued monitoring are in place. They seemed to catch his exposure via some string of events, so there is some effort in risk analysis happening.
- delfinom 6y ago
  It's not anthrax. You are unlikely to get it from just being the in same space a day after the fact.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Unless you, say, use the same push cart, flush the same toilet, etc
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Shuttering distribution facilities will send more people to grocery stores and supermarkets. It's not really better on-net to shut down the Amazon delivery chain, as long as you take reasonable measures to disinfect the facility.
amazoniancrooks 6y ago
You should know that cheerleading Amazon's continued abuse of employees is not a good look. And "truly excellent reason"? Who even speaks like this anyway? This is someone's livelihood you're talking about.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  > You should know that cheerleading Amazon's continued abuse of employees is not a good look. That's true, but that doesn't appear to be what happened here. It doesn't appear to be abuse. > This is someone's livelihood you're talking about. And, if I'm understanding it correctly, that person intentionally effectively brought a deadly weapon to the workplace after being told not to. Their response doesn't seem like abuse, it seems within reason, even if maybe there were other, better options.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    You are not understanding it correctly, because Amazon is trying to make it difficult to do so. The infected person last reported to work on March 11. A two-week period had passed. The striker was the only person ordered to self-quarantine, and he was ordered to do so only after announcing his intention to lead a strike, after any risk of infect had passed.
  - jowsie 6y ago
    > He was exposed on March 11, and Amazon told him to self-quarantine only after he announced plans to strike, MORE than two weeks later.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      My mistake then. That doesn't seem to be part of the information in the article, or I missed it somehow.
      - nabnob 6y ago
        Can you explain why you only had skepticism towards the worker in this situation, and none towards Amazon? I'm glad you reevaluated your position once you had more information, but I'm genuinely confused by the thought process in comments like your original comment. Amazon has a history of treating warehouse workers terribly (docking points for taking too many breaks, and firing workers with too many points etc), and this is documented in lots of news articles. They deployed a PR team on Twitter to talk about how their warehouse conditions were great - and the PR team felt the need to mention that they even got bathroom breaks, as if that is something to be proud of. They even have a reputation for treating their office workers like crap, although this varies somewhat from team to team (based on my own experience and those of my friends who also worked at Amazon as software devs, turnover is pretty high). It's actually not that easy to find a journalist willing to listen to you, and requires a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the worker risking their job. Especially with a company with as much power as Amazon, I'm sure many of the workers reaching out to journalists fear that Amazon will be able to figure out who talked. So where does this skepticism towards the worker's stories come from?
pwinnski 6y ago
He was exposed on March 11, and Amazon told him to self-quarantine only after he announced plans to strike, MORE than two weeks later. If there's an egregious safety violation here, it's Amazon corporate who is guilty.
throwaway_USD 6y ago
>The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway. worker was exposed to co-worker with covid-19; Amazon knowingly allowed exposed worker to continue working; when worker found out of the exposure and Amazon's failures worker organized a strike; only after organizing a strike did Amazon require worker to stay home in quarantine. >This strikes me as an egregious safety violation Not only a safety violation by Amazon but a Constitutional violation.
jhayward 6y ago
That is not an honest and accurate recitation of the facts.
- earthshot 6y ago
  If it is inaccurate, please provide well-sourced corrections. I have no desire to spread incorrect or misleading information.

The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway. This strikes me as an egregious safety violation and a truly excellent reason to fire the worker.

lordleft 6y ago

I think the point is that more than just this worker was exposed to COVID-19...shouldn't the entire warehouse be shuttered?

xur17 6y ago
It sounds like they quarantined everyone that was in close contact with someone that got COVID-19. We can argue about whether or not they quarantined the appropriate number of people / wide enough, but given the size of a warehouse, I don't agree that it is reasonable to shutter the entire warehouse based on 1 person.
sl1ck731 6y ago
Depends on the circumstances of his contact, what parts of the site he was in, who he came into contact...etc. I'm not sure one potential case warrants the entire warehouse being shuttered if appropriate disinfection and continued monitoring are in place. They seemed to catch his exposure via some string of events, so there is some effort in risk analysis happening.
delfinom 6y ago
It's not anthrax. You are unlikely to get it from just being the in same space a day after the fact.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Unless you, say, use the same push cart, flush the same toilet, etc
bpodgursky 6y ago
Shuttering distribution facilities will send more people to grocery stores and supermarkets. It's not really better on-net to shut down the Amazon delivery chain, as long as you take reasonable measures to disinfect the facility.

amazoniancrooks 6y ago

You should know that cheerleading Amazon's continued abuse of employees is not a good look. And "truly excellent reason"? Who even speaks like this anyway? This is someone's livelihood you're talking about.

RHSeeger 6y ago
> You should know that cheerleading Amazon's continued abuse of employees is not a good look. That's true, but that doesn't appear to be what happened here. It doesn't appear to be abuse. > This is someone's livelihood you're talking about. And, if I'm understanding it correctly, that person intentionally effectively brought a deadly weapon to the workplace after being told not to. Their response doesn't seem like abuse, it seems within reason, even if maybe there were other, better options.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  You are not understanding it correctly, because Amazon is trying to make it difficult to do so. The infected person last reported to work on March 11. A two-week period had passed. The striker was the only person ordered to self-quarantine, and he was ordered to do so only after announcing his intention to lead a strike, after any risk of infect had passed.
- jowsie 6y ago
  > He was exposed on March 11, and Amazon told him to self-quarantine only after he announced plans to strike, MORE than two weeks later.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    My mistake then. That doesn't seem to be part of the information in the article, or I missed it somehow.
    - nabnob 6y ago
      Can you explain why you only had skepticism towards the worker in this situation, and none towards Amazon? I'm glad you reevaluated your position once you had more information, but I'm genuinely confused by the thought process in comments like your original comment. Amazon has a history of treating warehouse workers terribly (docking points for taking too many breaks, and firing workers with too many points etc), and this is documented in lots of news articles. They deployed a PR team on Twitter to talk about how their warehouse conditions were great - and the PR team felt the need to mention that they even got bathroom breaks, as if that is something to be proud of. They even have a reputation for treating their office workers like crap, although this varies somewhat from team to team (based on my own experience and those of my friends who also worked at Amazon as software devs, turnover is pretty high). It's actually not that easy to find a journalist willing to listen to you, and requires a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the worker risking their job. Especially with a company with as much power as Amazon, I'm sure many of the workers reaching out to journalists fear that Amazon will be able to figure out who talked. So where does this skepticism towards the worker's stories come from?

pwinnski 6y ago

He was exposed on March 11, and Amazon told him to self-quarantine only after he announced plans to strike, MORE than two weeks later. If there's an egregious safety violation here, it's Amazon corporate who is guilty.

throwaway_USD 6y ago

>The worker was exposed to covid-19, was told to quarantine, and came back on site anyway. worker was exposed to co-worker with covid-19; Amazon knowingly allowed exposed worker to continue working; when worker found out of the exposure and Amazon's failures worker organized a strike; only after organizing a strike did Amazon require worker to stay home in quarantine. >This strikes me as an egregious safety violation Not only a safety violation by Amazon but a Constitutional violation.

jhayward 6y ago

That is not an honest and accurate recitation of the facts.

earthshot 6y ago
If it is inaccurate, please provide well-sourced corrections. I have no desire to spread incorrect or misleading information.