My understanding is that this ordinance mainly protects employees sharing a political representation at work e.g., wearing a pride shirt.
I don't think it provides sweeping protection to use your employer's name in the name of your political organization which is what these employees did, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”.
This doesn’t seem like a technicality. Did you read the article? They used Amazon’s name for their group. They literally named it, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”.
It's actually quite reasonable for the people to find out about something like this and publicly reach out to make sure these companies are aware of the laws around stuff like "don't retaliate against employees acting in the public interest."
And surprise, if corporate sympathizers misrepresents acts of public service as "impersonation," it is perfectly reasonable to call them out for their BS. We all know no one's concerned about impersonation risks. They're furious about employees speaking up.
I’m not sure what you’re saying is reasonable. I’m sorry, your comment is just a bit muddled.
I don’t think either the employees or company are doing anything illegal here but certainly using the company’s name without permission is grounds for termination and usually in employee agreements.
> They literally named it, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”
They are Amazon employees. If they'd called it "Amazon for Climate Justice", then that would be representing as the company, but I don't think it's wrong for them to accurately label themselves.
Yeah, I wouldn’t recommend that either. In general, you shouldn’t put your company name in your political organization unless it has specific protection.
You can figure that out beforehand by getting internal HR or external legal advice.
In general I’d be surprised if this isn’t covered by the employee agreement. I don’t think these employees did anything illegal but they probably did break that agreement and could face termination.
Yeah, this felt like clickbait to me. It's pretty poor quality writing. It introduces a pretty abstract idea which is fine, but it doesn't seem to land it's points.
Comments like this are unhelpful for finding the truth. The world would be nice if things aligned on a clear good vs evil axis, “the other side is just evil of course!” but they don’t.
I know people on both sides of the political spectrum and there’s pain and confusion across society. Perhaps one side has more power in this moment and more harmful impact but making sweeping claims, "it’s all racism" is what makes a group feel unheard and angry.
This kind of comment might have been borderline reasonable before 2025 (though I would have found it laughable even then), but the evidence of the last 18 months shows that one side is in fact evil, corrupt and venal in entirely unprecedented ways.
You can believe that the amount of immigration coming over the border (and contrary to the law) is causing harm and needs to be stopped, without that concern being based on the race of the people who are coming.
Sure, you can. In the abstract, this is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But if you're actually coming from a place of wanting rational policy responses, then you would have gotten off the Grump train years ago. Or at the very least (if immigration is really the one single issue you're concerned about), then as it became apparent that even the immigration narrative is performative kayfabe as well (many of the despotic "executive orders" are failing in court since there hasn't been legislative action on immigration. the straightforward conclusion is that the ultimate goal is for them to end up failing).
Having been skeptical of the racism explanation for quite some time, I've come around to it. Of course racism isn't the only thing that remains (there is also religious fundamentalism, spite, grift, etc), but it is a large chunk of what remains. I find the analogy of how communities destroyed their own public swimming pools as a response to desegregation an apt comparison.
I often push past 300k or so and I’ve absolutely worked at 800k but it’s an observable problem. Large context windows can work depending on the problem but I do feel more effective biasing towards small ones <300k.
They claim that they do not charge you anything. So, how can they scam you? Of course, besides your hours and the potential outcome (code). Just curious.
My status line shows 5h and 7d quota usage among other things like model, context usage, git branch, etc. Unfortunately the whole status line disappears half of the time from CC’s broken ass UI.
Personally I have multiple instances of Claude on my PC dedicated to different areas (split between my private subscription and my work one) and it is useful to see both at a glance. And I don't have to keep the terminal open to see how much time is left for quota to be reset. But for single-Claude users this is indeed a valid solution!
Lots of people are gambling on AI with big bucks. Some of it is promising but all those bets won’t pay off. I like to think of this mindset as being the human slot machine that people are shoving money into.
This is a confusion that you could not have predicted, but primed by your comment, I expected "terminal star" to refer to a suggested predecessor of the AI rockstar. No, it refers to the animated Claude Code star :P
I don't think it provides sweeping protection to use your employer's name in the name of your political organization which is what these employees did, “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice”.
reply