Public protest against Amazon:
Insist on the highest standards of oppression to our families. I am an Amazon engineer 2017 - present
Where is this info coming from, that it's best to complain to Federal EEOC and not the State one? I had the opposite advice from a top lawyer in SF (who wanted to take my case), that State agency is much better bet. Listen: other tech companies are horrible and behave exactly like Amazon, may be only a bit better. Sorry, pal, this is the truth - you're very new to this country and have a lot to learn. When you try to deny wrongdoings by other corporations - it does not make you sound credible, because everyone knows how things are. Also, when you say "he" whenever you refer to a hypothetical employee and their manager it sounds kind of misogynist: it's good to say "he/she", this is just being civil - this is the culture.
Your answer raises a lot of additional questions:- Which company exactly do you mean by "other tech"? I am new to country but I am not new to tech. Moreover, I never said there is no horror in other companies. I said Amazon is the unique having defective policies.- Did you work for Amazon? Which companies did you work for?- What is wrong with "you are new to this country"? Yes I am. What rights are waived for newcomers?I am sorry if I am not credible for you. I open everything I have, and it is hard to "be credible" to an anonymous user who is not opening his evidence.
Again, can you please bring more details? You tell about credibility, so please make your words credible by supporting them with evidence. "Where is this info coming from, that it's best to complain to Federal EEOC and not the State one?"I cannot give a legal advice. But the info is coming from the law. Your attorney should have told you the same thing as in my video: there are time restrictions and EEOC has different bounds.- What is the name of your attorney? If he is really "on of the top" neither you nor him should be afraid of disclosure.- Why state agency is better?
No, I do not work for Amazon, neither I have any sympathies for such employers. Regarding you being new to this country - well you're giving advice on the stuff that really requires either an attorney or experienced consultant from step one and you're issuing heavy blanket opinions on how Amazon compares to other companies, while you simply have not enough information or experience on this subject. All of this makes one question either your judgement or your real motives. I suggest you perhaps hire a ghostwriter to do a check on the language you're using and some statements you're making, as they come as very over the top and even not appropriate.
Regarding your second response - "Your attorney should have told you": Oleg, you have no grounds to tell what one of the top anti-discrimination attorney "should" tell. Again, I suggest you get a ghostwriter to filter your stuff as what you write in the blog only hurts your cause, as you clearly don't understand the legal landscape in the US. By the way, any sensible attorney would likely prohibit you to run a blog while your case is pending...this is just basics. The reason State agency was better, as I was told, is because one's more likely to win wrongful termination/discrimination case (in my opinion this part pertained to liberal states, like CA - and WA is such as well - in a conservative state like AL it'd likely be different ). What you said: "If he is really "on of the top" neither you nor him should be afraid of disclosure" - I can't even begin how non-sensical this sounds, I'm sorry - you have very little understanding of legal landscape, here in the US. Again you're using the word "him" - like I mentioned above this reeks os misogyny, as if you think all attorneys are male. "Them" is another good alternative to using "he or she". If you use this language at work meetings in a big company this kind of stuff can land you in a hot water, just warning you. Now, regarding attorneys: seems like you worked with partial-representation attorney which allowed you to file pro se - in the video you make it sound like you had no attorney at all, but very clearly you had someone prepare your filings - saying this just for the sake of accuracy.
Which of my statements exactly requires ghostwriter? Well you can suggest me to hire a ghostwriter, but your suggestions is useless unless you provide examples
You repeatedly say "Oleg you don't understand this, Oleg you don't understand that..." I see at your account you are female. If you wish, you can stay anonymous and I will not disclose you. But being anonymous does not allow you to insult others, being rude or abuse this right. If you wish to continue the discussion, please:- stop making comments about level of understanding.- if you think you understand something better, explain this with evidence and details.- watch my video till the end. Based on your text, you didn't watch it at all"I was told, is because one's more likely to win wrongful termination/discrimination case [for the State agency]"Please explain why. Otherwise I assume you don't understand the difference between State Court and State Agency. Employee is more likely to win the case in the State Court. But this does not mean State agency is more likely to win. That is not a legal advice and maybe your attorney is right, but please explain.
BTW you didn't provide names of other tech companies. If you don't want, just tell that you don't want
And the bottom line is: everyone needs a lawyer right away and not to engage in self-driven exercises in these kinds of situations, before they've made enough mistakes to mess up the potential complaint. If someone can't find a lawyer on contingency basis, it's a good indication that there's no winning case, as lawyers pre-screen these things well. In such case (no lawyer can be found), it's best for the person to move on with their life. Even people who win these lawsuits often don't do well career-wise later (for obvious reasons).
In the video I told: "If EEOC decides to proceed with your case, it provides to you an attorney FOR FREE".Can you please explain why should an employee look for an attorney and pay to him either fix or contingency, if he already has it FOR FREE?
Oleg, you clearly don't understand the process -- the reason one needs to consult an attorney BEORE they even file with EEOC is to avoid making mistakes that would hurt their case early on (which you've been making, in my opinion) and to evaluate what to emphasize in their EEOC complaint. Some things that you think are wrongs - are not going to be viewed as such, and vice versa, none of this is a simple matter. There're usually multiple perceived grounds for the complaint but not all of them are likely to get EEOC victory.
Maybe you would not become a good lawyer. But definitely you would become a good politician. Let's avoid unsubstantiated or insulting comments. Instead, please be specific and bring details.- What mistakes exactly did I make?- Do you have your own case? Tell about it.
And another reason to get a contingency-based attorney right away is because at that stage there's a chance to resolve issues without your name becoming a public record via court filing. Whether someone won or lost the case, when they apply to the next position they'll be very likely subjected to quiet discrimination of non-provable variety and simply not get offers; HR heavily researches applicants using all available means. This might not affect a low-level employee (such as fulfillment worker) nearly as much as professional employee, as checking for the latter positions candidates tends to be very heavy and goes well beyond standard background check.
Now it is my turn to say something about understanding. I apologize, but I will use your words.Either YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND your attorney or YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the whole topic.There is no nexus between option to hide your name and option to hire an attorney. Either you act Pro Se or with attorney, you have the same right to hide your name. As you hide your name at this blog, and you don't need attorney for that. Please google the procedure. I didn't hide my name just because I don't need it. Apart from very privacy issues and my medical records, I have no huge secrets to hide.I am not able to work now and thus I do not seek for a job. But after my name became public, I got multiple invitations for interview. I can send them to you privately TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND
Doesn't seem like you even understood what I wrote...Again: if your attorney negotiates a settlement early on, before the case goes to court, your name won't make it to public records. If you end up filing a lawsuit: it's public record. EEOC complaint is not pubic - but the moment you sue with EEOC lawyer or private lawyer it's public.
Let me open your eyes. You don't need an attorney to negotiate. You don't need an attorney to hide your records. I am sorry, you keep repeating the same words. Then I will repeat them also. It seems like YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND at all why you need an attorney. The topic of the post is "how to fight Amazon without spending money on an attorney". The beginning of the video says: "The best way is to hire an attorney on the contingency basis". After all of that you are right, I don't understand something. That is because I completely don't understand you, I completely don't understand your point.Where did I say you should never consult with an attorney? Where did I say you should never hire an attorney on a contingency basis?Where did I say you should never hide your name in court record?
Oleg, you clearly misunderstand this process: no one should ever attempt to negotiate a settlement without an attorney, this will not end well. Even high-level HR employees in big companies can be top school-educated attorneys themselves: good luck negotiating that settlement on your own. There's no need to "hide" records, also, during settlement - there're no records to hide. Public record is created during actual court filing.
I have removed your last insulting comment as you predicted. However you can post this anywhere, or you can post it here by disclosing your name. It requires some honor not to be anonymous, especially for the same language person. Then I will not remove it.I am confused with your texts... Google "John Doe" plaintiffs
Best wishes to you also
To put it in other words: an attorney or attorneys (this can even be done during free consultation which a lot of the firms provide) can help with which claims to emphasize and which to omit as not likely to be won, in EEOC filing. They also would strongly advise one not to run any blogs/social media until the suit/complaint are resolved or at least have their statements approved by their lawyer or PR firm, as this could open one to various accusations (and even lawsuits) by the employer: anything from defamation to claiming employee was disruptive/insubordinate/offended coworkers in the office.
Tons of words, zero details. Which statement exactly at my blog can be the subject for accusation?
Oleg, take care of yourself and be well. In life, a lot of people and organizations will and do try to steal one's dignity and peace. Main thing is to not to let them eat your life up/consume it, like in that screenshot you posted. If they're wrong: they'll get justice dealt either through court (where you have a case pending )or through bad karma...but life isn't very fair in general and it's important to focus on positive things and not let bad companies have lasting impact on yourself and own success. Good luck, I hope you really are a well-meaning person.
Thanks a lot for that. The same I wish to you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.