New Amazon Worker Chat App Will Ban Words Like 'Union,' 'Restrooms,' 'Pay Raise,' and 'Plantation' (theintercept.com) 289
Amazon will block and flag employee posts on a planned internal messaging app that contain keywords pertaining to labor unions, according to internal company documents reviewed by The Intercept. From the report: An automatic word monitor would also block a variety of terms that could represent potential critiques of Amazon's working conditions, like "slave labor," "prison," and "plantation," as well as "restrooms" -- presumably related to reports of Amazon employees relieving themselves in bottles to meet punishing quotas.
"Our teams are always thinking about new ways to help employees engage with each other," said Amazon spokesperson Barbara M. Agrait. "This particular program has not been approved yet and may change significantly or even never launch at all." In November 2021, Amazon convened a high-level meeting in which top executives discussed plans to create an internal social media program that would let employees recognize co-workers' performance with posts called "Shout-Outs," according to a source with direct knowledge.
"Our teams are always thinking about new ways to help employees engage with each other," said Amazon spokesperson Barbara M. Agrait. "This particular program has not been approved yet and may change significantly or even never launch at all." In November 2021, Amazon convened a high-level meeting in which top executives discussed plans to create an internal social media program that would let employees recognize co-workers' performance with posts called "Shout-Outs," according to a source with direct knowledge.
Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
this company should just be shut down?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It should be broken up at the very least, they're intentional monopolists. Separating the online shopping, hosting, and video parts from each other would be a good start.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is a pretty logical plan if there were to be some type of split or antitrust action. AWS seems like a natural thing to carve out on its own, they can always have an exclusive contract with the newly formed companies.
Would also be interested in if the logistics arm of Amazon could be split off as well. They have constructed a rather involved delivery company, I always see Amazon trucks out on the road now just as much as I do UPS, Fedex, USPS.
At the very least there should be a hold on Amazon acquiring any other companies for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a fair case to be made for antitrust in the retail sector of Amazon since there are a number of third parties affected. They don't have a "monopoly" but they do have a very, very dominant position in the online sales sector and with the fact that they are growing out more and more of their own brands there are quite a few stories about them abusing their market power against smaller sellers and even vendors. It would be one thing if Amazon built their brand off house products but they used
Re: Maybe (Score:2)
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
They may offer a similar experience but Amazon as of recently controls around 41% of the total ecommerce market and the next largest is Walmart with a mere 7.1% of the market. No other company, not even eBay, controls close to 10%. While no one is "forced" to use Amazon to sell, if you are an online seller or retailer or manufacturer you are somewhat de-facto forced to sell there. There's just too much of the consumer market buying from Amazon that you are at a distinct disadvantage by forgoing Amazon.
https://www.emarketer.com/cont... [emarketer.com]
Monopoly power [Re: Maybe] (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon is not a monopoly, because it has no monopolistic share of any one industry.
There is good evidence that it has substantial monopoly power, and that it uses its monopoly power in restraint of trade. In particular, it has a history of using its monopoly power in one business to build power in another business.
Also, if it is abusing a market position, a competitor can undercut their value proposition and break their current advantage in the market.
if you hadn't dropped out of your economics 101 course after the first week, you'd know that this is a very naïve view of how markets work. In the real world, no, the opposite: the dominant player has the economic power to undercut prices and drive a competitor bankrupt. The big guys can afford to lose money on one product for as long as it takes to drive small businesses out of business; and the really big companies simply take the loss in one business and make it up by a trivial mark-up in one of their others.
And Amazon has a history of doing exactly that.
Links about Amazon's monopoly power: https://www.marketplacepulse.c... [marketplacepulse.com]
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.naib... [ymaws.com]
https://www.economicshelp.org/... [economicshelp.org]
https://www.commondreams.org/n... [commondreams.org]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/0... [cnbc.com]
Re: Monopoly power [Re: Maybe] (Score:2)
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
Trying to reason with commies doesn't work.
Yeah, the only thing worse is trying to reason with libertarians.
At this point the only way they will understand is if America turns into another commie craphole and people start dying due to starvation and government force. It is well on its way.
Oh, bullshit.
Unions are great to reach an immediate goal, but union leadership soon becomes part of the establishment if it persists. Just go to WV and talk to the old timers there.
Huh? Unions in coal mining turned the working conditions in mines from deadly hell-holes to desirable jobs. Learn some history.
Re: Maybe (Score:3)
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Work itself is coercion, there's no such thing as "coercion free" in capitalism, we are just arguing over who and what gets to do the coercing and how.
Unions [Re: Maybe] (Score:3)
Unions did. There was a failure of the free market to offer better alternatives. The problem has since been corrected for.
... by the government setting up OSHA and enforcing safety laws.
Because the free market didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Capitalism doesn't work and neither do the capitalists running it.
But that's just not true. Real capitalism has never been tried.
Re: (Score:3)
By that metric real socialism has never been tried either.
There no such thing as a truly "free market". It's a myth, economies are always going to be mixed and the government is always going to pick winners and losers and always has to some degree. It's just a matter of how much and where. There are actions and values that we value as society that are not the most "efficient" in a capitalist sense but we encourage them anyway. America's love of small businesses is a prime example. In a pure capitalist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be overkill. But being forced to treat their employees reasonably? Definitely.
Re: (Score:3)
An easier thing to do is to stop buying from them. But because it's so simple, no one will do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, this report sounds a bit dubious to me. I've done contracting work for Amazon, and I can assure you that the words "diversity" and "accessibility" are bandied about all the time. "Diversity" is a big topic there, and in software development, "accessibility" is simply a feature that needs to be addressed as part of the core design. Both of those are terms that can have positive or negative connotation, depending on their use. And "bathroom", for heaven's sake? Amazon probably wouldn't even cal
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the work environment is shit when a company has to censor the internal chat app.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the work environment is shit when a company has to censor the internal chat app.
I'm sorry. Your message could not be delivered due to reference to bathroom breaks.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Haha too funny. Conservatives on Twitter have been complaining about this for years, but why do lefties only care now when it's Amazon? ``\_(8/)_/``
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What have lefties and conservatives to do with Twitter or Amazon or censorship?
You americans should work hard to stop putting a stupid label on a person just because s/he words an opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
It is usually one of the later stages of decline when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It's when they ban the use of other chat apps that you really need to start worrying.
Re: You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:2)
It's an employer-sponsored chat application, they have a perfect right to control its use by their employees.
Imagine an employer puts up a bulletin board in the break room, are they obliged to let employees post anything they want on the bulletin board? Of course not.
Let's not pretend that this is anything other than yet another chance for /.'ers to post anything/everything they hate about Amazon on slashdot.
If an Amazon employee wants to vent about their employer, is there really no other means available t
Re: You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not understanding what I said at all. Of course Amazon has the right to do whatever they want with their own chat app and that in itself is a good thing.
What I'm saying is the work environment must be shit because they shouldn't have a need to censor what employees are saying. Given that everything they're censoring looks like a source of worker discontent that sounds like a toxic work environment to me.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't. An employer in the US cannot block communications about labor organization. That's federal law, and has been for quite some time.
This isn't about "venting." This is about union-busting. And this is questionably legal based on the words they are censoring. I don't think it will take the most talented lawyer in the world to convince a judge that blocking the word "union" isn't a direct violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:4, Informative)
You need to get your face out from between Ayn Rand's legs.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between ethical/moral and legal. This might be legal, but it is neither ethical nor moral. Even in case it had been all three, people are still allowed to complain about mostly whatever they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's their app, and you are on their time
...in the US. I wish people who keep repeating that old canard realized it's only true in their neo-fascist country.
In most of Europe, this sort of shit isn't legal: companies not only don't have the right to stifle union talk on the job using company server. they're In fact required to accommodate and facilitate it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The government FORCING the owner to act against their own interests like that is a moral travesty.
Honestly that should be cause for us to invade the EU and do some regime change!
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare governments act in the interest of people instead of corporations. It's un-American!
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Private property rights are not absolute, especially where commerce is concerned. Corporations are a net evil divorcing responsibility from profit as it is, without further defining their operating parameters. Logically in order to justify the existence of corporations one must by definition apply limits and/or responsibilities to them which may exceed those of the private natural person. No one is forced to engage in the specific economic activities cited, hence imposing responsibilities on said individuals is merely the price of admission to the activities in question.
Corporations are accepted as a necessary evil because they enable economic growth and promote commerce, in order to facilitate the improved capacity of society. While I'm guessing there's a libertarian philosophy at play here, it is important to recognize several things which have changed radically since the inception of libertarian ideals. Chief among these would be the ability to concentrate wealth using information technology to analyze and manipulate free markets by individuals who have already amassed great wealth. Corporations have an even greater capacity in this regard.
When one gets into the realm of IT, the extension of the employer into the private life of the employee needs boundaries. It is already the case that the barrier to entry into most business models is nearly unattainable to the common person. Now, do I think it wise to do personal business on a computer I do not own? No. But it is the antithesis of libertarianism to impose a value system on others (especially by violence) where human life is not directly threatened.
Re: You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:2)
Be just like us or we're comming to get you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not in Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, it sounds as if you would not be able to manage a company in the free/developed country.
You spy on me and not only will I sue you but so would my union[1] and, in the end, the government would be forced to as well.
[1]And they would win. Some barristers would do it Pro Bono just for the good publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
In Canada, employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on a work-issued computer where personal use of the computer is permitted or reasonably expected. Canada’s top court stated that workplace policies and practices may diminish that expectation of privacy, but they do not operate to nullify it. [ehlaw.ca]
A simple solution is to not allow personal use of a work machine. However, that ruling was with respect to a physical search of the teacher's school laptop, not the result of using a school supplied app. I suspect one's expectation of privacy on a work supplied application would be essentially zero. Even so, Amazon could simply filter and block posts without identifying the poster or keeping the post. A more interesting question is "Does such action violate labor laws on union organizing?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have a point. Funny that the many who lean left don't think that it's not censorship when google, facebook, reddit, and twitter ban topics, but when Amazon does it to them then all of a sudden it's censorship.
I wish I could see this as surprising, but "rules for thee but not for me" isn't exactly uncommon from lefties.
Re: (Score:3)
Google, Facebook, Reddit and the like bent over backward to keep content moderation at an absolute minimum. But their platforms kept getting overrun by trolls to a point where they were so overrun by truth-deniers that they were becoming inhospitable for normal people.
In this case, Amazon is trying to *pro-actively* block content. It's their internal app. There is room for disagreement whether this is a good idea. Th
Whataboutism (Score:5, Informative)
The laws might not apply to a company chat app though, they're old laws and have been pretty well gutted since the 80s (thanks Reagan, Bush and Bush, not that Clinton & Obama helped much).
This has fuck all to do with censhorship. You're trying to distract from the issue, which is that we have laws that prevent companies from controlling what employees say regarding unions and unionization because if we don't companies use their economic and lobbying power stop discussion of unions.
Maybe you should spend less time worrying about "the left" (scary) and more time wondering why powerful men are so afraid of Unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:5, Informative)
They are not censoring. Censorship is only when it is done by the government
Yeah, no - censorship, ANY definition of censorship I've seen, is defined by the act towards expression or speech, not by who does it. Self censoring, TV censors (by network), for instance. Not being govt sourced may determine acceptability or lack thereof, but doesn't redefine the basic act.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not censoring. Censorship is only when it is done by the government. This is just a private company moderating their app.
Nope.
https://www.britannica.com/top... [britannica.com]
censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
No government necessary.
Re:You know the work environment is shit when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. Censorship is censorship regardless of the acting entity. It is merely the case that only the government in the US is barred from performing censorship. For a private entity to censor content on their own platform is in fact protected in the same way the right to Free Speech is protected.
Amazon has every right to do so. But having a right to do a thing doesn't make it prevent someone else from looking at that and finding fault.
Bezos (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bezos (Score:4, Informative)
"Two words Mr. President...Plausible Deniability."
-- Independence Day
But, he knows who the troublemakers are and who to watch out for when they use the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Clickbait (Score:5, Informative)
Update: April 4, 2022, 5:17 p.m. ET
The headline and article have been updated to emphasize that the app is still in the planning phase and has not yet launched. It has also been updated to include comment from Amazon denying that “many” of the words obtained by The Intercept would be screened out.
In other words a bunch of non-news about something that doesn't even exist, and may never exist, and may or may not actually block any of those words if it ever gets beyond the planning phase.
Re:Clickbait (Score:4, Funny)
Or it's future changed *because* of the intercept article.
Re: Clickbait (Score:2)
Amazon click-bait, nothing more - just the thinnest of excuses to rant against Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
The article then goes on to describe meetings where the chat app was discussed and the "dark side" of social media" was mentioned. The point being, while this actual app may never see the light of day, the existing management culture at Amazon actively works to stifle this sort of communication between workers.
In November 2021, Amazon convened a high-level meeting in which top executives discussed plans to create an internal social media program that would let employees recognize co-workers’ performance with posts called “Shout-Outs,” according to a source with direct knowledge.
The major goal of the program, Amazon’s head of worldwide consumer business, Dave Clark, said, was to reduce employee attrition by fostering happiness among workers — and also productivity. Shout-Outs would be part of a gamified rewards system in which employees are awarded virtual stars and badges for activities that “add direct business value,” documents state. At the meeting, Clark remarked that “some people are insane star collectors.”
But company officials also warned of what they called “the dark side of social media” and decided to actively monitor posts in order to ensure a “positive community.” At the meeting, Clark suggested that the program should resemble an online dating app like Bumble, which allows individuals to engage one on one, rather than a more forum-like platform like Facebook.
Following the meeting, an “auto bad word monitor” was devised, constituting a blacklist that would flag and automatically block employees from sending a message that contains any profane or inappropriate keywords. In addition to profanities, however, the terms include many relevant to organized labor, including “union,” “grievance,” “pay raise,” and “compensation.” Other banned keywords include terms like “ethics,” “unfair,” “slave,” “master,” “freedom,” “diversity,” “injustice,” and “fairness.” Even some phrases like “This is concerning” will be banned.
“With free text, we risk people writing Shout-Outs that generate negative sentiments among the viewers and the receivers,” a document summarizing the program states. “We want to lean towards being restrictive on the content that can be posted to prevent a negative associate experience.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, it's media reporting doing what it's meant to - shine a light on this rot, so it can be cut away.
A Shitty Excuse (Score:2)
Perhaps the other anti-union filtering can be explained fairly easily with obvious anti-union ideologies being pushed from corporate. I mean, it's corporate's app.
But when you have to filter the word "restroom" (still a perfectly acceptable term, even in 2022), and the reason you find yourself doing so, is due to unheard of working demands that force that conversation, well now you're just trying to hide your obvious faults.
Grow up, Amazon. Hell, I'll take my package a few hours later to avoid waking to
Re: (Score:2)
Two things can happen with this app.
1) the Amazon users will develop a code for all the banned words.
OR
2) Like 'Truth Social', it will be devoid of variety. Nothing but corporate drivel where comments are censored and offenders sacked on the spot.
Welcome to the Bezos world of autocracy.
Re: A Shitty Excuse (Score:2)
It's corporate-sponsored chat app, it's nothing more than that - should the employer be forced to tolerate anything anyone says about anything? Think there might be a sexist, racist, homophobic, or anti-immigrant employee at Amazon? Does Amazon have to support their hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
With "restroom" they probably want to prevent their slav^E^E^E^Erespected workers from asking permission to go there. I guess the "managers" will then also be prohibited from understanding chat messages like "Can I take care of it or do you want yellow liquid on the floor?"
So, they think their workers are stupid? (Score:3)
Banning specific words has never in the history of human communication done anything.
I suggest they ban "CEO" as well and the employees should use "Main Fuckup" are code for that role.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning specific words has never in the history of human communication done anything.
It may never have done anything that was intended by those who banned the words, but it certainly has shone a spotlight on the true intentions and motives of those who would censor conversations. In this case banning the words mentioned in TFS certainly puts the lie to Amazon's protestations that non-unionization is "best for the workers". Not that anyone believes that Amazon believes that...
Re: (Score:2)
You telling me that banning all talks about the Biden laptop scandal during the election didn't do anything?
Schools and social media have been banning words and topics for years and they've had a big part in shaping society. So, I'd like to disagree with you.
Re: So, they think their workers are stupid? (Score:2)
Yeah. No one knows what 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are because they were banned and no one got to read them.
Little China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, now please tell us what you'd like to do with Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook for censoring words and topics. Are these companies "Little China" as well?
Or is it somehow different here because it's Amazon???
This is not unreasonable (Score:2)
Unions are antithetical to their intended way of doing business. The terms of use for their internal messaging system are theirs to define. It's not intended to be a rudderless service.
It's not like there aren't scores of other places where folks can discuss these things. It's not harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
restrooms are not allowed at amazon on the clock (Score:2)
restrooms are not allowed at amazon on the clock wow not only do they need an union they need an OSH audit.
Re: restrooms are not allowed at amazon on the clo (Score:2)
That's not a true statement. They do track it though. You have to log out of the management app while you use the bathroom. This is so that "management" (algorithms) can adjust the workflow dynamically.
The actual complaint isn't that they don't allow bathroom breaks, it's that they essentially stack rank you against other employees based on breaks. So, if you pee more often than your co-workers, you're gonna get a bad mark.
Impossible to do (Score:2)
Regardless of how click-bait this story is, it is impossible to ban language, because language is fluid. As soon as you lock down some terms, other terms will be used to replace them.
EG here is a random blog [livesozy.com] for euphemisms about having sex.
Here's a wild and crazy notion.... (Score:2)
If full automation isn't viable, and you still require living and breathing human beings to do the work, then for fuck's sake, just pay them enough that they can actually *live* on it.
When people are paid decently for their labor, even if they aren't particular fond of the work, they are less inclined to feel li
Re: Here's a wild and crazy notion.... (Score:2)
AI isn't developing fast enough for Amazon or Uber. They both have setup business models on the assumption that human labor is going away and that - in the meantime - they can burn through all the remaining human workers without better options.
The problem is they're burning through the labor pool faster than automation is replacing humans. I bet this will eventually lead to - for a time - a reversal in their approach.
Most of those words seem to be useful for a compan (Score:2)
Database Developers are chatting a new guy wants to merge two SQL statements with the same column count and data types.
/*if you want a distinct merge but slower*/ /*if you want a fast merge, but can have duplicates*/
UNION
UNION ALL
Managers creating new hire on boarding process. Make sure on the tour of the facility you show them where the Restrooms are.
Or a comment from an employee asking what is the number for facility, because a toilet is backed up in a Restroom
Banning words seems really lame, for a compa
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago, the company I worked at had an internal "social network". Amongst other things it had a 'naughty words' filter - but it was a bit aggressive and gave rise to problems like this.
For example, the instructions to remove a cover may well have been:
"Turn the main screw anticlockwise and press down hard on the blue tab"
which would end up as
"Turn the main **** anticlockwise and press down **** the blue tab **
Language --Your post has been reported to the administrators**"
Apparently the banned word l
Re: (Score:2)
I saw some videos where they take G rated movies and bleep out random sections, it is kinda funny. Sometime censoring stuff makes it worse then not, I can watch a show and they drop the S bomb of the F bomb and I would not pick it up. But if they bleep it, or mute it. Then I actually pay attention and able to put the word in for context.
Good (Score:2)
Now if we could just get Facebook, Twitter, Slashdot, etc to ban those same words society would be greatly improved.
Maybe now that Elon is on the board. Hope springs eternal
Somehow (Score:2)
I don't think the NLRB is going to look favorably upon this. It's a pretty blatant violation of Section 7 of the NLRA, and wouldn't surprise me if the EEOC decides it violates Title VIII and IX of the Civil Rights Act. It shouldn't even take a lawyer who specializes in employment law to tell this to Amazon's management. Even a lay reading of the NLRA would tell you this would be a violation of Section 7 which prohibits any actions on the part of the company to interfere with the forming of a union. Not allo
Re: (Score:2)
Was checking for this before I posted it myself. Thank you.
Guys, mod this up. It's the counter to "it's Amazon's app, they can do what they want".
Re: (Score:2)
The party of law and order.
Amazon employees should have fun with this (Score:2)
"The guy cleaning the bathroom at the plantation I visited with my kid's history class should get a pay raise or start a union."
"Shout-outs" (Score:2)
I guess this is the new "Thoughts and prayers" way to compensate workers for their work. Instead of, you know, better working conditions. I also find it fascinating that Amazon is measuring menial work performance as a factor of not even having time to use the restrooms, or fomenting conditions to add stress, disease and overall early death...
That will only increase the rate (Score:2)
at which Amazon worksites become onionized.
Free Speech Ends At The Door (Score:2)
If you don't like what Amazon does, it's simple just stop giving them money. Don't buy Amazon Prime, don't shop on their website, and don't use their services. Certainly, if you object to their policies and practices, don't work for them either.
That being said, Unionization is a protected activity under our constitution and laws. Just don't unionize on company time, using company resources. I think that's reasonable.
creole (Score:3)
This is how creole language is born. Amazon employees will just come up with different words that their masters cannot understand.
Break Up Amazon's Monopoly (Score:2)
Amazon Search Engine. (Score:2)
If their word ban filter is as utterly terrible as their store front search engine, then no one has anything to worry about.
The workers will just invent filler words (Score:2)
As I said in the Subject, they just invent some words, like "I have to go to the tree" instead of restroom ...
So... (Score:2)
U.nion, p4y r4ise, bathr00m, and pl4nt4tion
What will the workers do about this? (Score:2)
They will improvise, use code phrases, euphemisms and so on
"We're having a party" = "it's a strike"
"This is a lovely place to work" = sarcasm. Who would say that?
"see you on the beach later" = "in the rest room"
and so on. If I can think of those, I imagine people working in a place like that can do better!
Can't quote Lincoln anymore? (Score:2)
You're blocking me from quoting Lincoln? That sounds racist...
Welcome to the corpo-distopian future (Score:2)
- Our data indicate you didn't take an optimum path going to pick up a package.
- I had to go around a robot coming my way
- No problem then, we'll just deduct the time from your next scheduled bathroom break.
Re: (Score:2)
I also find the best weapon to use against the multi-faced Medusa of Hypocrisy, is a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Not without criticism. But yeah - they can do that. And it will be very public. And just like Wal-Mart, they'll survive. It's still worth having the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not the fact that people can control what speech is carried on their service. The problem is that there is an oligopoly of providers that can crush competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Because banning discussion of unions is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Amazon use Teams? If so then can it ban topics for them? If the answer is no, then what's stopping Amazon from banning workers from using it on company time?