Will Amazon Ban “Ethics”? | The Business Ethics Blog

A new report from The Intercept indicates that a new in-house messaging app for Amazon personnel could ban a extensive string of text, together with “ethics.” Most of the words and phrases on the checklist are kinds that a disgruntled worker would use — terms like “union” and “compensation” and “pay increase.” In accordance to a leaked doc reviewed by The Intercept, 1 function of the messaging application (nonetheless in enhancement) would be “An automatic term monitor would also block a assortment of phrases that could signify probable critiques of Amazon’s working circumstances.” Amazon, of course, is not precisely a fan of unions, and has used (all over again, per the Intercept) a ton of income on “anti-union consultants.”

So, what to say about this naughty list?

On 1 hand, it is effortless to see why a enterprise would want not to provide staff members with a resource that would assistance them do a little something not in the company’s fascination. I suggest, if you want to manage — or even simply just complain — making use of your Gmail account or Sign or Telegram, which is a single point. But if you want to accomplish that target by employing an app that the firm delivers for inside organization purposes, the enterprise probably has a teensy little bit of a respectable grievance.

On the other hand, this is plainly a bad seem for Amazon — it is unseemly, if not unethical, to be pretty much banning workforce from utilizing words that (maybe?) reveal they are doing a thing the firm does not like, or that maybe just point out that the company’s employment benchmarks are not up to snuff.

But genuinely, what strikes me most about this plan is how ham-fisted it is. I signify, key phrases? Severely? Never we previously know — and if we all know, then surely Amazon is aware of — that social media platforms make probable considerably, significantly extra subtle means of influencing people’s behaviour? We’ve now found the use of Fb to manipulate elections, and even our feelings. When compared to that, this supposed checklist of naughty text appears like Dr Evil trying to outfit sharks with laser-beams. What unions should really genuinely be apprehensive about is employer-presented platforms that never explicitly ban phrases, but that subtly form user encounter based on their use of those people terms. If Cambridge Analytica could plausibly try to influence a nationwide election that way, couldn’t an employer pretty believably aim at shaping a unionization vote in comparable fasion?

As for banning the phrase “ethics,” I can only shake my head. The ability to communicate brazenly about ethics — about values, about ideas, about what your business stands for, is regarded by most scholars and consultants in the realm of business enterprise ethics as really essential. If you can’t speak about it, how very likely are you to be to be ready to do it?

(Thanks to MB for pointing me to this story.)