This issue is about very hard choices.
We all know there's no possible way to provide a secure working environment in a coronavirus world. That's why it is the right decision to shutter nonessential businesses.
The question to me is, should Amazon's global warehouses and distribution system be treated as essential or nonessential to the response to the virus?
Personally, I haven't studied the set of goods it distributes but it wouldn't surprise me if it is critically important to many countries around the world. Certainly, there will be companies providing essential services that employ Amazon as a delivery system.
If you conclude that Amazon is providing essential services, then you would say some exposure is unavoidable. Look at Tyson. Heck, even the hospitals couldn't keep the virus from spreading among staff.
In circumstances like this, and assuming the company is in good faith doing everything it can on the safety side, do you retain people who demand more perfect safety?
Or do you say they should make their own choices about safety while claiming unemployment?
For myself, I understand how the company has behaved. I would only have an issue if it is negligent about the exposure of its staff. As far as I am aware, there is no Tyson-Foods-like outbreak at Amazon. So I am thinking they are doing a decent job in difficult circumstances.
Hard choices.
| 