Amazon VP Quits in Protest, Highlighting Big Tech’s Firings of Minority, Women, and LGBTQ Labor Activists

Six employees were terminated after advocating for better conditions during the Covid-19 crisis.

A worker protests labor conditions outside of an Amazon warehouse on May 1, 2020, in Staten Island. Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

On Monday, Tim Bray, an Amazon vice president, wrote a scathing letter announcing he was leaving the company over its “chickenshit” decision to terminate employees who have recently advocated for better working conditions. “I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers who were making noise about warehouse employees frightened of Covid-19,” Bray’s letter opened.

Amazon has has defended its decision to fire the workers, and told outlets like Vice’s Motherboard that employees raising concerns about dangers at work are “spreading misinformation and making false claims.” In his letter, Bray called the company’s justifications for the firings “laughable.”

“It was clear to any reasonable observer that they were turfed for whistleblowing,” he wrote, before remarking on something else: “I’m sure it’s a coincidence that every one of them is a person of color, a woman, or both. Right?”

It’s probably not a coincidence. Firings of workers of color, women, and LGBTQ staff have been a larger trend at tech companies finding themselves responding to workers organizing for better conditions.

Each of the employees Amazon has fired over the past several weeks who have been involved in labor activism—Courtney Bowden, Gerald Bryson, Maren Costa, Emily Cunningham, Bashir Mohammed, and Chris Smalls, according to a list in Bray’s letter—have all been persons of color, women, or both.

This past fall, when Google fired five employees who were trying to organize a union, three of them were trans women; another was LGBTQ.

“It is incredibly bizarre,” Kathryn Spiers, one of the fired Google employees, said at the time. “I think Google was targeting more vulnerable members of the community.”

Only one of the 11 employee organizers who were fired by the two companies in these recent incidents was a straight, white man. The rest were people of color, women, and LGBTQ individuals. The firings’ impact on minority workers is magnified when compared to the technology companies’ overall lack of diversity—Google’s workforce, for example, is 54.4 percent white and 68.4 percent men, according to numbers it publishes. Amazon has a similar breakdown, however, its warehouses, where the six fired employees worked, are more diverse.

The firings could reflect a number of unflattering things about the companies, including that they run anti-unionization efforts that target the most vulnerable members of their workforce, or that their treatment of its workforce spurs its most vulnerable members to organize. Neither option would speak well to how technology companies are treating marginalized peoples. The company did not respond to my request for comment.

In his own case, Christian Smalls, one of the first Amazon organizers fired while advocating for better labor conditions during the coronavirus crisis, thinks that racism played a part.

“From all the evidence, it seems that way,” Smalls, who is black, said on the phone when asked if women and people color had been targeted at Amazon.

An internal memo obtained by Vice News revealed the company’s plans to smear Smalls, and that its general counsel, David Zapolsky, had called him “not smart or articulate.”

“It is borderline racism. That remark definitely lingers in the black community. They consider us not smart, not educated, not well-spoken,” Smalls said. “We can only imagine what types of conversations they had in private. We only heard what was leaked in the memo. That could be just a watered-down version of the conversations they actually have about minorities.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate