It sounds like pretty ordinary corporate training. The idea is that you don’t want ordinary workers saying things that sound bad in discoverable messages, which is very likely if there is the ordinary amount of speculation about things they don’t really know about.
Whether any particular thing actually is an antitrust violation is for the lawyers to decide. I guess they decided wrong?
It reads to me like the sexual harassment trainings.
Those specifically tell you what not to do to limit the legal liability of the company.
Nowhere in any sexual harassment training video have I ever seen anything saying that if you have the urge to sexually harass people to seek a support group or find another, less socially harmful outlet for your energies, not anything.
It's strictly about treating the symptoms and not the disease.
Although, now that I've thought about it, I guess this is more like, "use these methods to prevent yourself from observing sexual harassment so that you can't legally report it" so... yeah.
What are you talking about? A huge chunk of sexual harassment training is about stuff that is perfectly acceptable in non-work environments (asking someone on a date, flirting, etc).
If sexual harassment training was just obvious stuff that needs counseling to fix (e.g. harassing people after having advances declined), then corporations likely wouldn’t need sexual harassment training at all.
It’s mandatory precisely because it’s a bunch of behavior that is completely normal outside of work. Suggesting people get counseling if they feel the urge to ask someone at work out on a date is ridiculous.
Anti harassment training is mandatory because its a requirement for the Farragher-Ellerth defense. (Absolves corporations from paying damages to victims of harassment.)
> If sexual harassment training was just obvious stuff that needs counseling to fix (e.g. harassing people after having advances declined), then corporations likely wouldn’t need sexual harassment training at all.
[Citation Needed]
I'm pretty sure don't take the team out to a strip club as a work outing is always on the training because people keep taking the team out to a strip club.
Which is the point the person you’re replying to is making: Taking people to a strip club is a normal (personal preferences & judgements aside) and legal thing to do… outside of a professional setting.
The training is “please don’t do these things at work so we can limit our liability to claims” and not “these are completely unacceptable behaviours so please stop doing them”.
Sure, there is a general assumption that you, the person taking the training, aren’t actually a bad person who has urges to do illegal things. Would you like to take training assuming you are capable of these things?
Maybe there are bad people in the class but you can’t assume that.
But I have been in training where they give basic dating advice, like if someone makes an excuse that’s as good as a “no.” If they are interested they’ll find a way to reschedule.
I don’t think there’s anything “ordinary” about antitrust training. I think if’s a safe bet to say that you wouldn’t see that type of training in 99.99% of companies.
This isn't new to Amazon. Leaving written paper trails is often times attempted to be avoided by simple messages like "let's chat about this over the phone" or "let's chat about this over a cup of coffee".
This is also why you viciously respond with a follow up message saying "You would like to "discuss <controversial topic here> in a non-recorded/discoverable medium?"
Yes. I've seen that tactic before, and it is very easy to counter with the pre-message and a post-summary message with CC and BCC. The fun part is dropping in statutory and case law citations. Nobody expects actual well formed legal research, and it makes it more difficult for legal to try to wiggle out of or deflect the awkward questions if litigation ever eventually comes up. This baking in of accountability is a valuable tool to ensure people stay on their best behavior.
When your job is making sure the company operates in a squeaky clean manner, above reproach from all comers, you divest yourself of giving a hoot what your bosses think. This is a crucial part of being a professional. As a free agent in the workforce, you must take ultimate responsibility for what you enable. Your boss delegates and trusts you to handle operational concerns in their stead because no one can be everywhere.
>If you don't want to keep your job, you can just quit, you know?
Nope. I want to work in an ethical marketplace where the biggest scumbags don't set the rules for everyone else. I can also only be in one place at a time; so as a manager and delegator of work, I'm doing my part to be as shining an example to my employees of the level of professionalism I expect them to aspire to in the doing of the work I delegate to them, as I can expect no more from them than I live up to myself. The important part is holding the bar high. If my boss doesn't like the way I do things, that's cool. I regularly loop them in on roadmap, and let them know what I'm up to so they can leverage their right to modify, halt, or start a discussion on an exit; but they have no right to be left unburdened with the eventual consequences and legal compliance risks of their own decision making as allocators of capital. Heavy is the head, as it were, and when it isn't is when things start going to hell real quick.
This is called managing/delegating up, and maintaining your own integrity. Part of this is also being open and plain with superiors about what you're going to do up front, and following through with it to the letter.
It's not even restricted to tech. This kind of thing it is base level legal advice for anyone in any field that faces lots of lawsuits (for example, medicine)
Run a very in depth training program on how "not" to do antitrust.
Secretly, it's just a training course in antitrust.
Gotta respect the level of commitment to evil.