Amazon Shareholders Tell ‘Climate Change’ Employees To Pound Sand

The shareholders should have told the members of the Amazon Employees For Climate Justice that they were cutting their jobs to save the carbon footprint. Or that they would be taking 10% out of their paychecks to pay for carbon offsets. See how that would go down with the little Warmists, when they have to pay up themselves

Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees’ Call To Respond To Climate Change

Amazon shareholders rejected a proposal to develop a plan to respond to climate change during the company’s annual meeting on Wednesday. The proposal had gathered the support of nearly 7,700 employees across the company.

The resolution would have required Amazon’s board of directors to prepare a public plan for “disruptions posed by climate change” and how the company will reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.

Dozens of shareholders attended the shareholder meeting dressed in white. They stood up while Emily Cunningham, a user experience designer and member of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, addressed her comments to CEO Jeff Bezos, who was not onstage during the meeting.

“Speed is everything,” she said. “Without bold, rapid action we will lose our only chance to avoid catastrophic warming. There’s no issue more important to our customers or our world than the climate crisis, and we are falling far short.”

Seriously, these people work for a company with a massive carbon footprint due to shipping products from all over the world to all over the world using fossil fuels.

But, a lot of these employees are looking to get quietly terminated

After the proposal failed to pass, employees attempted to confront Bezos, who declined to meet with them.

“Jeff remained off-stage, ignored the employees and would not speak to them,” the group said in a statement after the event. “Jeff’s inaction and lack of meaningful response underscore his dismissal of the climate crisis and spoke volumes about how Amazon’s board continues to de-prioritize addressing Amazon’s role in the climate emergency.”

Who thinks it’s a good idea to publicly criticize the owner of a company?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Amazon Shareholders Tell ‘Climate Change’ Employees To Pound Sand”

  1. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    For that matter who thinks it’s a good idea to publicly criticize the duly elected President of the United States?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Shouldn’t everyone feel free to publicly criticize a duly elected president of the United States?

      Should Americans be afraid to criticize a president?

      • formwiz says:

        Good point (for a very rare change), but using lies to do it shouldn’t be tolerated any more than for any other person.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Little missy didn’t really answer the question, did she?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Agreed. Lies shouldn’t be tolerated, but the gov’t should have no role in deciding who’s lying, right?

          In totalitarian states citizens dare not criticize dear leader with lies or truth. See North Korea.

          In America, criticize away. You can say that President Obama was born in Kenya and is a coke snorting, gay Muslim, married to a gorilla. And people did. But the gov’t should not punish the critics.

          Corporations are different. In most states a company can fire a person for no reason at all except for protected classes (race, religion, country of origin, sex etc).

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Corporations’ obligations are to shareholders, not employees. Corporations are obligated to make as much profit as possible within the constraints of the law.

    • formwiz says:

      And your problem is….?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        None. Was stating a fact. Some people think that corporations have obligations to society other than obeying the laws.

        What is a problem is that corporations spend large amounts of money influencing the laws they are required to obey, agreed?

  3. JGlanton says:

    The only “disruptions posed by climate change” that Amazon might experience is a crippling acceleration of operating costs, fuel costs, labor costs, and transportation costs caused by lunatics screaming for regulations and taxes to combat their irrational fears of a tiny increase (1/10,000) of an invisible trace gas in the atmosphere.

    “Amazon’s role in the climate emergency”… is it permissible in California labor law to fire and employee for being demonstrably paranoid delusional?

  4. JGlanton says:

    They could only get 1.4% of Amazon’s 556,000 employees to support this psychotic demand?

    That’s really weak, considering that 7-10% of Americans believe that Elvis is still alive. Amazon’s employment screening is admirably efficient at screening out the crazies.

Pirate's Cove