<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tidepod12</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s weird that you mention courts and then in the next sentence say this:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;the burden of proof in my mind is on the company&lt;p&gt;Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof.&lt;p&gt;If you want to start dismissing all &amp;quot;he said&amp;#x2F;she said&amp;quot; arguments, then we might as well shut down this entire thread. We are never going to get any further than &amp;quot;he said&amp;#x2F;she said&amp;quot; unless someone in this thread has insider knowledge of this situation and is willing to break privacy agreements.</text><parent_chain><item><author>joshuaellinger</author><text>I really hate it when people use he said&amp;#x2F;she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and &amp;#x27;rigorous&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;There is a reason that the courts have something called &amp;#x27;burden of proof&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;When an individual worker does something a large company doesn&amp;#x27;t like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company.  Because HR has professionals and if they can&amp;#x27;t tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time.&lt;p&gt;It isn&amp;#x27;t unclear.  It is perfectly normal for companies to get rid of the whistle blowers. That&amp;#x27;s why there are (weakly enforced) laws against it.</text></item><item><author>Reedx</author><text>We should apply rigor to both sides. Each has incentive to cherry pick and mislead.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th&lt;p&gt;Did they claim that? I&amp;#x27;m looking for a source on this. &amp;quot;According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March&amp;quot;, but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: &amp;quot;Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said&lt;p&gt;Is this confirmed? You can&amp;#x27;t just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.&lt;p&gt;Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough&amp;#x2F;sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument.&lt;p&gt;It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn&amp;#x27;t prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it&amp;#x27;s unclear and sounds fishy on both sides.&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;amazon-workers-strike-coronavirus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;amazon-wo...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>BoiledCabbage</author><text>Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after his 5 min exposure.  From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of quarantine to cover it up.&lt;p&gt;Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company&amp;#x27;s PR response when they&amp;#x27;re trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;us-news&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;31&amp;#x2F;amazon-strike-worker-fired-organizing-walkout-chris-smallls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;us-news&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;31&amp;#x2F;amazon-strik...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until &lt;i&gt;28 March, three weeks after the exposure.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Amazon fires worker who led strike over virus</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/amazon-worker-who-led-strike-over-virus-says-company-fired-him</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>leftyted</author><text>&amp;gt; There is a reason that the courts have something called &amp;#x27;burden of proof&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;Definitely.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; When an individual worker does something a large company doesn&amp;#x27;t like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company. Because HR has professionals and if they can&amp;#x27;t tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time.&lt;p&gt;You don&amp;#x27;t appear to understand why courts have &amp;quot;something called burden of proof&amp;quot;.  In court, the burden of proof is on the person who was fired.  They must show that they were fired illegally.  You can&amp;#x27;t just randomly assign &amp;quot;burden of proof&amp;quot; based on your ideological bias.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I really hate it when people use he said&amp;#x2F;she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and &amp;#x27;rigorous&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you &amp;quot;really hate it&amp;quot; when people express a preference for finding out what really happened.&lt;p&gt;I have no strong opinion about this specific case.</text><parent_chain><item><author>joshuaellinger</author><text>I really hate it when people use he said&amp;#x2F;she said type arguments to pretend that they are being objective and &amp;#x27;rigorous&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;There is a reason that the courts have something called &amp;#x27;burden of proof&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;When an individual worker does something a large company doesn&amp;#x27;t like and they fire him, the burden of proof in my mind is on the company.  Because HR has professionals and if they can&amp;#x27;t tell a better story than what we are seeing, then retaliation is the reason 90% of the time.&lt;p&gt;It isn&amp;#x27;t unclear.  It is perfectly normal for companies to get rid of the whistle blowers. That&amp;#x27;s why there are (weakly enforced) laws against it.</text></item><item><author>Reedx</author><text>We should apply rigor to both sides. Each has incentive to cherry pick and mislead.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th&lt;p&gt;Did they claim that? I&amp;#x27;m looking for a source on this. &amp;quot;According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March&amp;quot;, but when you look at their linked source[1] it says: &amp;quot;Amazon confirmed an associate, who reported for work on 11 March, has since been diagnosed with Covid-19&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said&lt;p&gt;Is this confirmed? You can&amp;#x27;t just assume this to be true. Pretty damning if so, though.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.&lt;p&gt;Viral transmission has no minimum timeline and often occurs at first point of contact (e.g., handshake) or cough&amp;#x2F;sneeze at any time. Kind of irresponsible to even print that quote without correcting the argument.&lt;p&gt;It may be that Amazon retaliated, but stuff like this doesn&amp;#x27;t prove it. We need the hard facts. At this point it&amp;#x27;s unclear and sounds fishy on both sides.&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;amazon-workers-strike-coronavirus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;technology&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;amazon-wo...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>BoiledCabbage</author><text>Here is the key point Amazon claims he was exposed to the worker on March 11th. Over the weekened he said he is organizing a strike, so over the weekend they order him and only him into quarantine. A full 18 days after his 5 min exposure.  From my reading of it, this almost certainly looks like retaliatory action due to the strike, and a company using the excuse of quarantine to cover it up.&lt;p&gt;Key excerpts from a much clearer article. And yet again, why you never 100% believe a company&amp;#x27;s PR response when they&amp;#x27;re trying to cover themselves. They tell just enough truth, but use it to intentionally mislead.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;us-news&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;31&amp;#x2F;amazon-strike-worker-fired-organizing-walkout-chris-smallls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;us-news&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;mar&amp;#x2F;31&amp;#x2F;amazon-strik...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;According to the company’s previous statements, the infected co-worker in question last reported for work on 11 March. Had Smalls been exposed that day, a 14-day mandatory quarantine would have made him eligible to return as soon as 25 March.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Smalls said Amazon did not send him home until &lt;i&gt;28 March, three weeks after the exposure.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “No one else was put on quarantine,” he said, even as the infected person worked alongside “associates for 10-plus hours a week”.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “You put me on quarantine for coming into contact with somebody, but I was around [that person] for less than five minutes,” he told Vice.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; According to Amazon, no one else was fired. Smalls said he was considering legal action, calling it “a no-brainer”.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Amazon fires worker who led strike over virus</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/amazon-worker-who-led-strike-over-virus-says-company-fired-him</url></story>