The French title of the article in front of me states pretty much to the letter what the HN translation states. Was the HN one changed in the meantime?
The subtitle provides some info, stating that they were fired for showing a behavior that contradicts company values. Later on it says that the fired employees didn't respect their contractual obligations by instigating to block the warehouse.
To be honest I have to wonder what the balance is between freedom of speech and fulfilling your contractual obligation. I mean who's more right here? The employee who's free to state what's on their mind or the employer who's fires someone for trying to sabotage the workplace?
> Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont affiché leur soutien aux blocages des "gilets jaunes
Translation
> Amazon fires employees who have shown their support for the "yellow vests" blockades
HN title
> Amazon fires employees who supported “yellow vest” blockades of Amazon sites
I did not use Google Translate but I'm sure it says nothing about "publicly" since that word is completely missing from the article's title. The HN title is perfectly equivalent... now.
I assume the title of the thread was changed before both of our comments. Which makes my original question legitimate and also makes me wonder if the mismatch you see is caused by the wrong translation.
At the time you made your first comment (as indicated by multiple responders quoting the title in place at the time), the title omitted that the employees had supported the Amazon blockades specifically as opposed to the political movement in general
"Amazon fire workers that supported the Yellow Jackets movement"
vs.
"Amazon fires employees who supported “yellow vest” blockades of Amazon sites"
The subtitle provides some info, stating that they were fired for showing a behavior that contradicts company values. Later on it says that the fired employees didn't respect their contractual obligations by instigating to block the warehouse.
To be honest I have to wonder what the balance is between freedom of speech and fulfilling your contractual obligation. I mean who's more right here? The employee who's free to state what's on their mind or the employer who's fires someone for trying to sabotage the workplace?