> because in the framework of the law, we are not to deprive another person of rights or possessions without demonstrating they have done wrong.
Does the employee have a right to unconditionally (employment law and preexisting agreements notwithstanding) continue depriving the employer of his compensation? That seems, to me, completely unjust. Not only is this unjust to employers, but it is hostile to prospective employees as well: How many companies that you've worked for would hire you if they knew they could never let you go? How many of them would avoid giving raises because they would be expected to continue that scale of compensation until you're dead?
One doesn't have a right to unconditionally do anything; and in this case it is governed by contract. Generally contracts are void if one or the other party fails to deliver.
In this case, Amazon has chosen to implement something modeled on a judicial process, and that's where it's relevant to talk about burden of proof and who is depriving whom of what.
Does the employee have a right to unconditionally (employment law and preexisting agreements notwithstanding) continue depriving the employer of his compensation? That seems, to me, completely unjust. Not only is this unjust to employers, but it is hostile to prospective employees as well: How many companies that you've worked for would hire you if they knew they could never let you go? How many of them would avoid giving raises because they would be expected to continue that scale of compensation until you're dead?