This seems to be the story that never ends... But everytime Amazon tries to respond it seems to dig itself deeper in its own bullshit (I'm a very loyal Amazon customer, and while I wouldn't work at Amazon in a million years, I'm very sorry to see all this).
Some comments:
> Chris Brucia, who recalls how he was berated in his performance review before being promoted, also was given a written review. Had the Times asked about this, we would have shared what it said.
Amazon is willing to "share" with the press the contents of performance reviews of its employees? That's bad (worse than what was in the article).
> Dina Vaccari, the former employee who is quoted saying she didn’t sleep for four days straight to illustrate just how hard Amazon forces people to work, posted her own response to the article. Here’s what she said: "Allow me to be clear: The hours I put in at Amazon were my choice."
That's ridiculous and meaningless; if you choose to not sleep for 4 days in order to carry out your job, isn't it obvious the expectations were set too high, and work/life balance is regarded as irrelevant, as a company policy (or lack thereof)?
> When there are two sides of a story, a reader deserves to know them both.
Well, ok (in general; sometimes there's no "other side"; creationism is not "another side" to the story of evolution, for example). But in this case, the "other side" should be Amazon employees doing normal hours and performing spectacularly, not the voice of management -- as rendered by someone who used to be the Mother of All Spin Doctors!
> The next time you see a sensationalistic quote in the Times (...) you might wonder whether there’s a crucial piece of context or backstory missing — like admission of fraud
That's a cheap, defensive shot; what it really says is you're hurt; and that you'd probably be less hurt if there was not a lot of truth to the original article.