It seems bizarre to me that this rebuttal took two months to publish. Are they seeing a problem with recruiting all of a sudden?
What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
131–140 of 270 posts
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would probably have to side with Amazon's account since it would be pretty easy for the person who resigned to sue for libel if it were not true. Don't think Amazon would want to expose themselves like that.
I would likely be millions of dollars richer if I happened to record a two minute conversation with my former boss's boss, who was an ecclesiastical leader at a church that I eventually left. He told me point blank that the reason I was fired was because I wasn't faithful enough and was no longer worthy of my (completely unrelated) employment. On the books, however, they made it out to be a performance issue. I had p…
You're approaching it from the employee perspective rather than the employer's. Given that Amazon put this out to repair their image, do you think they would risk a headline (even if eventually proven to be false) that says "Amazon lied about employee's resignation"? This guy could absolutely get someone to take a case pro bono with all the press it's getting.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#133I recently quit Amazon. I don't doubt that New York Times purposely misrepresented or omitted facts to make this story. Their stories tend to be very agenda driven and the facts tend to be subservient to the narrative, a policy which is deemed acceptable because it "starts a conversation" or the story is "probably true for someone". This is typical of the left wing. However, I did in fact have an absolutely awful exp…
Not sure if you are aware of this, but statements like:
"This is typical of the left wing."
Can at best undermine whatever point you are trying to make.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things: - I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. - If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.
Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?
What you do at your workplace is by definition not private and shouldn't be. When you're on the company clock using the companies resources, the company should know what you're doing, and you should be ok with that. And if any of those things bother you, sorry, you're the problem.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider that the source I was mentioning had no positive gain associated with going to bat against Amazon in the original NYT story, and Jay Carney, as PR-guy, has a huge incentive (keeping his job) to go to bat for Amazon.
You don't think it's possible the former employee had an agenda or axe to grind after his dismissal? People often act out when they are emotionally upset, which the former Amazon employee clearly was. This whole HN thread is kind of amazing -- it's filled with ad hominem attacks against Carney because of his history in politics . Very few of the articles actually addressed Carney's main idea: the primary source from…
Carney's history in politics is that of a mouthpiece whose purpose was to propagandize the media and thus the public. Should we even bother to read anything he says?
I say no, we should not pollute our minds with propaganda in general, nor Mr. Carney's latest medley of trying to shift the conversation away from Amazon's shitty culture.
The verdict is supported in this very thread: Amazon employees and former Amazon employees are coming out of the woodwork to refute Mr. Carney's whitewashing and support the original NYT article alleging that Amazon is an awful place to work. The dispute is settled.
We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt Carney will say whatever he's paid to, and that Amazon is a bad place to work... I'm not sure what's left to argue over.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in the first place I didn't mean strictly Amazon, I'm speaking in general. I'm talking more about the general attitude that "this guy stole from us/our customers/our vendors, but we can't say anything publicly". That was more what I was talking about. Back to the Amazon thing you're discussing, while I'm sure it's a high pressure workplace that isn't suited for everyone, the Times piece was as sensationalized if…
Amazon will state any "fact" that they think will turn your opinion.
I can't fathom a workplace where every other day 1/4 of the staff is weeping at their desks and anyone is still working there, especially when the tech market is so highly competitive for good people. Now does that mean it's as eased back as Bezos says? Highly unlikely. More than likely it's an office just like everyone elses, plus or minus a few amenities and a more intense corporate culture.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please look at the bigger picture: this is Amazon telling it's current (and future?) employees: if you ever say anything bad about us, all your records will go public, and our head of PR will use any inconsideration in them to argue that your opinion is invalid. Fraud may have been the outlier case here: he's also outing reviews of other people whose opinions he/his employers don't like. That's one way to deal with w…
Two things: - I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. - If you're an employee doing your job honestly, you shouldn't either.
If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?
You can leave an employer less than amicably, and not have done anything wrong. Even Amazons claims about the firing are just that, claims. They haven't posted any evidence that it occurred, or that it was against their practices. Its entirely likely that based on their culture, what he was doing was silently encouraged, up until the point they needed a scapegoat.
What is does tell you is that if you work at Amazon and ever disagree with them, they will burn your reputation to the ground, and you will have no real recourse. Thats a giant, flaming "go fuck yourself" to any potential hires in the future.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also inexcusable that Carney's bio is not the first sentence in the post. Would it not work for Amazon to come out with more of a "Look, it's a difficult business and our folks work incredibly hard. Sometimes it might get a little out of hand. We want to make sure all of our employees are healthy and treated with respect while fulfilling Amazon's mission of delighting customers around the world. We are constantly loo…
Had to chuckle when I read this sentence - Even with breaking news, journalistic standards would encourage working hard to uncover any bias in a key source. - then scrolled down to see Jay Carney's bio: "Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon. Previously, he served as White House Press Secretary and spent 20 years as a reporter for TIME."
What a weird career trajectory. Smells like revolving door corruption to give Amazon privileged access to government.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For a data driven company, it shows they either failed to collect related data and/or that data shows the article was accurate despite the poor choice of sources. They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someon…
> They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someone says why not (X+Y)? If they can show a clear majority are happy with their jobs, that is the strongest argument they have. It also shows the articles claiming ot…
It's not an election. "Clear majority" is an extremely low bar for "job satisfaction", especially when you consider that over the years, the happy portion vote every year, while many of the unhappy people depart.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#140There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes). Amazon: what Carney just posted was very inappropriate. I am completely amazed you did this (assuming it was done with approval…
So you are saying that if an employee tells the public something about an employer that is false, the employer still can't respond to the public with something about the employee that is true?