Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#261

Post by inopinatus »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #30

I 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…

I am also ex-AWS and frankly your description of the environment is the opposite of my experience. My experience was one of driven, hardworking, high-octane people working with a collegiate respect for one another under thoughtful, nuanced leadership.

Was it hard work? Check. 10-12hr days were my norm. They still are, now I'm a startup.

Is it a polarising workplace? Check. That internal culture is a strong flavour. And like many strong flavours, you'll either love it or hate it.

If I wasn't building something I felt compelled to create, I'd go back there in a heartbeat.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#262

Post by CaptainZapp »

roymurdock wrote: post #102
eclipxe wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech crowd (at least on HN) didn't see through the cover-piece...the comments here were overwhelmingly along the lines of "I knew it! Horrible environment". A lot of confirmation of existing anti-Amazon bias.

I'm assuming they published it on medium as a blog post targeting the tech community because they were trying to persuade potential future employees that Amazon is a good place to work. Yet Carney smeared the NYT and ex employees rather than highlighting the positives (I'm sure there are many, but I don't know what they are because he didn't mention them) of working at Amazon. Better yet, Amazon could have just carri…

  I'm assuming they published it on medium as a blog post targeting the tech community because they were trying to persuade potential future employees that Amazon is a good place to work.
What it actually shows to me is that Amazon really is a horrible place to work. Splattering internals from employee files onto a public forum in order to smear them (because none of those smears actually refute what those employees said) is the same underhanded tactic Scientology uses to smear critics, who happen to be ex-members.

I for one would never, ever work for an employer willing to use such despicable tactics.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#263

Post by jsprogrammer »

FussyZeus wrote: post #257
jsprogrammer wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the specific claim that every other day 1/4 of Amazon's staff is weeping at their desk. Can you show me where someone has made that claim?

If you cannot make a point without resorting to semantics I'm not interested in hearing it. Either you knew exactly what I meant and are grasping at straws to continue arguing because you have an axe to grind with Amazon, or you thought I was actually referencing a report indicating 1/4 of their staff was weeping at their desks every other day and that somehow that company is still in business. Both possibilities are…

Maybe you should make an actual point instead of talking about made up fantasies?

I can't guess what every person means from behind their screen. I can only read the text you post.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#264

Post by caskance »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #248
caskance wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a quality employee that is not interested in disparaging former employers, as most people are not, I don't see why it would affect your decision. It's an appropriate response to what the employee did. If Amazon had an employee arrested for embezzlement, I would not take that as a sign that I shouldn't work there or else I might get arrested.

> It's an appropriate response to what the employee did. Sorry, but you have no idea what the employee did. The employee claims such allegations had never been made to him and that they do not pertain to him.

We know the employee went to the media with claims about the circumstances under which he departed that don't match the official record.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#265

Post by jsprogrammer »

caskance wrote: post #264
jsprogrammer wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an appropriate response to what the employee did. Sorry, but you have no idea what the employee did. The employee claims such allegations had never been made to him and that they do not pertain to him.

We know the employee went to the media with claims about the circumstances under which he departed that don't match the official record.

No. We don't. What official record are you referring to? Have a link?

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#266

Post by cwilkes »

TravelTechGuy wrote: post #59
whatok wrote: post #13

Did I miss out on some additional fallout after the article was initially published? I don't see why they're addressing this two months later.

My $.02: maybe they are starting to feel the fallout in their recruiting efforts about now. I get about one recruiting email from Amazon a month on average, and I assume others do as well. It's enough that 10% of candidates reply with "I wouldn't feel comfortable working there", or " I don't think it's a culture fit - I don't like crying at my desk, as is apparently encouraged over there" for them to realize they hav…

I read somewhere else that they are afraid of another upcoming expose, like from 60 minutes, and want to get out in front of it.

Even if that is true it was a really ham handed way of doing it. The only people this appeals to are ones that already like Amazon. The ones on the fence look at it and see "hey they drug out why this was a bad person" and think that they don't want to be on the receiving end of that and thus turn into ones that aren't inclined to work for them.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#267

Post by marcosdumay »

hsod wrote: post #213
marcosdumay wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, the bias against anecdotal evidence is great and everything, but it only applies if somebody somewhere has a credible anecdote opposite to the claims. Otherwise, it's as good as data. So, look at the ex-employees opinions, and see if there's one. (And no, PR pieces are not credible.)

Do you think it would be difficult to find credible anecdotes of Amazon employees having positive experiences?

Yes, I did. If things were that generalized, it would be.

Got two already, so it's at least not universal.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#268

Post by rdancer »

jonas21 wrote: post #82
rdancer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's badly composed, not inexcusable.

If this were an oversight, you'd be right. But given Jay Carney's experience, you can bet this was absolutely intentional.

I'm not sure he'd begin every White House briefing with "Hi, in case you don't know who I work for...".

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#269

Post by FussyZeus »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #263
FussyZeus wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cannot make a point without resorting to semantics I'm not interested in hearing it. Either you knew exactly what I meant and are grasping at straws to continue arguing because you have an axe to grind with Amazon, or you thought I was actually referencing a report indicating 1/4 of their staff was weeping at their desks every other day and that somehow that company is still in business. Both possibilities are…

Maybe you should make an actual point instead of talking about made up fantasies? I can't guess what every person means from behind their screen. I can only read the text you post.

The point is (and was) that if things are that horrific, there's no way in hell they could hold on to staff to be as successful as they are. Not enough people, especially in a job market as competitive as the ones they are in are, would be willing to subject themselves to that kind of hell just to work at Amazon.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#270

Post by cwilkes »

FussyZeus wrote: post #252
cwilkes wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.

So in this situation, where this ex-employee's remarks are being used by a large media source to damage the reputation of the company, you don't think the company should have the right to say, "just so you know, this guy resigned after we caught him stealing from our vendors, so you might want to take his statements with a grain of salt."?

The problem here is that the buying public doesn't give two hoots about how Amazon employees are treated. They just want cheap goods that are delivered quickly. So there isn't a need to rebut the NYT for them as there's no gain.

What has been harmed by the NYT article is Amazon's ability to recruit. And what Mr Carney did makes it even harder. Why would you willing join a company that then goes all Scientology on you if you dare speak against it?

He's preaching to the kool aid drinkers when he should have been working on the ones that weren't sure if they should join.

This is PR 101.

Post reply on HN