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

81–90 of 270 posts

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

#81

Post by iiiggglll »

dekhn wrote: post #4

There 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…

It's also weird that this is on Medium and not Amazon's own website. If this is an official company response to the article in question, shouldn't appear more that way?

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

#82

Post by jonas21 »

rdancer wrote: post #64
pbreit wrote: post #50

Earlier 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…

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.

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

#83

Post by fweespeech »

baldfat wrote: post #46
dekhn wrote: post #4

There 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…

Devil's Advocate here: The people named in the article and refuted by Amazon put their personal story a public story. If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence? Must the company say it is a personal matter that we can't disclose, which reads they are guilty and don't want the truth to come out? End of Devil's Advocate Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk will will fully disclose…

> If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence? Must the company say it is a personal matter that we can't disclose, which reads they are guilty and don't want the truth to come out?

I'd say the real problem is, honestly, they didn't reply with evidence. If they claimed someone engaged in fraud, and believed they had a case, they'd take them to court and set an example.

If they have a software feedback tool with largely positive feedback, they'd show data showing it was an anomaly.

Etc.

They aren't showing evidence so much as providing anecdotes of their own and if that is the strongest defense they have by a top-level journalist wrangler...

Well, honestly, it makes it pretty clear Amazon's position is:

A) We can't prove this is bullshit. We know it but we hope you don't.

B) If you fuck with us, we'll fuck you right back.

That isn't likely to be an effective strategy but they chose it nevertheless.

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

#84

Post by eclipxe »

roymurdock wrote: post #51
baldfat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's Advocate here: The people named in the article and refuted by Amazon put their personal story a public story. If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence? Must the company say it is a personal matter that we can't disclose, which reads they are guilty and don't want the truth to come out? End of Devil's Advocate Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk will will fully disclose…

The details provided in the response are probably being disclosed legally (doubt Amazon PR would screw up that badly), but it shows really poor taste that they would even respond to the NYT piece which was pretty clearly hyperbolic, emotional, and somewhat cherrypicked; even more so that they would adopt the same tactics of naming and shaming ex-employees. The fact that it was also published on medium by the head of…

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.

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

#85

Post by fweespeech »

pbreit wrote: post #50
dekhn wrote: post #4

There 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…

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…

I wouldn't say its inexcusable. However, it does reflect poorly on Amazon that such an oversight occurred.

I'd say your version would have gone over better and/or providing actual evidence rather than more anecdotes.

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

#86

Post by amyjess »

danso wrote: post #79
ucaetano wrote: post #6

It's actually weird to see a company firing back this publicly, releasing performance data (no matter if positive or negative) on previous employees, and it all being posted not by the CEO or a HR VP, but by the head of PR. [Edit: Not only it smells of whitewashing, but it also looks deceptive. And PR? Seriously? Not only it's a sleazy piece, but Amazon chose the worst possible position to convey the message. Get som…

Why shouldn't it be the PR person? Someone at the level of Jay Carney is ostensibly more than just a mouthpiece, but someone who gathers the information and weighs in on what's useful and relevant to disseminate to the press. This isn't always a nefarious thing; sometimes employees have incomplete information but aren't in a position to confirm it with the executives. At this phase, where the story has run and the da…

I think a lot of people's problem with this is that it's not very transparent.

You don't find out who Carney is until the very bottom of the article, and it's presented as just another journalistic article published by Medium and not an official rebuttal by the company.

If the whole thing was prefixed with "Following is Amazon's official rebuttal to the New York Times article", I don't think many people would have a problem with it.

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

#87

Post by Dylan16807 »

roymurdock wrote: post #51
baldfat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's Advocate here: The people named in the article and refuted by Amazon put their personal story a public story. If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence? Must the company say it is a personal matter that we can't disclose, which reads they are guilty and don't want the truth to come out? End of Devil's Advocate Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk will will fully disclose…

The details provided in the response are probably being disclosed legally (doubt Amazon PR would screw up that badly), but it shows really poor taste that they would even respond to the NYT piece which was pretty clearly hyperbolic, emotional, and somewhat cherrypicked; even more so that they would adopt the same tactics of naming and shaming ex-employees. The fact that it was also published on medium by the head of…

>it shows really poor taste that they would even respond

I'm not sure how to respond to this, except that the idea makes me deeply upset.

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

#88

Post by kordless »

dekhn wrote: post #4

There 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…

The last inappropriate bit reads like ad hominem inception:

> The next time you see a sensationalistic quote in the Times like “nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk”, you might wonder whether there’s a crucial piece of context or backstory missing — like admission of fraud — and whether the Times somehow decided it just wasn’t important to check.

Mr Carney is basically saying when you read an interesting article in the NYT, you should assume that they are withholding information. Ironically, this is exactly what the press accused him of doing not so long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKcDUi1-lbA

You know what Jay? I'll do my own trust and fear evaluations, thank you very much. I don't need some mega corporation telling me what to think.

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

#89

Post by jsprogrammer »

danso wrote: post #79
ucaetano wrote: post #6

It's actually weird to see a company firing back this publicly, releasing performance data (no matter if positive or negative) on previous employees, and it all being posted not by the CEO or a HR VP, but by the head of PR. [Edit: Not only it smells of whitewashing, but it also looks deceptive. And PR? Seriously? Not only it's a sleazy piece, but Amazon chose the worst possible position to convey the message. Get som…

Why shouldn't it be the PR person? Someone at the level of Jay Carney is ostensibly more than just a mouthpiece, but someone who gathers the information and weighs in on what's useful and relevant to disseminate to the press. This isn't always a nefarious thing; sometimes employees have incomplete information but aren't in a position to confirm it with the executives. At this phase, where the story has run and the da…

As it stands, Amazon/Carney have made a defamatory statement about an individual while providing no evidence of their claims. Claiming to have the results of an internal investigation is not evidence. Now, the entire investigation will need to be made public and scrutinized.

This will likely allow legal entrance into all of Amazon, as all internal policies will need to be examined.

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

#90

Post by jsprogrammer »

FussyZeus wrote: post #73
jsprogrammer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you believe anything Amazon or Jay Carney says? Do you really think they are giving you an unbiased view of their company? That they have no ulterior motive in saying these things to you?

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.
Post reply on HN