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

91–100 of 270 posts

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

#91

Post by jessriedel »

jhall1468 wrote: post #65
petegrif wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know it if would have been appropriate for the Times to disclose the context of Olson's dismissal at all, it wasn't after all the point of the article - that was work conditions at Amazon rather than the transgressions of Olsen. But I think it was completely unacceptable for them to take his disclosures at face value given such a context.

Wait, so you are pleading ignorance to the Times failing to properly inform and are fast to judge Amazon for disclosure of the truth? If the roles were reversed, you would undoubtedly be supporting an Amazon PR piece in the Times, because the truth "wasn't the point of the article", correct?

The parent and grand parent commentors are different.

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

#93

Post by toomuchtodo »

empath75 wrote: post #80
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…

They're going to have a hard time retaining and hiring quality employees if there's an unanswered NY Times article out there about how awful it is to work there. It's sort of a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. But I think if you're fired for fraud I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that your employment details will remain private if you publicly slag the company that fired you for theft…

The genie is already out of the bottle. No matter what Amazon says (or what PR person they hire to whitewash the situation), I would still never work from them after what was revealed (not only from the NYT article, but from other anecdotes I've seen online).

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

#94

Post by dragonwriter »

et2o wrote: post #53
boxy310 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a lot of ways Amazon reminds me of Wal-mart, both from the market space they occupy and how terribly they treat employees. I think this is really a byproduct of chasing after low costs without other substantial service improvements. At least with Uber you get a legitimately better hailing and payment experience, not just being cheaper.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Amazon offers pretty substantial service improvement from just about any other online retailer. $50/year for unlimited 1-day shipping?

> $50/year for unlimited 1-day shipping?

Would be cool, but they don't offer that to the public; the closest thing to that seems to be Amazon Prime Student, which is obly available to students (as the name suggesets) and is $49/yr for unlimited 2-day shipping of Prime-eligible items, and same-day (or one-day, depending on timing) shipping of a narrower selection of items in a narrow set of geographic locations with a $35 per order minimum.

The equivalent, more generally available thing is Amazon Prime, which is $99/yr (same restrictions apply to Prime eligible items, same-day/one-day-eligible items, and same-day/one-day delivery areas.)

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

#95

Post by chrissnell »

empath75 wrote: post #80
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…

They're going to have a hard time retaining and hiring quality employees if there's an unanswered NY Times article out there about how awful it is to work there. It's sort of a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. But I think if you're fired for fraud I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that your employment details will remain private if you publicly slag the company that fired you for theft…

I disagree. Carney took the low road with this response and by posting confidential employee information, Amazon is stooping to the level of the accusers. I find it very troubling that a public company would willingly wage a smear campaign against ex-employees on a blog. I don't doubt that many of these employees had an axe to grind--and frankly, I could smell that when I read the NYT article--but any damage to Amazon was just compounded with Carney's post.

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

#96

Post by chrissnell »

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…

The same thing happened with an ex-Reddit employee here on HN a few months back. The CEO (?) who responded came off looking far more evil than the guy that was fired. Best to take the high road in situations like these and show to the world how you really are a great company to work for.

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

#97

Post by vkou »

whatok wrote: post #40
vkou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on Earth would anyone want to sue their former employer? Libel or not, that's the fastest way to kill your career.

I can't imagine a corporate legal team on Earth that would advise someone to publish something libelous because they expected a former employee to not sue over it.

Legal exists to make you aware of the risks - not drive them to zero.

Even in the unlikely event that someone would start a libel suit, and win (Or, more likely, quietly settle), the PR victory may be worth the cost.

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

#99

Post by iterati »

FussyZeus wrote: post #78
TravelTechGuy wrote: post #72

Earlier 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.

Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?

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

#100

Post by HelloMcFly »

jhall1468 wrote: post #67
HelloMcFly wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never easy to sue a major organization.

If they publicly lied about someone being fired for fraud, rest assured there would be an ARMY of lawyers ready to take up that case.

It doesn't matter how many lawyers are ready to take the case, initiating and following-through with a lawsuit against a major organization will be taxing indeed. The the organization is a former employer? That's no decision to be made lightly, however justified your suit may be.
Post reply on HN