What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon(medium.com)
medium.com
What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
https://medium.com/@jaycarney/what-the-new-york-times-didn-t-tell-you-a1128aa78931
269 comments
> 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.
This is hardly an issue isolated to "left wing" media.
This is hardly an issue isolated to "left wing" media.
I agree. But what percentage of the media would you consider "left wing"? Or "right wing"?
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.
"This is typical of the left wing."
Can at best undermine whatever point you are trying to make.
That was in fact a point I was making.
Journalists lying to support a narrative is an extremely damaging trend that has taken hold on the left and it should be pointed out whenever it happens.
This of course happens on the right but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.
Journalists lying to support a narrative is an extremely damaging trend that has taken hold on the left and it should be pointed out whenever it happens.
This of course happens on the right but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.
> Journalists lying to support a narrative is an extremely damaging trend
"Trend" implies a kind of special currency for which I see no evidence; its a "trend" as old as journalism itself. But, yes, its a bad thing.
> that has taken hold on the left
I see no evidence that this is particularly true such that claiming it is a trait of the left, rather than a common feature not especially associated with the left, is anything but a dishonest distortion to support a narrative.
> This of course happens on the right
Indeed.
> but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.
The claim that there is some significant difference here that is worthy of attention desperately could use some support.
"Trend" implies a kind of special currency for which I see no evidence; its a "trend" as old as journalism itself. But, yes, its a bad thing.
> that has taken hold on the left
I see no evidence that this is particularly true such that claiming it is a trait of the left, rather than a common feature not especially associated with the left, is anything but a dishonest distortion to support a narrative.
> This of course happens on the right
Indeed.
> but it is not moralized or justified in the same way.
The claim that there is some significant difference here that is worthy of attention desperately could use some support.
That was in fact a point I was making.
In practice almost all such statements (I do not differentiate the style of partisanship) are some combination of disingenuous, lazy, or unintelligent. They are far too broad a brush to be on point, and far too divisive to use unadvisedly. So much so that there is a vanishingly small chance that the addition of such a statement was both necessary to your point, and improves your clarity of argument.
If your intent is intelligent discourse, compelling argument, or even just getting your opinion across clearly then use of this sort of language is actively counter to your purpose. Other aims exist, clearly.
He's saying that your detour into politics is damaging to your narrative.
I also recently quit Amazon. I also worked within AWS. However, I absolutely loved it, and had the complete opposite experience to almost everything you are describing. My reasons for leaving had absolutely nothing to do with Amazon, and I would work there again.
My bosses were excellent and cared deeply about my personal and professional development. I never got the impression that I was viewed as a drone. I have nothing but respect for the members of upper management that I met, who came off as smart, driven, and truly passionate about their work.
I had worked at a few other companies before joining Amazon, and what I found most refreshing was that, even when I was an SDEI, my opinion about the direction of the team and the projects we were working on was sought and valued. I had never experienced that before at previous employers, where I was very much a "drone".
However, AWS does promote a blunt culture where direct feedback is encouraged. Having never been encouraged at previous employers to provide thoughts on high level design and strategic roadmap decisions before, the ideas I would present would often times be suboptimal, and a senior dev would be quick to point out the flaws in my approach. Let me be clear, however, that it was always the IDEA that was attacked and never ME, personally. I found this approach incredibly helpful in my journey to become a better software engineer. I got along incredibly well with my colleagues and at no point did I ever not feel like a respected and valued member of the team.
I am willing to concede that I was fortunate to have very good direct managers during my time at AWS, and while members of other teams around me also reported similar contentment when I talked to them, I did notice a team or two whose direct managers did not seem up to the task. I firmly believe your experience with a company is at least 80% your direct manager, and if I was reporting to one of those managers that I did not respect I would probably be telling a different story.
This is all to say, I believe you when you say you had a terrible experience, but I wanted to balance your negative anecdote with my positive one.
My bosses were excellent and cared deeply about my personal and professional development. I never got the impression that I was viewed as a drone. I have nothing but respect for the members of upper management that I met, who came off as smart, driven, and truly passionate about their work.
I had worked at a few other companies before joining Amazon, and what I found most refreshing was that, even when I was an SDEI, my opinion about the direction of the team and the projects we were working on was sought and valued. I had never experienced that before at previous employers, where I was very much a "drone".
However, AWS does promote a blunt culture where direct feedback is encouraged. Having never been encouraged at previous employers to provide thoughts on high level design and strategic roadmap decisions before, the ideas I would present would often times be suboptimal, and a senior dev would be quick to point out the flaws in my approach. Let me be clear, however, that it was always the IDEA that was attacked and never ME, personally. I found this approach incredibly helpful in my journey to become a better software engineer. I got along incredibly well with my colleagues and at no point did I ever not feel like a respected and valued member of the team.
I am willing to concede that I was fortunate to have very good direct managers during my time at AWS, and while members of other teams around me also reported similar contentment when I talked to them, I did notice a team or two whose direct managers did not seem up to the task. I firmly believe your experience with a company is at least 80% your direct manager, and if I was reporting to one of those managers that I did not respect I would probably be telling a different story.
This is all to say, I believe you when you say you had a terrible experience, but I wanted to balance your negative anecdote with my positive one.
That's cool, I'm glad you had a good experience.
Would have been great if things had worked out differently because the project I was working on was extremely cool.
Would have been great if things had worked out differently because the project I was working on was extremely cool.
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?
Prime is $99/year for two day free shipping.
Maybe GP is in another country? What he mentions sounds very much like Prime in Germany for example (50 euros, free next day delivery).
> $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.)
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.)
Not really, at least with higher tier retailers.. Amazon is charging more for product, and with Prime you're really paying for prioritization.
Amazon builds warehouses all over the place to avoid air shipping, but optimizes it's internal fulfillment to the prioritized customers. So you either buy Prime (ie. the online version of a warehouse club) or wait 3-5 days for Amazon to sit on your order, pre-sort it and send it out UPS Ground or Parcel Post, just like they do with prime.
I live in New York. If I order from Newegg or WalMart, they typically ship from New Jersey or Philadelphia. That's a 1-2 day UPS Ground shipping zone. Sometimes I pay some nominal amount for shipping, but the product typically costs substantially less from Newegg or Walmart than Amazon.
Amazon is superior to smaller ecommerce operations. My wife orders swimsuits from a vendor in Texas without a distribution network. So she pays about 50% of retail UPS ground charges, and waits a day for the retailer to pick the product, then 3-5 business days for her suit to take a train to Chicago, another train to Syracuse, and then a truck to our home in Albany.
Amazon builds warehouses all over the place to avoid air shipping, but optimizes it's internal fulfillment to the prioritized customers. So you either buy Prime (ie. the online version of a warehouse club) or wait 3-5 days for Amazon to sit on your order, pre-sort it and send it out UPS Ground or Parcel Post, just like they do with prime.
I live in New York. If I order from Newegg or WalMart, they typically ship from New Jersey or Philadelphia. That's a 1-2 day UPS Ground shipping zone. Sometimes I pay some nominal amount for shipping, but the product typically costs substantially less from Newegg or Walmart than Amazon.
Amazon is superior to smaller ecommerce operations. My wife orders swimsuits from a vendor in Texas without a distribution network. So she pays about 50% of retail UPS ground charges, and waits a day for the retailer to pick the product, then 3-5 business days for her suit to take a train to Chicago, another train to Syracuse, and then a truck to our home in Albany.
From Amazon. So, $50 fixed shipping cost from Amazon, whether you use that much or not.
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.
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.
Calling the NYT left-wing is pretty amusing.
Thinking the NYT isn't left-wing shows more how far left you must stand. Even the NYT calls itself liberal/left. Even after 11 years - and as an independent - I see the NYT as decidedly left.
>“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.” — New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” [0]
>Some conservative critics of the media say liberal bias exists within a wide variety of media channels, especially within the "Main Stream Media", including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN, MSNBC and the former Current TV, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and The New York Times. [1]
[0] http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
E:
So I'm being downvoted for pointing out that a liberal newspaper calls itself liberal? Next thing I know I'll be getting downvoted for calling Trump a right-wing presidential candidate.
>“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.” — New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” [0]
>Some conservative critics of the media say liberal bias exists within a wide variety of media channels, especially within the "Main Stream Media", including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN, MSNBC and the former Current TV, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and The New York Times. [1]
[0] http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
E:
So I'm being downvoted for pointing out that a liberal newspaper calls itself liberal? Next thing I know I'll be getting downvoted for calling Trump a right-wing presidential candidate.
>So I'm being downvoted for pointing out that a liberal newspaper calls itself liberal? Next thing I know I'll be getting downvoted for calling Trump a right-wing presidential candidate.
I can't downvote, but I assume you're being downvoted for calling a relatively centrist paper left-wing. Perhaps if you'd said 'liberal'/'left-leaning', the downvotes would have been lesser? Who, in your opinion, is a centrist-ish paper in the US?
I can't downvote, but I assume you're being downvoted for calling a relatively centrist paper left-wing. Perhaps if you'd said 'liberal'/'left-leaning', the downvotes would have been lesser? Who, in your opinion, is a centrist-ish paper in the US?
A paper that calls itself liberal is not centrist unless they are not allowed to define themselves. When an editor goes as far as saying "If you think we're playing it down the middle you're reading with your eyes closed" that's the exact opposite of an unbiased centrist paper. That's openly stating their liberal slant in an "you're an idiot if you don't think we're liberal" sort of way. This isn't my opinion this isn't some random Joe's opinion this is an editor of the paper itself making the claim.
>Who, in your opinion, is a centrist-ish paper in the US?
Doesn't exist in-so-far of my reading. It's a majority left, minority right split with MSM being largely left to various degrees.
It is my opinion that the general public has shifted so far to the left in the past 10-15 years that everything appears to be right-leaning. http://i.imgur.com/03Qpa94.png
>Who, in your opinion, is a centrist-ish paper in the US?
Doesn't exist in-so-far of my reading. It's a majority left, minority right split with MSM being largely left to various degrees.
It is my opinion that the general public has shifted so far to the left in the past 10-15 years that everything appears to be right-leaning. http://i.imgur.com/03Qpa94.png
> A paper that calls itself liberal is not centrist unless they are not allowed to define themselves
By this argument, North Korea is democratic (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea). Of course what people call themselves does not define their position if they act in opposition to it.
> It is my opinion that the general public has shifted so far to the left in the past 10-15 years
US voters still vote to the right of what they did during the Reagan years. It's not that long ago that Obama would have fit solidly in the Republican party. The idea that the general public in the US has shifted far to the left is just bizarre.
Consider that e.g. Obamas healthcare policies are not far off from policies proposed by Nixon 40 years ago, and that the level of horrified response to any kind of tax rises of Republicans these days would have had them up in arms over people like Reagan (and it's quite funny to see them try to explain away Reagan's various tax rises).
By this argument, North Korea is democratic (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea). Of course what people call themselves does not define their position if they act in opposition to it.
> It is my opinion that the general public has shifted so far to the left in the past 10-15 years
US voters still vote to the right of what they did during the Reagan years. It's not that long ago that Obama would have fit solidly in the Republican party. The idea that the general public in the US has shifted far to the left is just bizarre.
Consider that e.g. Obamas healthcare policies are not far off from policies proposed by Nixon 40 years ago, and that the level of horrified response to any kind of tax rises of Republicans these days would have had them up in arms over people like Reagan (and it's quite funny to see them try to explain away Reagan's various tax rises).
> Even the NYT calls itself liberal/left.
And the North Korean government calls itself "Democratic".
And the North Korean government calls itself "Democratic".
Maybe if you specified it being by "US standards". A lot of us live in places where NYT would be seen as quite right wing.
The Washington Post ranks it left-leaning up there with Al Jeezera which is so far left I can't stand to read it.
>A lot of us live in places where NYT would be seen as quite right wing.
Sweden? Half joking, but the "standing so far left that even the left looks right" is something I mentioned in another reply. I don't think being an extreme-left makes slight-left any less left. I don't feel it is a Fox News "Liberal in name only" scenario. Even I can see the conservative slants on talking points in Fox news.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/le...
>A lot of us live in places where NYT would be seen as quite right wing.
Sweden? Half joking, but the "standing so far left that even the left looks right" is something I mentioned in another reply. I don't think being an extreme-left makes slight-left any less left. I don't feel it is a Fox News "Liberal in name only" scenario. Even I can see the conservative slants on talking points in Fox news.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/le...
I'm Norwegian, but live in the UK. Even by UK standards, that are fairly right wing for Europe, the NYT would be rather unlikely to be considered left wing by most. They might be accepted as "social liberal", which is traditionally centre right most places. The might have fit on the left before ca. 1870...
> "standing so far left that even the left looks right"
Except that it's the US that pretty much represents the big aberration in terms of what is considered left and right today. In part because it's in the US what almost everyone else considers their left wing was pretty much crushed from the 20's onwards, back when there were actual socialists running for office on a regular basis. The political centre in US politics slid to the right by virtue of your actual left disintegrating and never recovering, followed by the big democrat/republican switcheroo on civil rights.
Of course, these are all subjective measures, since by the original left/right measure, the split would be bizarre today (the original split was between supporters and opponents of the monarchy in the French national assembly).
> Even I can see the conservative slants on talking points in Fox news.
Meanwhile, most European conservatives would be embarrassed by being compared to the kind of stuff spouted on Fox News. Their talking points are in line with the kind of right wing populists that regularly gets compared to fascists here, even by many on the right.
> "standing so far left that even the left looks right"
Except that it's the US that pretty much represents the big aberration in terms of what is considered left and right today. In part because it's in the US what almost everyone else considers their left wing was pretty much crushed from the 20's onwards, back when there were actual socialists running for office on a regular basis. The political centre in US politics slid to the right by virtue of your actual left disintegrating and never recovering, followed by the big democrat/republican switcheroo on civil rights.
Of course, these are all subjective measures, since by the original left/right measure, the split would be bizarre today (the original split was between supporters and opponents of the monarchy in the French national assembly).
> Even I can see the conservative slants on talking points in Fox news.
Meanwhile, most European conservatives would be embarrassed by being compared to the kind of stuff spouted on Fox News. Their talking points are in line with the kind of right wing populists that regularly gets compared to fascists here, even by many on the right.
> The Washington Post ranks it left-leaning
The 21st century Washington Post is pretty strongly right-leaning, and in 2014 visibly shifted farther to the right, so I'm not sure that says much.
The 21st century Washington Post is pretty strongly right-leaning, and in 2014 visibly shifted farther to the right, so I'm not sure that says much.
To tie that back in with the original discussion, Jeff Bezos bought the paper in mid-2013 [0], so a change in ownership may reflect the paper's changed editorial direction.
[0]: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/05/statement-jeff-bezo...
[0]: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/05/statement-jeff-bezo...
I think you're being downvoted because: left, right, these are meaningless bullshit distinctions (unless you can supply some very specific definition of "liberal/left").
s/he meant "relatively left-wing (from my perspective)", implying his position is to the right of wherever NYT may be.
Long before the NYT article came out I had been hearing stories like this from ex-Amazon employees. This is only anecdotal evidence, but it's the same basic anecdote again and again. The NYT article may be many sensationalized and the characters in it may not be ideal people, but the story's core message is one I've heard from a diverse set of people in a diverse set of circumstances. There seems to be a kernel of truth in there.
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 at the company level). You should be aware that you will start having serious problems hiring and retaining quality employees if you post things like this about your employees.
Amazon: what Carney just posted was very inappropriate. I am completely amazed you did this (assuming it was done with approval at the company level). You should be aware that you will start having serious problems hiring and retaining quality employees if you post things like this about your employees.
Regarding sharing employee evaluations, two things; if you go on the record with press discussing your evaluation and says it says one thing, but it actually says another, I think the company is entitled to respond. Anyway, it's not clear to me if the employee isn't on Amazon's side here (angry at being misquoted) so how do we know this wouldn't have been after getting permission from the employees in question? Obviously there's a long quote from Dina Vaccari contradicting the reporting.
As to sharing the reason an employee resigned from the the company, I don't think an employee's conduct while at a company is confidential, and if they are a strongly biased source, then the NYT needs to know that, and then adjust their reporting accordingly.
As to sharing the reason an employee resigned from the the company, I don't think an employee's conduct while at a company is confidential, and if they are a strongly biased source, then the NYT needs to know that, and then adjust their reporting accordingly.
fwiw, the NYT response points out that the quote from Dina does not contradict the reporting.
* NYT response: https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
* NYT response: https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
The impression that I got from the Times article was that excessive workload led her to go for four days without sleep and to hire someone overseas to do part of her job for her. The fuller story from her LinkedIn post was that she was working, getting an MBA part time, and getting over a breakup, and that her coping mechanism for the breakup was to work long hours. Also, she hired the person overseas to scout leads because she wanted to try out an idea from The Four Hour Work Week. So the LinkedIn article certainly gave me a very different impression of her experience than the Times article, even if what the Times article said was factually accurate. The Times left out the parts that didn't fit into their narrative.
It may have been inappropriate to "share" some of the evaluations, even though they were so very vague and non-descript. But, it's also possible that the employee voided any contract between themselves and Amazon by speaking to a third party (NYT) about the inner workings of Amazon.
Yes, I think it was inappropriate of Amazon, but I absolutely believe they consulted their lawyers before making this post.
It's the signal they're sending to future employees that matters here.
It's the signal they're sending to future employees that matters here.
Amazon just did real harm to Mr Olsen's employability. To be so casual about this is typical Amazon. Also this is classic ad hominem attack. If the message is true attack the messenger.
Jay wouldn't need to attack Mr. Olson personally if the message was wrong.
Why does Jay lead with an attack on Mr. Olson? Could it be that that is the best he can do?
Jay wouldn't need to attack Mr. Olson personally if the message was wrong.
Why does Jay lead with an attack on Mr. Olson? Could it be that that is the best he can do?
I wouldn't quite call it an ad-hominem. In my opinion, when having to rely on second-hand information, you should take into consideration that individual's motives, and possible biases that may manifest as a result. Of course, the same applies to Amazon.
Short of the actual, detailed facts from an impartial source (apparently not the NYT it seems) we're forced to make assumptions based on individual's personal experiences / comments. Maybe Amazon indeed was a horrible place to work at...for those individuals that complained. But if we're at that level, surely we should consider motives/personal circumstances?
Short of the actual, detailed facts from an impartial source (apparently not the NYT it seems) we're forced to make assumptions based on individual's personal experiences / comments. Maybe Amazon indeed was a horrible place to work at...for those individuals that complained. But if we're at that level, surely we should consider motives/personal circumstances?
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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).
And they won't have a hard time retaining and hiring quality employees if all employees know that if you ever speak about your time at Amazon, some SVP for XXX might start selectively leaking portions of your personnel records?
>But I think if you're fired for fraud
Sure, but this is only a claim that Amazon/Carney have made. They have presented zero evidence for the claim.
Also, Amazon/Carney released information about other employees that they have not claimed committed fraud (nor have they claimed any wrongdoing by those individuals).
>But I think if you're fired for fraud
Sure, but this is only a claim that Amazon/Carney have made. They have presented zero evidence for the claim.
Also, Amazon/Carney released information about other employees that they have not claimed committed fraud (nor have they claimed any wrongdoing by those individuals).
> Sure, but this is only a claim that Amazon/Carney have made. They have presented zero evidence for the claim.
Well, they've made a bigger problem for themselves if they're publicly libeling someone in addition to releasing private information.
Well, they've made a bigger problem for themselves if they're publicly libeling someone in addition to releasing private information.
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.
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?
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 our information to refute what you said. I think this was hurting Amazon so much that they are willing to payout the "out of court settlement" and "set the record straight."
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 our information to refute what you said. I think this was hurting Amazon so much that they are willing to payout the "out of court settlement" and "set the record straight."
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 PR baffles me - why are they aiming this refutation at the tech crowd that would probably see through this cover-piece pretty easily, instead of getting it into a high-readership, Amazon consumer oriented publication? Poorly planned and executed all around, regardless of legality.
The fact that it was also published on medium by the head of PR baffles me - why are they aiming this refutation at the tech crowd that would probably see through this cover-piece pretty easily, instead of getting it into a high-readership, Amazon consumer oriented publication? Poorly planned and executed all around, regardless of legality.
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 carried on being a good place to work. If your company is doing good, important things its going to take a lot more than a biased NYT piece to really deflate employee sentiment and drive down the quality of your applicants. "Show not tell" is usually a good principle to operate on.
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 carried on being a good place to work. If your company is doing good, important things its going to take a lot more than a biased NYT piece to really deflate employee sentiment and drive down the quality of your applicants. "Show not tell" is usually a good principle to operate on.
Even before the times article amazon had a rep as a place that ground through people in a year or two.
That was my impression and after talking to several friends over there it hasn't exactly gone away. Even people who still work there 5-6 years later give it at best mixed reviews. I don't know how to interpret the mudslinging but I don't think that Amazon is all fun and games.
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.
I for one would never, ever work for an employer willing to use such despicable tactics.
Show not tell doesn't work. Otherwise there would be no such thing as marketing.
>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.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, except that the idea makes me deeply upset.
What evidence?
Amazon, like most employer, can fire at-will. And Amazon has the money and lawyers to fight long and hard ( unlike most ex-employees ).
This is a pure ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the question at hand:
how good or bad is amazon as a place to work?
What would the response be if Jay had casually outted someone as transgender or gay?
"Back when Mr. O. was a woman before the sex change operation, ...."
or
"When Mr. O. came out as gay, ..."
Neither statement has anything to do with the issue of how Amazon is as a work place.
But Jay's decision to reveal unsubstantiated accusations in a public forum designed to sabotage an ex-employee's future earning potential says a lot.
Amazon, like most employer, can fire at-will. And Amazon has the money and lawyers to fight long and hard ( unlike most ex-employees ).
This is a pure ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the question at hand:
how good or bad is amazon as a place to work?
What would the response be if Jay had casually outted someone as transgender or gay?
"Back when Mr. O. was a woman before the sex change operation, ...."
or
"When Mr. O. came out as gay, ..."
Neither statement has anything to do with the issue of how Amazon is as a work place.
But Jay's decision to reveal unsubstantiated accusations in a public forum designed to sabotage an ex-employee's future earning potential says a lot.
> 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.
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.
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.
If I'm thinking about the same event, I disagree. The CEO didn't come across as evil at all, in my eyes.
And I'm not comfortable with a meme that if you're attacked, you shouldn't defend yourself, because defending yourself will make you look bad. That just makes you easier to attack.
And I'm not comfortable with a meme that if you're attacked, you shouldn't defend yourself, because defending yourself will make you look bad. That just makes you easier to attack.
I believe you're referring to this:
https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...
I dunno, I think if you go out and try to call out your former employer on a public forum (that they own), they have the right to lay out their side of the story at least. It would have been more evil for them to remove the comment entirely - which is exactly what many companies would have in this situation.
https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...
I dunno, I think if you go out and try to call out your former employer on a public forum (that they own), they have the right to lay out their side of the story at least. It would have been more evil for them to remove the comment entirely - which is exactly what many companies would have in this situation.
>If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence?
What evidence did the business present here? All that has been made are claims. I have not seen any internal investigation or performance report.
>Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk [we?] will fully disclose our information to refute what you said.
They don't seem to be making that statement.
The information Amazon has was not fully disclosed, but selectively sampled and leaked. If Amazon was serious about full disclosure, they would release all the records they are using as evidence.
What evidence did the business present here? All that has been made are claims. I have not seen any internal investigation or performance report.
>Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk [we?] will fully disclose our information to refute what you said.
They don't seem to be making that statement.
The information Amazon has was not fully disclosed, but selectively sampled and leaked. If Amazon was serious about full disclosure, they would release all the records they are using as evidence.
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 looking at our practices and the work environment at Amazon and will continue making improvements as we see fit. We don't think the environment portrayed by the Times article is accurate but it has prompted us to work even harder to make Amazon the best place to work."
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 looking at our practices and the work environment at Amazon and will continue making improvements as we see fit. We don't think the environment portrayed by the Times article is accurate but it has prompted us to work even harder to make Amazon the best place to work."
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."
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.
Also inexcusable that Carney's bio is not the first sentence in the post.
It's also standard in newspaper opinion pieces to put the bio at the end.
I actually prefer it -- as a game -- to guess who writes the author's paychecks as I'm reading.
It's also standard in newspaper opinion pieces to put the bio at the end.
I actually prefer it -- as a game -- to guess who writes the author's paychecks as I'm reading.
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.
I'd say your version would have gone over better and/or providing actual evidence rather than more anecdotes.
That sounds like an inane corporatese non-statement that everyone would immediately dismiss.
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.
> 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.
Following your reasoning, if an employee's story is used to prop up a hit piece in the national paper of record (the irony!), providing important context serves the readers, the public, and current & prospective employees.
But I get it, you don't like them. But it blinds you to the obvious, and makes your argument weak.
But I get it, you don't like them. But it blinds you to the obvious, and makes your argument weak.
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?
> 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).
Yep. Additionally, its pretty clear Carney was hired as a political PR wrangler for the sole purpose of cleaning up messes like this and this is the best he can do.
If it was someone inexperienced, I'd assume this was just an error in judgement. However, with Carney's experience, is pretty clear this is the best spin that could be put to paper ... and that really says something. Their only option is to attack the character of the people involved in the articles about Amazon. They have no data, no evidence of any kind beyond "These are bad people".
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.
> (By the way, the tool that the Times suggests is institutional encouragement to anonymously stab people in the back is rarely used and, when it is, most feedback is positive. Also, it’s not anonymous. The reporters knew that and dropped some qualifying language deep in the story after painting a picture that was far more entertaining than accurate.)
Yeah, I'll believe if you if you were able to quantify it. The fact you didn't even try to provide data for this claim causes me call bullshit.
> We decided to participate by sharing much of what Ms. Kantor asked for, yet the article she specifically said they were not writing became the article that we all read. And, despite our months-long participation, we were given no opportunity to see, respond to, or help fact-check the “stack of negative anecdotes” that they ultimately used.
Then provide data, rather than anecdotes of your own that show you in an even more negative light among the privacy minded?
Yep. Additionally, its pretty clear Carney was hired as a political PR wrangler for the sole purpose of cleaning up messes like this and this is the best he can do.
If it was someone inexperienced, I'd assume this was just an error in judgement. However, with Carney's experience, is pretty clear this is the best spin that could be put to paper ... and that really says something. Their only option is to attack the character of the people involved in the articles about Amazon. They have no data, no evidence of any kind beyond "These are bad people".
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.
> (By the way, the tool that the Times suggests is institutional encouragement to anonymously stab people in the back is rarely used and, when it is, most feedback is positive. Also, it’s not anonymous. The reporters knew that and dropped some qualifying language deep in the story after painting a picture that was far more entertaining than accurate.)
Yeah, I'll believe if you if you were able to quantify it. The fact you didn't even try to provide data for this claim causes me call bullshit.
> We decided to participate by sharing much of what Ms. Kantor asked for, yet the article she specifically said they were not writing became the article that we all read. And, despite our months-long participation, we were given no opportunity to see, respond to, or help fact-check the “stack of negative anecdotes” that they ultimately used.
Then provide data, rather than anecdotes of your own that show you in an even more negative light among the privacy minded?
> 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 someone says why not (X+Y)?
It's data without comparisons to give better context.
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)?
It's data without comparisons to give better context.
> 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 otherwise are in error.
There is always going to be someone who complains but data is more valuable than "well, all these people are malcontents or misquoted".
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 otherwise are in error.
There is always going to be someone who complains but data is more valuable than "well, all these people are malcontents or misquoted".
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.
Then what bar would you set?
I'd be happy with a low bar. My guess is it isn't even hitting that low bar.
I'd be happy with a low bar. My guess is it isn't even hitting that low bar.
If they can show that a clear majority are happy with their jobs, all that demonstrates is survivorship bias. Given their churn rate, this is not a good thing.
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?
> 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).
I assume from the article this meant including the consent of the employee in question, given that they were part of the article. It does seem a little odd though.
I assume from the article this meant including the consent of the employee in question, given that they were part of the article. It does seem a little odd though.
Employee reviews or reasons behind a termination for cause are not legally protected information. They are work product, owned by Amazon, subject to the contract with Amazon.
I love how the start of this article reads like something out of Character Assassination 101.
Step 1: start by bringing up something negative about a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
Okay, so the guy resigned because he did something bad. How does that make what he experienced while there not true? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. And the admission of fraud isn't a "crucial piece of context." You and I both know that. Unfortunately, you think the reader is dumb enough not to know it.
Step 2: Assert statements in the form of a question so that you can deny every making the assertion.
"Did Ms. Kantor’s editors at the Times ask her whether Mr. Olson might have an axe to grind?" Here, we don't actually assert that Mr. Olson has an axe to grind. We don't assert he's purposely lying to get revenge. We just highly insinuate it and make the reader believe it by putting it in question form.
This is an obvious attempt at character assassination and to cast doubt in the minds of the reader without actually saying he was lying.
If Mr. Olson is lying - sue him. You're within your rights to do that. But you're not suing him. Or the Times.
So, what's the point of this? Propaganda. And sleazy propaganda at that.
Step 1: start by bringing up something negative about a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
Okay, so the guy resigned because he did something bad. How does that make what he experienced while there not true? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. And the admission of fraud isn't a "crucial piece of context." You and I both know that. Unfortunately, you think the reader is dumb enough not to know it.
Step 2: Assert statements in the form of a question so that you can deny every making the assertion.
"Did Ms. Kantor’s editors at the Times ask her whether Mr. Olson might have an axe to grind?" Here, we don't actually assert that Mr. Olson has an axe to grind. We don't assert he's purposely lying to get revenge. We just highly insinuate it and make the reader believe it by putting it in question form.
This is an obvious attempt at character assassination and to cast doubt in the minds of the reader without actually saying he was lying.
If Mr. Olson is lying - sue him. You're within your rights to do that. But you're not suing him. Or the Times.
So, what's the point of this? Propaganda. And sleazy propaganda at that.
> How does that make what he experienced while there not true?
It doesn't make it true or false, of course. What it does (if true) is make his report that such a thing happened less credible.
This is because fraud is a form of dishonesty, closely related to the telling of lies.
Also, being fired for wrongdoing (again, if that is true) creates the basis for an obvious bias. A person who was fired for wrongdoing can't be expected to be objective in reporting something about the former employer, even if they aren't trying to deceive. If that person's report is relayed, but the firing is concealed, the journalist is effectively concealing that bias.
Of course, Jay Carney (Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon) has an obvious bias as well.
It's not clear whom to believe in this particular case---but biases and track records of fraud are generally relevant context.
It doesn't make it true or false, of course. What it does (if true) is make his report that such a thing happened less credible.
This is because fraud is a form of dishonesty, closely related to the telling of lies.
Also, being fired for wrongdoing (again, if that is true) creates the basis for an obvious bias. A person who was fired for wrongdoing can't be expected to be objective in reporting something about the former employer, even if they aren't trying to deceive. If that person's report is relayed, but the firing is concealed, the journalist is effectively concealing that bias.
Of course, Jay Carney (Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon) has an obvious bias as well.
It's not clear whom to believe in this particular case---but biases and track records of fraud are generally relevant context.
I'd like to to address a somewhat unfairly flagged sibling comment by russelluresti, on the topic of the ad hominem fallacy.
Disbelieving someone because of a bias or a past dishonesty isn't the ad hominem fallacy at all.
Ad hominem refers to a declaration that an argument is right or wrong based on the identity or attributes of the person making the argument, rather than its content, and relevant references.
The disbelief in a report based on the nature of its source isn't a declaration that it is false. It is rationally justified prudence.
Disbelieving someone because of a bias or a past dishonesty isn't the ad hominem fallacy at all.
Ad hominem refers to a declaration that an argument is right or wrong based on the identity or attributes of the person making the argument, rather than its content, and relevant references.
The disbelief in a report based on the nature of its source isn't a declaration that it is false. It is rationally justified prudence.
Can you guess who wrote this?
"Attackers are simply ... a propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us."
That was L. Ron Hubbard. Amazing how Carney's tactics so closely match those of scientology.
"Attackers are simply ... a propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us."
That was L. Ron Hubbard. Amazing how Carney's tactics so closely match those of scientology.
And the fraud thing doesn't even look to be true. The NYT writer responded and said that was false.
I think Mr. Olson should sue Amazon now.
Do you have a link to the response? That seems like a pretty serious allegation to drop. Also, how would the reporter know? Are they just trusting the Olsen guy?
The NYT response said that Olson said it was not true:
"But [Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that." "If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so." - https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
"But [Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that." "If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so." - https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
[deleted]
How would you be able to sue someone who said that they saw a lot of people crying at their desk? How could you prove that didn't happen?
Suppose that it's a fabrication. You could hire some independent company (e.g. Gallup or whoever) to conduct a confidential company-wide survey to determine how many employees have seen someone crying at their desk (or did so themselves), and approximately how many times in the past N years for some N. If the survey turned up results close to zero, that would support a case that the former employee is making it up. (Of course, subject to the limitation that the survey would only include current employees.)
There is also the principle that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and not on those who disbelieve. Lots of people cried on their desks? A few names, or it didn't happen.
There is also the principle that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and not on those who disbelieve. Lots of people cried on their desks? A few names, or it didn't happen.
Do you really think that has any opportunity of being a successful strategy in court?
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 some engineer, accountant, designer, heck, get the HR intern who just joined 2 weeks ago to talk about this.
It would have more credibility than a PR person who's been in the company for less than one year.]
[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 some engineer, accountant, designer, heck, get the HR intern who just joined 2 weeks ago to talk about this.
It would have more credibility than a PR person who's been in the company for less than one year.]
As I remarked when it first came out, NYTimes article was almost completely anecdotal. That's not damning, but it does require you to trust the reporters to distill a large complicated mess to representative pieces.
What part of Carney's piece do you think similarly depends on us trusting him? Do you think he fabricated the email from Kantor? Do you think he's outright lying about the context of Olson's dismissal to the extent that it wasn't incumbent on the Times to disclose this in the original article?
I'm totally willing to accept for the sake of argument that Carney is dishonest, but I think that is largely beside the point here. If you accept the truth of the bare facts presented by Carney, putting aside his spin, then the badness of Carney and/or Amazon is irrelevant for assessing the badness of the NYTimes.
What part of Carney's piece do you think similarly depends on us trusting him? Do you think he fabricated the email from Kantor? Do you think he's outright lying about the context of Olson's dismissal to the extent that it wasn't incumbent on the Times to disclose this in the original article?
I'm totally willing to accept for the sake of argument that Carney is dishonest, but I think that is largely beside the point here. If you accept the truth of the bare facts presented by Carney, putting aside his spin, then the badness of Carney and/or Amazon is irrelevant for assessing the badness of the NYTimes.
I agree with you that NYTimes piece is largely anecdotal but I will give my reasons for not believing a SVP of Amazon PR.
1. Personal attach on a former employee as the head of public relation for a multi-billion corporation from a personal blog seems cowardly. Did he give Olson a chance to respond? Is there extenuating circumstances? How did Amazon carry out the investigation? Who knew what when? He accused NYTimes lapses in journalistic standard; he isn't even pretending there is any standard.
2. His attack on reporters is unconvincing. His rhetorical questions sound conniving. The reporters might not have asked those exact questions but they must have examined the named sources' credibility and employment history. Amazon might have refused to give details about Olson's termination, ironically on employee's privacy concern, and then itself divulges specifics, though I am sure after being cleared by their legal department. Noticed that Carney went into hyperboles here rather than stating any facts. A few sentences describing Amazon's interaction with reporters would go a long way here. But no, nothing.
3. His refutation of other three named sources amounts to verbal parsing. Some parts of the review are good so no parts can be called bad. Written review is good so no verbal review can be abusive. No direct requirement so everything is employee's fault and they deserve everything they get. It is almost offensive to read this part. If this is the best Amazon can come up with, it must be bad.
4. Cheery picking Amazon's interaction with NYTimes' reporter. Select publication of correspondence and one-sided characterization of interaction is sly. Make public all correspondence, with proper permission, so we can get a full picture.
Fundementall Carney is a former reporter and whitehouse spokesman who is now attacking former employees in behalf of a giant corporation with enormous resources on personal blog. He is committing every bad act he accuses NYTimes of and a lot more. It is debatable whether NYTimes followed the ideal journalistic standards but it is clear Carney follows none here.
1. Personal attach on a former employee as the head of public relation for a multi-billion corporation from a personal blog seems cowardly. Did he give Olson a chance to respond? Is there extenuating circumstances? How did Amazon carry out the investigation? Who knew what when? He accused NYTimes lapses in journalistic standard; he isn't even pretending there is any standard.
2. His attack on reporters is unconvincing. His rhetorical questions sound conniving. The reporters might not have asked those exact questions but they must have examined the named sources' credibility and employment history. Amazon might have refused to give details about Olson's termination, ironically on employee's privacy concern, and then itself divulges specifics, though I am sure after being cleared by their legal department. Noticed that Carney went into hyperboles here rather than stating any facts. A few sentences describing Amazon's interaction with reporters would go a long way here. But no, nothing.
3. His refutation of other three named sources amounts to verbal parsing. Some parts of the review are good so no parts can be called bad. Written review is good so no verbal review can be abusive. No direct requirement so everything is employee's fault and they deserve everything they get. It is almost offensive to read this part. If this is the best Amazon can come up with, it must be bad.
4. Cheery picking Amazon's interaction with NYTimes' reporter. Select publication of correspondence and one-sided characterization of interaction is sly. Make public all correspondence, with proper permission, so we can get a full picture.
Fundementall Carney is a former reporter and whitehouse spokesman who is now attacking former employees in behalf of a giant corporation with enormous resources on personal blog. He is committing every bad act he accuses NYTimes of and a lot more. It is debatable whether NYTimes followed the ideal journalistic standards but it is clear Carney follows none here.
With regard to #1, I don't much care how cowardly Carney is. The Times based an anecdotal article largely on the impressions of someone who is clearly suspect. Not informing the reader about it is unacceptable.
I guess I agree with #2, except that the alternative scenario -- that the reporters based their piece on an employee who they didn't know had an axe to grind -- just makes them incompetent/negligent rather than malicious.
I agree with #3, and honestly just ignored the relevant section of Carney's post for exactly the reasons you give.
I disagree with #4. I'd love to see the entire correspondence process too, but I can't imagine a reasonable scenario where the reporters aren't dishonest about their intentions. I think being willing to betray one's subject with bald-face lies completely destroys a journalist's credibility, and it doesn't matter how evil their subject is, or if they call it investigative reporting.
I'm sure the reporters felt they were justified, or only bent the truth rather than lying, or whatever. But it's exactly that ability to self deceive that makes them untrustworthy writers.
I guess I agree with #2, except that the alternative scenario -- that the reporters based their piece on an employee who they didn't know had an axe to grind -- just makes them incompetent/negligent rather than malicious.
I agree with #3, and honestly just ignored the relevant section of Carney's post for exactly the reasons you give.
I disagree with #4. I'd love to see the entire correspondence process too, but I can't imagine a reasonable scenario where the reporters aren't dishonest about their intentions. I think being willing to betray one's subject with bald-face lies completely destroys a journalist's credibility, and it doesn't matter how evil their subject is, or if they call it investigative reporting.
I'm sure the reporters felt they were justified, or only bent the truth rather than lying, or whatever. But it's exactly that ability to self deceive that makes them untrustworthy writers.
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.)
So, look at the ex-employees opinions, and see if there's one. (And no, PR pieces are not credible.)
I am an ex-Amazon employee and I had a totally fine experience while I was working there.
That said, my experience very much is totally an anecdote. It was a big company and different teams ran in very different manners.
That said, my experience very much is totally an anecdote. It was a big company and different teams ran in very different manners.
How's this for anecdotes? I'm an ex-Amazon employee and I've never seen anyone cry at their desk, and had in fact never heard of this happening until I read the NYT article.
My team was a mediocre place to work; better than some places, worse than others. Worlds away from the bizarro world depicted in the NYT.
My team was a mediocre place to work; better than some places, worse than others. Worlds away from the bizarro world depicted in the NYT.
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.
Got two already, so it's at least not universal.
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 damage has been done -- the response should be done by Carney. Take the rebuttal to Mr. Olson, for example. That revelation is absolutely not something that should be revealed by Mr. Olson's boss or a coworker. First of all, just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you have all of the facts. The PR person is in a position to collect the facts, including whether or not it's legal to reveal Mr. Olson's reason for termination, and confirming that reason for termination with HR. Even Mr. Olson's boss wouldn't have that same level of confirmation.
The other advantage of having Carney make this response is that you can be sure that this is, for better or worse, the official company response. If instead, this was a blog post by Mr. Olson's co-worker calling him out for being a fraud...and the reaction to it was negative...then Amazon could pedal back and say, "Oh well that co-worker blogged something he shouldn't have and now he is being punished".
But since the condemnation of Mr. Olson has come straight from Mr. Carney, any backlash will be rightly the reaping of what Bezos, Carney, and all their lawyers have sowed.
edit: FWIW, a non-anonymous redditor is saying that he knows Bo Olson, personally, and says "I can assure you that Bo was not the one defrauding vendors that was another employee in the same department"...it strikes me as improbable that Carney (again, not just Carney, but Amazon's lawyers and HR) would get this wrong. But if they did...it's going to be a great backlash, and a much more lasting one than had this allegation come from someone other than Carney or Bezos himself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/3pcnlh/what_the_n...
At this phase, where the story has run and the damage has been done -- the response should be done by Carney. Take the rebuttal to Mr. Olson, for example. That revelation is absolutely not something that should be revealed by Mr. Olson's boss or a coworker. First of all, just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you have all of the facts. The PR person is in a position to collect the facts, including whether or not it's legal to reveal Mr. Olson's reason for termination, and confirming that reason for termination with HR. Even Mr. Olson's boss wouldn't have that same level of confirmation.
The other advantage of having Carney make this response is that you can be sure that this is, for better or worse, the official company response. If instead, this was a blog post by Mr. Olson's co-worker calling him out for being a fraud...and the reaction to it was negative...then Amazon could pedal back and say, "Oh well that co-worker blogged something he shouldn't have and now he is being punished".
But since the condemnation of Mr. Olson has come straight from Mr. Carney, any backlash will be rightly the reaping of what Bezos, Carney, and all their lawyers have sowed.
edit: FWIW, a non-anonymous redditor is saying that he knows Bo Olson, personally, and says "I can assure you that Bo was not the one defrauding vendors that was another employee in the same department"...it strikes me as improbable that Carney (again, not just Carney, but Amazon's lawyers and HR) would get this wrong. But if they did...it's going to be a great backlash, and a much more lasting one than had this allegation come from someone other than Carney or Bezos himself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/3pcnlh/what_the_n...
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.
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.
What's a "journalist article"? Medium is a blog host, not a newspaper. Medium is just paste.org with a better UI.
Fair enough...I saw his name at the top and immediately knew who he was but only because I work in media. However, Carney would be right to assume that his main audience -- the media -- will also recognize his role.
That said, I don't know if this is them trying to be intentionally deceptive or if this is just a clunky use of the medium (no pun intended). It is his first post on Medium, and it's written not in the first-person (as a way to make a personal connection with the reader) but uses "we", e.g. "We were in regular communication with Ms. Kantor from February through the publication date in mid-August"...I don't think there's much evidence to show that they are trying to hide the author's bias or position, other than it's on Medium and not on news.amazon.com.
That said, I don't know if this is them trying to be intentionally deceptive or if this is just a clunky use of the medium (no pun intended). It is his first post on Medium, and it's written not in the first-person (as a way to make a personal connection with the reader) but uses "we", e.g. "We were in regular communication with Ms. Kantor from February through the publication date in mid-August"...I don't think there's much evidence to show that they are trying to hide the author's bias or position, other than it's on Medium and not on news.amazon.com.
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.
This will likely allow legal entrance into all of Amazon, as all internal policies will need to be examined.
Defamation is by definition making a false statement that damages someone's reputation. You're claiming too much, since without any evidence, we can't tell whether the statements are true or false.
If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action. Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?
If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action. Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?
The statement should be assumed false until proven to be true by the accuser. A negative, public claim with zero evidence (nor even a promise of forthcoming evidence) should be viewed as defamatory.
>If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action.
Here's a key piece. If Amazon is now claiming that their former employee took criminal actions:
1) Amazon took criminal actions.
2) Why reveal this now, instead of taking it to the proper authorities when it was discovered?
>Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?
Does it matter? Expensive does not mean they are competent, nor does it mean they are correct.
>If the statements Amazon made are false, then they are clearly defamatory, since they accuse the employee of criminal action.
Here's a key piece. If Amazon is now claiming that their former employee took criminal actions:
1) Amazon took criminal actions.
2) Why reveal this now, instead of taking it to the proper authorities when it was discovered?
>Do you really believe that Amazon's expensive lawyers didn't vet this post before it went out?
Does it matter? Expensive does not mean they are competent, nor does it mean they are correct.
It's only defamation if it's not true.
"you can be sure that this is, for better or worse, the official company response"
Quite the opposite: there's absolutely nothing official about it. It isn't published on an amazon domain, doesn't carry any signature as amazon, and the only evidence that this is in any way related to amazon is that the guy works at amazon.
Quite the opposite: there's absolutely nothing official about it. It isn't published on an amazon domain, doesn't carry any signature as amazon, and the only evidence that this is in any way related to amazon is that the guy works at amazon.
"there's absolutely nothing official about it"...except that it's coming from Amazon's Jay Carney, who is described as "Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon". Could his Medium site use a custom banner to show Amazon's letterhead? Sure (I don't know, I haven't logged into Medium in awhile to know its design/customization options). But this message is signed by him, acting in his role as Amazon PR. Quibbling over whether it should've shown on an Amazon domain vs. an outlet like Medium does nothing to change that.
There's a difference between Elon Musk speaking as CEO of Tesla and as Elon Musk. Or pretty much anyone else.
Senior executives are usually careful to point out when they're not speaking for the company. Carney identifies himself as an SVP at Amazon, uses "us" and "we" throughout the piece, and refers to internal records and emails he would have no reason to access otherwise.
Yeah, it's the White House's former press secretary, Jay Carney. His whole existence is to whitewash, downplay, obfuscate, and pass a sanitized story to the media.
I suggest we ignore Amazon's commentary and accept the worst vision as reality. That way, if we were to end up working there, we might be pleasantly surprised by a rosier picture, rather than upset by something that is below expectations. After all, the bottom line can't accommodate the truth most of the time.
I suggest we ignore Amazon's commentary and accept the worst vision as reality. That way, if we were to end up working there, we might be pleasantly surprised by a rosier picture, rather than upset by something that is below expectations. After all, the bottom line can't accommodate the truth most of the time.
Holy ad hominem batman.
> After all, the bottom line can't accommodate the truth most of the time.
And pessimism will almost certainly become self-fulfilling prophecy.
> After all, the bottom line can't accommodate the truth most of the time.
And pessimism will almost certainly become self-fulfilling prophecy.
That isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something like "Jay Carney smells, so we shouldn't believe what he says." Carney's history and position are clearly relevant here.
I predict they will take down this article and issue an apology.
It would be deliciously ironic if the apology also came from the PR department.
The NYT editor in chief has responded via Medium:
https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
> In response to your posting on Medium this morning, I want to reiterate my support for our story about Amazon’s culture. In your posting — as well as in a series of recent email exchanges with me — you contested the article’s assertion that many employees found Amazon a tough place to work.
Specifically, he says had they known Olson had a conflict, they would have disclosed it. But the NYT asserts that Mr. Olson never disclosed such allegations, nor does he admit to them now.
> Olson described conflict and turmoil in his group and a revolving series of bosses, and acknowledged that he didn’t last there. He disputes Amazon’s account of his departure, though. He told us today that his division was overwhelmed and had difficulty meeting its marketing commitments to publishers; he said he and others in the division could not keep up. But he said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that. If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so.
edit: re-reading Carney's statement, it seems pretty unequivocal: "An investigation revealed [Olson] had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately" The NYT is likewise unequivocal: "[Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records"
Well, only Amazon has the time-stamped records that could prove who is lying here. It was a questionable tactic for Carney to start his response with such a bold and salacious allegation against someone who constituted a single quote in the NYT's story...assuming that Carney is right (because it's a complete unmitigated disaster if he isn't) now it seems he's going to have to go even more salacious, perhaps even post the actual pertinent records online.
How was this mudfest good for Amazon's image, again? And so late after the original story and Bezos's (pretty decent) response?
https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
> In response to your posting on Medium this morning, I want to reiterate my support for our story about Amazon’s culture. In your posting — as well as in a series of recent email exchanges with me — you contested the article’s assertion that many employees found Amazon a tough place to work.
Specifically, he says had they known Olson had a conflict, they would have disclosed it. But the NYT asserts that Mr. Olson never disclosed such allegations, nor does he admit to them now.
> Olson described conflict and turmoil in his group and a revolving series of bosses, and acknowledged that he didn’t last there. He disputes Amazon’s account of his departure, though. He told us today that his division was overwhelmed and had difficulty meeting its marketing commitments to publishers; he said he and others in the division could not keep up. But he said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that. If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so.
edit: re-reading Carney's statement, it seems pretty unequivocal: "An investigation revealed [Olson] had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately" The NYT is likewise unequivocal: "[Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records"
Well, only Amazon has the time-stamped records that could prove who is lying here. It was a questionable tactic for Carney to start his response with such a bold and salacious allegation against someone who constituted a single quote in the NYT's story...assuming that Carney is right (because it's a complete unmitigated disaster if he isn't) now it seems he's going to have to go even more salacious, perhaps even post the actual pertinent records online.
How was this mudfest good for Amazon's image, again? And so late after the original story and Bezos's (pretty decent) response?
Grabs popcorn.
Olson is clinging to a lie, trying to defend his reputation.
Notice how he tries to blame Amazon for his departure, the "revolving series of bosses" and "overwhelmed" with work. "He and others couldn't keep up". Deflection.
He's doing his best to construct a version of events where he is one of the innocents, caught up in the nasty Amazon shit-storm.
I bet he got a shock to see Amazon reveal his fraudulent activity in a medium post! You think Amazon would make such a claim if it weren't true?
Nobody wants to see personal information released like this, but Amazon were slapped in the face with that NYT piece. Let 'em have their medium return fire.
Fraudsters and liars stick to their guns till the bitter end and beyond. It's best to weed them out, and have karma deliver what is deserved.
Olson is clinging to a lie, trying to defend his reputation.
Notice how he tries to blame Amazon for his departure, the "revolving series of bosses" and "overwhelmed" with work. "He and others couldn't keep up". Deflection.
He's doing his best to construct a version of events where he is one of the innocents, caught up in the nasty Amazon shit-storm.
I bet he got a shock to see Amazon reveal his fraudulent activity in a medium post! You think Amazon would make such a claim if it weren't true?
Nobody wants to see personal information released like this, but Amazon were slapped in the face with that NYT piece. Let 'em have their medium return fire.
Fraudsters and liars stick to their guns till the bitter end and beyond. It's best to weed them out, and have karma deliver what is deserved.
>I bet he got a shock to see Amazon reveal his fraudulent activity in a medium post! You think Amazon would make such a claim if it weren't true?
So your stance is "it must be true, because it would be really stupid of them if it wasen't?"
I think its equally valid to say they are acting stupidly, and counting on dollars and cents to keep any trouble off their door.
The truth is, they have just claimed the above. They pressed no charges, and have provided no documentation to sustain it. Right now, they have no more proof then him, and have a strong reason (redeeming their reputation though mudslinging) to say that he was a bad man, so his opinion doesn't matter. Of course,as the NYT responds, they interviewed way more people than just the ones Amazon cherry picked to respond too, and those people all disagree with the new Amazon spin.
So your stance is "it must be true, because it would be really stupid of them if it wasen't?"
I think its equally valid to say they are acting stupidly, and counting on dollars and cents to keep any trouble off their door.
The truth is, they have just claimed the above. They pressed no charges, and have provided no documentation to sustain it. Right now, they have no more proof then him, and have a strong reason (redeeming their reputation though mudslinging) to say that he was a bad man, so his opinion doesn't matter. Of course,as the NYT responds, they interviewed way more people than just the ones Amazon cherry picked to respond too, and those people all disagree with the new Amazon spin.
I'm pretty sure a lot of companies would choose to deal with these sorts of internal matters without involving the law.
When the NYT times story came out I remember thinking it sounded a bit spinny. "Let's find an angle" is symptomatic of a desperate click-baity news media industry. NYT isn't as guilty of this as other outlets by a large margin, but the story had what I perceived as fabricated bite.
At the time, I wondered if any Amazon employees would come out defending their employer. Took me 5 seconds to find something... https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2015/08/16/Working-a...
Are there others? Who knows, I don't care enough to search!
I'm not interested to take sides, but in big companies it's more likely there's pockets of problems, rather than company-wide problems.
When the NYT times story came out I remember thinking it sounded a bit spinny. "Let's find an angle" is symptomatic of a desperate click-baity news media industry. NYT isn't as guilty of this as other outlets by a large margin, but the story had what I perceived as fabricated bite.
At the time, I wondered if any Amazon employees would come out defending their employer. Took me 5 seconds to find something... https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2015/08/16/Working-a...
Are there others? Who knows, I don't care enough to search!
I'm not interested to take sides, but in big companies it's more likely there's pockets of problems, rather than company-wide problems.
Baquet's response makes Carney's complaints seem infantile. Carney should have known better than to post this in this first place.
> Here’s what the story didn’t tell you about Mr. Olson: his brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately.
Together with the inappropriate disclosure of performance reviews, this statement just makes me think that Amazon probably has a culture of defrauding vendors, and usually gets away with it, but sometimes has to blame a junior hire to save face when caught.
Together with the inappropriate disclosure of performance reviews, this statement just makes me think that Amazon probably has a culture of defrauding vendors, and usually gets away with it, but sometimes has to blame a junior hire to save face when caught.
Let's assume both Amazon and Carney are evil. Do you think it was acceptable for the Times to not disclose the context of Olson's dismissal?
NYT disputes it, see one of the comments above:
> Olson described conflict and turmoil in his group and a revolving series of bosses, and acknowledged that he didn’t last there. He disputes Amazon’s account of his departure, though. He told us today that his division was overwhelmed and had difficulty meeting its marketing commitments to publishers; he said he and others in the division could not keep up. But he said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that. If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so.
Thanks for the pointer. Here's the comment you refer to:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10414033
As danso notes, the NY Times editor and Amazon's Carney have now made pretty unequivocal contradictory statements, with little room for them both to be right without one of them outright lying. (And I don't think either one would go on the record here with an outright lie.) Except that the NY Times says "But he [Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that... If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so". That is, they can both be telling the truth if Olson was lying to the Times about his departure.
That's my prediction for how this shakes out. And in that case, the Times will have egg on their face for having not properly vetted their sources.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10414033
As danso notes, the NY Times editor and Amazon's Carney have now made pretty unequivocal contradictory statements, with little room for them both to be right without one of them outright lying. (And I don't think either one would go on the record here with an outright lie.) Except that the NY Times says "But he [Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that... If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so". That is, they can both be telling the truth if Olson was lying to the Times about his departure.
That's my prediction for how this shakes out. And in that case, the Times will have egg on their face for having not properly vetted their sources.
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?
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.
That's a good question. Let me see the original article:
> Bo Olson was one of them. He lasted less than two years in a book marketing role and said that his enduring image was watching people weep in the office, a sight other workers described as well.
If other workers described the same sight, I don't think his input's important enough to require personal credibility, so I'm not too concerned. But the use of "lasted less than two years" would be more honest written as "spent less than two years" or something, because there's an implication that he chose to leave voluntarily.
> Bo Olson was one of them. He lasted less than two years in a book marketing role and said that his enduring image was watching people weep in the office, a sight other workers described as well.
If other workers described the same sight, I don't think his input's important enough to require personal credibility, so I'm not too concerned. But the use of "lasted less than two years" would be more honest written as "spent less than two years" or something, because there's an implication that he chose to leave voluntarily.
I've heard comments from a dozen ex-Amazon employees on HN, in this thread and in the one back on the original NY Times article. The large majority of them said the anecdotes described by the article were unrepresentative of their time at Amazon.
I've heard comments from a dozen ex-Amazon employees on HN, in this thread and in the one back on the original NY Times article. The large majority of them said the anecdotes described by the article were unrepresentative of their time at Amazon.
Shouldn't that point to a problem of the HN crowd being homogeneous/type-A personalities and not representative of what most people see at Amazon?
Shouldn't that point to a problem of the HN crowd being homogeneous/type-A personalities and not representative of what most people see at Amazon?
Of course the HN crowd is not a perfect sample. But why on Earth would you think the NYTimes reporters, who are trying to write a compelling article, are more likely to get an unbiased sampling of Amazon employees than a sampling of the commentators on HN, who have nothing to gain?
Alternative theory: the people commenting on HN are software engineers, who are treated better than average at Amazon because it is very easy for them to go work somewhere else.
I don't think any of the employees mentioned in the NYT article worked in software. It looks to me like the NYT found a statistically significant set of experiences that they wrote about while acknowledging that not everyone at Amazon would have these experiences.
I don't think any of the employees mentioned in the NYT article worked in software. It looks to me like the NYT found a statistically significant set of experiences that they wrote about while acknowledging that not everyone at Amazon would have these experiences.
I remember an article a few years ago with a similar dispute -- something about advertisement placement abuse, and overcharging a client (a credit card company / bank?) to the tune of $million for placements on Kindles(?) that customers never saw, and a dispute as to whether it was a lone wolf, or an executive who pushed the lower-level person to do it.
Ah, here's the story: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/former-amazon-employee-ends-hun...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Varghese+amazon
Ah, here's the story: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/former-amazon-employee-ends-hun...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Varghese+amazon
> Together with the inappropriate disclosure of performance reviews, this statement just makes me think that Amazon probably has a culture of defrauding vendors, and usually gets away with it,
Especially with the Discover fraud whistle blowing lawsuit
Especially with the Discover fraud whistle blowing lawsuit
There wasn't any fraud. There was a response to this accusation, by the NYT, and they claim that this is false.
[deleted]
Anyone else remember that sly piece by BusinessInsider in September, saying that Medium could make a lot of money by becoming the modern-day version of PR Newswire -- where companies pay to get their stories out to the public? It sounded like a nutty comparison at the time.
But after looking at Jay Carney's post, I'm thinking that that BI's Biz Carson might have nailed it. Even if the premium pay channel doesn't exist yet ... the temptation to create it is clearly there
http://www.businessinsider.com/medium-pr-newswire-revisited-...
But after looking at Jay Carney's post, I'm thinking that that BI's Biz Carson might have nailed it. Even if the premium pay channel doesn't exist yet ... the temptation to create it is clearly there
http://www.businessinsider.com/medium-pr-newswire-revisited-...
You bring up a really good point. Medium's default layout scheme highlights content over authorship, so you don't get smacked in the face by the fact that this is written by Jay Carney.
Even in job interviews, Amazon touts itself is an intense, high-energy place to work, and that was exactly what I saw in the NYT article. Some people can't handle that, and they were fired or left disgruntled. The fact that many of the quotes were from disgruntled workers was completely obvious, and going into the dirty details of their firings is pretty low.
The most damning claim of the NYT article that isn't addressed here is the lack of caring and support for people on parental leave, FMLA, and people going through major health issues (cancer, stillborn child). If the authors embellished on those claims then that would actually hurt the original article.
The most damning claim of the NYT article that isn't addressed here is the lack of caring and support for people on parental leave, FMLA, and people going through major health issues (cancer, stillborn child). If the authors embellished on those claims then that would actually hurt the original article.
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.
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.
Interesting note: the hiring of Jay Carney (Feb 26, 2015) coincides exactly with this article ("We were in regular communication with Ms. Kantor from February through the publication date in mid-August"). I wonder if such a high-visibility PR hire came about /because/ of this article?
I'm sure it would have been a multi-month process to hire for a position like Carney's so it likely would have started well before that February date.
Interesting speculation by the original commenter, however, as we can imagine that the NYT likely shopped the idea for the article to Amazon long before Ms. Kantor was originally in contact with Amazon. So perhaps the timeline went NYT shops idea for article with Amazon -> Amazon realizes they need a head of PR and starts looking -> Ms. Kantor reaches out to begin discussions with Amazon right around the same time Carney is hired
One can like or hate Amazon, and it may or may not be a crappy place to work.
That said, it sounds like NYT (a newspaper of record, btw) did more than reasonable selective reporting, to evoke certain feelings in the readers, to get clicks, to start a conversation, or what the reason may be. And it's lousy to see this in modern news reporting. Even the respectable publications err on the side of sensationalism, and it's notoriously hard to get unbiased information as a reader.
Where can someone go to read unbiased, well-researched, both-sides-of-the-story news?
That said, it sounds like NYT (a newspaper of record, btw) did more than reasonable selective reporting, to evoke certain feelings in the readers, to get clicks, to start a conversation, or what the reason may be. And it's lousy to see this in modern news reporting. Even the respectable publications err on the side of sensationalism, and it's notoriously hard to get unbiased information as a reader.
Where can someone go to read unbiased, well-researched, both-sides-of-the-story news?
"Where can someone go to read unbiased, well-researched, both-sides-of-the story news?"
I personally think we're spoilt for choice. Just bear in mind everyone, everywhere has an inherent bias. Some more so that others.
I read these to get what I feel is a well rounded opinion http://america.aljazeera.com/ http://www.bbc.com/news
I personally think we're spoilt for choice. Just bear in mind everyone, everywhere has an inherent bias. Some more so that others.
I read these to get what I feel is a well rounded opinion http://america.aljazeera.com/ http://www.bbc.com/news
Reuters. They're also the most boring/uninformative.
Al Jazeera, The Economist, Bloomberg, and Quartz have well-researched and relevant stories but they usually come with a bias.
Al Jazeera, The Economist, Bloomberg, and Quartz have well-researched and relevant stories but they usually come with a bias.
Why would such a place exist? The more unbiased a news outlet is trusted to be, the higher the incentive to subvert them to show bias towards you.
If you worked for Amazon and you saw that Jay Carney was willing to reveal your personnel records if you talk to the media about unethical or illegal labor management practices, would it change your decision about speaking to reporters?
I think we should consider the possibility that this post will be more effective at intimidating current and former Amazon employees into silence, rather than persuading NYT readers.
I think we should consider the possibility that this post will be more effective at intimidating current and former Amazon employees into silence, rather than persuading NYT readers.
After having read down half the page of responses, your comment was enough to convince me to finally cancel my Prime membership.
What a bizarre, at times completely inappropriate article to have posted. All it does is leave me amazed at - and a little embarrassed for - Amazon's PR department.
I'm basically an Amazon fanboy, but with the failure of the Fire phone, the continually over-wrought nature of AWS UI, and now this hamfisted response to the NYT, they are really losing their appeal.
Amazon: Your current employees had already written much better responses than this within 48 hours of the NYT article coming out. What is this drivel supposed to accomplish? Why is PR rant hosted on Medium? Why are you exposing old employee personnel records? Why are you putting political operatives like Carney in charge of your PR?
Get it together guys. The NYT article is ancient history now and didn't merit further response. It was an obvious hit piece but your reaction has been quite poor.
Amazon: Your current employees had already written much better responses than this within 48 hours of the NYT article coming out. What is this drivel supposed to accomplish? Why is PR rant hosted on Medium? Why are you exposing old employee personnel records? Why are you putting political operatives like Carney in charge of your PR?
Get it together guys. The NYT article is ancient history now and didn't merit further response. It was an obvious hit piece but your reaction has been quite poor.
If anything, such a cynical and mean-spirited "reply" makes it absolutely and positively certain that working at Amazon should be the last thing any half-way competent Tech person should consider.
This piece reads exactly like an oppo-research piece that you would use as a hatchet-job on a political opponent. I had to check twice to ensure that this was not some kind of satire (it is getting harder for me to tell these days). It goes into great detail making personal attacks against the "complainers" while doing nothing to address the substantive allegations made by the articles.
So 1) yes there is a "snitch" tool that amazon encourages employees to use 2) the people identified have all quit after complaining of excessive work one way or another 3) when the initial story came out Almighty Leader Jeff even wrote a memo "please be more considerate" 4) PR flunky now makes sleazy attacks on ex-employees to blunt the negative perceptions.
Updated to add- You want an unsubstantiated ad-hominem here you go: "Jay Carney was encouraged to quit his white-house posting because of his incompetence. Also how seriously can you take a PR guy with the last name of 'Carney'? He had to go!"
This piece reads exactly like an oppo-research piece that you would use as a hatchet-job on a political opponent. I had to check twice to ensure that this was not some kind of satire (it is getting harder for me to tell these days). It goes into great detail making personal attacks against the "complainers" while doing nothing to address the substantive allegations made by the articles.
So 1) yes there is a "snitch" tool that amazon encourages employees to use 2) the people identified have all quit after complaining of excessive work one way or another 3) when the initial story came out Almighty Leader Jeff even wrote a memo "please be more considerate" 4) PR flunky now makes sleazy attacks on ex-employees to blunt the negative perceptions.
Updated to add- You want an unsubstantiated ad-hominem here you go: "Jay Carney was encouraged to quit his white-house posting because of his incompetence. Also how seriously can you take a PR guy with the last name of 'Carney'? He had to go!"
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 have to do something drastic. Sadly, for them drastic means going double-douche: outing ex-employees and attacking the media, rather than own up to even a small part of what was published, and say they are striving to improve their culture.
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.
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.
Yeah that makes sense and also offers an explanation of their choice to publish on Medium.
Apparently, that's the amount of time you need to polish a turd before it stops smelling.
I was pretty shocked by how over-the-top and lacking in context the Times piece was. Lots of industries have pretty intense work cultures (management consulting, medicine, wall street). The focus on Amazon and the exaggerated language made the piece seem very agenda-driven (EVERYONE cries at their desk? really?)
Goes back at least as far as the 1980's, remember the Pulitzer Prize the Washington Post had to give up after one of their reporters literally made up a story about an 8 year old heroin addict.
Just because it's in a major newspaper, don't believe reporting is evenly balanced or without an agenda.
Just because it's in a major newspaper, don't believe reporting is evenly balanced or without an agenda.
The piece was also in line with numerous previous reports on Amazon's working conditions for both blue collar and white collar employees.
That's a classic fallacy: You already had evidence, fine, but you don't get to re-use it to increase your confidence again later. If you want to build up a case, you need more evidence, need more narrative exaggeration backed by the old evidence.
[deleted]
Well, let's put it this way:
When I compare the credibility between the NYT and Amazon's chief PR flack, who does not hesitate to share internals from personnel records in order to smear former employees then I know who gets my vote.
Most certainly not Mister Carney, who I think can be rightfully described as a paid liar.
And I don't mean to imply that even the paper of record is free from problems (remember Jayson Blair?)
[edited for clarity]
When I compare the credibility between the NYT and Amazon's chief PR flack, who does not hesitate to share internals from personnel records in order to smear former employees then I know who gets my vote.
Most certainly not Mister Carney, who I think can be rightfully described as a paid liar.
And I don't mean to imply that even the paper of record is free from problems (remember Jayson Blair?)
[edited for clarity]
If you're hiring in tech right now, you have to REALLY love Amazon for doing this. Basically, what they are saying is, if you speak out about the emotional hell of working for them, they will attempt to publicly humiliate you to make themselves look better.
You're going to go through hell working for them, and you're going to go through hell if you speak out after you leave. Now, they might think this is a winning strategy for them, but in fact the logical conclusion for potential hires is -- stay away from Amazon, because you'll hate it, and then they will ruin your reputation if you speak out. Which is really helpful for everyone else who's hiring right now, because intelligent people paranoid about their reputation will steer clear of any potential Amazon interviews.
Their PR guy doesn't understand that he just cost his employer an entire generation of talented engineers. Oh well, this is great for everyone else.
You're going to go through hell working for them, and you're going to go through hell if you speak out after you leave. Now, they might think this is a winning strategy for them, but in fact the logical conclusion for potential hires is -- stay away from Amazon, because you'll hate it, and then they will ruin your reputation if you speak out. Which is really helpful for everyone else who's hiring right now, because intelligent people paranoid about their reputation will steer clear of any potential Amazon interviews.
Their PR guy doesn't understand that he just cost his employer an entire generation of talented engineers. Oh well, this is great for everyone else.
Did I miss anything below (for anyone who wants to review)? The negative articles draw many more comments, but the general sentiment is not directed only against Amazon.
Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065243 (424 comments)
Inside Amazon
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070115 (98 comments)
Amazon boss Jeff Bezos defends company's workplace culture
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10072389 (73 comments)
My husband needed therapy after working for Amazon
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083475 (331 comments)
Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065243 (424 comments)
Inside Amazon
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070115 (98 comments)
Amazon boss Jeff Bezos defends company's workplace culture
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10072389 (73 comments)
My husband needed therapy after working for Amazon
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083475 (331 comments)
Someone walks to me and says things like this(the original NYTimes article) about say...Facebook, I will double check. If someone says what they said about Amazon, I won't double check (I know, I should). But you know what, I have heard so many anecdotes from people who have no reason to lie, that for me personally at this point, I have much better things to do than double check the obvious. Someone with a fancy university grant will do that, I have other stuff to do, like ignore all those amazon high-volume-recruiter incessant emails.
It is sad that the NYT editorial standards are so weak, and they have cried wolf so many times (e.g. Apple suppliers' working conditions). They used to be a broadsheet with an opinion; now I don't know what they are :-(
This reminds me so much of the Foxconn "scandal" that was "broken" on This American Life a few years ago. The source infiltrated Foxconn to expose human rights atrocities and abuse, but it turned out the source was lying about almost everything he told TAL.
"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."
A spin doctor doing his best to protect the people that pay him. Pay this article no mind; unrelated assaults on a source's character have no bearing on already established facts.
A spin doctor doing his best to protect the people that pay him. Pay this article no mind; unrelated assaults on a source's character have no bearing on already established facts.
Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"? Your comment almost had me laugh out loud.
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 the NYT had a possible agenda/bias. The NYT reporters knew that, but did not report it. They also misled the Amazon people about their objective, pitching it differently and hiding facts that would have undercut their point.
It seems like Carney presented a lot of facts. If you dispute the facts in the article, or think Carney flat-out made up the email he quotes at length (or the reason for dismissal), then you are at least addressing the content of what he says.
granted, i have no idea what his political history is, as I'd never heard his name before.
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 the NYT had a possible agenda/bias. The NYT reporters knew that, but did not report it. They also misled the Amazon people about their objective, pitching it differently and hiding facts that would have undercut their point.
It seems like Carney presented a lot of facts. If you dispute the facts in the article, or think Carney flat-out made up the email he quotes at length (or the reason for dismissal), then you are at least addressing the content of what he says.
granted, i have no idea what his political history is, as I'd never heard his name before.
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.
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.
I'm not arguing that! I'm just laughing while the kettle calls the pot black. And not just this post, half this thread is this stuff.
Just weighing in on the Olson thing: Why is it considered unprofessional or inappropriate for a company rep to speak openly about the illegal/unethical practices of now former employees? Isn't that a good thing to hear about that a company you do business with is culling the ranks of those stealing from it, or whatever they happen to be doing?
If he admitted it and resigned over it, sounds like a pretty cut and dried case that he did it. Screw his reputation, and screw him. Maybe if this stuff was made public more often so that misbehaving executives got more punishment than a tiny ass fine and a huge sum of money, we'd have less of a crony-capitalist system going on these days.
If he admitted it and resigned over it, sounds like a pretty cut and dried case that he did it. Screw his reputation, and screw him. Maybe if this stuff was made public more often so that misbehaving executives got more punishment than a tiny ass fine and a huge sum of money, we'd have less of a crony-capitalist system going on these days.
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 whistle blowers, and scare the rest of the herd: don't mess with us - we've got your files, and we ain't afraid to put them on Medium.
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 whistle blowers, and scare the rest of the herd: don't mess with us - we've got your files, and we ain't afraid to put them on Medium.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?
Should privacy really cover what someone else (in this case Amazon) thinks about you? These aren't medical records or other protected information.
Several points on this privacy angle:
1. Many of the facts in your HR files are based on heresay - what your colleagues/managers/HR personnel think about you. These are highly subjective facts, very domain and company specific. Airing those out without context is a breach of privacy and can cause great damage to the employee down the line.
2. These files belong to the employer - he can alter them to show whatever he wants them to; either in real time, or after the fact, to justify wrongful termination etc. I've actually seen that happen, when a pregnant colleague of mine was let go, and the management later invented a non-existent reason (right before they settled out of court).
3. Privacy here goes one way: if you, the ex-employee, decide to protect your good name, or retaliate - maybe by discussing what you think really happened, you may be violating the NDA you signed. At worst, you could be sued for libel. Most of the time you have no facts on your side, and you can refer to #2 to see what happens to the facts aligned against you.
Finally, imho, if your employee was caught in the process of criminal activity, report him to the appropriate authorities and fire him. Letting him go quietly, only to use this fact against him later, smells of shoddy behavior to your current and past employees, and to your customers.
1. Many of the facts in your HR files are based on heresay - what your colleagues/managers/HR personnel think about you. These are highly subjective facts, very domain and company specific. Airing those out without context is a breach of privacy and can cause great damage to the employee down the line.
2. These files belong to the employer - he can alter them to show whatever he wants them to; either in real time, or after the fact, to justify wrongful termination etc. I've actually seen that happen, when a pregnant colleague of mine was let go, and the management later invented a non-existent reason (right before they settled out of court).
3. Privacy here goes one way: if you, the ex-employee, decide to protect your good name, or retaliate - maybe by discussing what you think really happened, you may be violating the NDA you signed. At worst, you could be sued for libel. Most of the time you have no facts on your side, and you can refer to #2 to see what happens to the facts aligned against you.
Finally, imho, if your employee was caught in the process of criminal activity, report him to the appropriate authorities and fire him. Letting him go quietly, only to use this fact against him later, smells of shoddy behavior to your current and past employees, and to your customers.
1. I agree, kind of. The documents if released publicly should be made available in whole so context can be seen.
2. This pushes into the conspiracy area though, you'd have to have an entire chain of staff (at least in a company the size of Amazon) that couldn't not know this had occurred, and somehow convince them all to be silent. Not impossible, just unlikely.
3. If the company is releasing info about whatever occurred, an NDA would no longer apply. Why would it? The information is now public knowledge.
This I definitely agree with, when employees are found to be stealing it should be handled like any other matter; call the cops and let the process handle itself. Again I think we'd have a much less corrupt corporate culture in our society if we started treating these criminals like criminals.
2. This pushes into the conspiracy area though, you'd have to have an entire chain of staff (at least in a company the size of Amazon) that couldn't not know this had occurred, and somehow convince them all to be silent. Not impossible, just unlikely.
3. If the company is releasing info about whatever occurred, an NDA would no longer apply. Why would it? The information is now public knowledge.
This I definitely agree with, when employees are found to be stealing it should be handled like any other matter; call the cops and let the process handle itself. Again I think we'd have a much less corrupt corporate culture in our society if we started treating these criminals like criminals.
1. Not really possible: context potentially includes specific projects, specific privileged technology, customer information, not to mention private data of other people. Take for example the following: I use the reporting system to say that an employee is doing a horrible job on project X, using technology Y, therefore causing us to give customer Z a discount. Would you now reveal X, Y, Z, my name, my review, the entire project's status at the time of the review, and few other things that might cause the company many issues down the line? Or will you just say: "his colleagues reported he was lazy and disruptive, not a team player, not a good developer etc."?
2. Not far fetched at all, as I said, I saw it happen more than once. Usually we're discussing just the direct manager and one HR "specialist". I can put whatever I want in your file, whenever I want it. If it ever reaches a court, lawyers may discuss the what, why and when. But as someone else here mentions, people rarely sue their employers, so 99% of the time I can feel completely secure in retconning reality to fit my narrative.
3. Nope. Read through NDAs signed in big companies - they are very one-sided. Unless a court specifically negates an NDA, you may still be charged for violating it. Take again the case in point 1. Suppose said employee responds back to the leak about him being lazy by saying: "our project for customer Z was already behind schedule, due to us switching mid project from Java to Scala" - you just revealed privileged information: name of customer, status of project, technologies used. You may be sued for those. If customer Z decides to cancel their contract as a result of the leak, I'm sure the legal department of the former employer would be glad to talk to the employee about incurred damages.
Finally, remember that this is an uneven fight to begin with: ex-employees are usually in a vulnerable position (sometimes even financially), seeking their next job, and with no readily-available legal resources. Employers have legal departments, lawyers on retainer, and significant funds and time to tie you in court. That's why 99.9% of people keep below the radar even when they feel slighted.
2. Not far fetched at all, as I said, I saw it happen more than once. Usually we're discussing just the direct manager and one HR "specialist". I can put whatever I want in your file, whenever I want it. If it ever reaches a court, lawyers may discuss the what, why and when. But as someone else here mentions, people rarely sue their employers, so 99% of the time I can feel completely secure in retconning reality to fit my narrative.
3. Nope. Read through NDAs signed in big companies - they are very one-sided. Unless a court specifically negates an NDA, you may still be charged for violating it. Take again the case in point 1. Suppose said employee responds back to the leak about him being lazy by saying: "our project for customer Z was already behind schedule, due to us switching mid project from Java to Scala" - you just revealed privileged information: name of customer, status of project, technologies used. You may be sued for those. If customer Z decides to cancel their contract as a result of the leak, I'm sure the legal department of the former employer would be glad to talk to the employee about incurred damages.
Finally, remember that this is an uneven fight to begin with: ex-employees are usually in a vulnerable position (sometimes even financially), seeking their next job, and with no readily-available legal resources. Employers have legal departments, lawyers on retainer, and significant funds and time to tie you in court. That's why 99.9% of people keep below the radar even when they feel slighted.
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.
Actually, what you do on company time is private. Or are you arguing that all meeting minutes should always be publicly accessible?
Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do?
What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood.
We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.
Also, you may have misunderstood the meaning of privacy. If I tell I'm terminally ill, it is no longer a private matter, since you know it too. Does that mean you telling the whole world is the right thing to do?
What you appear to be arguing is that your employer may choose to make public anything about you that happened on company time. That is a huge power imbalance, as you certainly don't have the same privilege about your employer, as you depend on them for your livelihood.
We have laws to remedy that power imbalance, that is why you have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in the workplace. It has nothing to do with "private" in itself. It is just one of the tools civilization has developed to prevent exploitation.
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.
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.
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 not moreso than the rebuff here. The rebuff I'm sure is biased to the company. As with most things, the truth isn't on either side, it's somewhere in the middle, though frankly the matter of fact stating and the clear context of the Amazon rebuff does ring true-r to me, but that's only IMHO.
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 not moreso than the rebuff here. The rebuff I'm sure is biased to the company. As with most things, the truth isn't on either side, it's somewhere in the middle, though frankly the matter of fact stating and the clear context of the Amazon rebuff does ring true-r to me, but that's only IMHO.
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.
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 equally uninteresting.
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.
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.
This is written by Jay Carney. Yes, that Jay Carney. Apparently he's working for Amazon now.
Two months after Bezos' internal memo is "leaked" to the press saying that the Amazon in the NYT peice isn't the Amazon he knows, and that employees should email him directly if something like that happens. Now it's time for the offensive. Apparently two months is the amount of time you no longer have to pretend to care about work conditions, and go back to reputation.
This medium piece attacks the character of the NYT's source, which is comedy gold coming from someone who was paid to be a lying weaselly bastard, performing active disservice to the citizenry.
Two months after Bezos' internal memo is "leaked" to the press saying that the Amazon in the NYT peice isn't the Amazon he knows, and that employees should email him directly if something like that happens. Now it's time for the offensive. Apparently two months is the amount of time you no longer have to pretend to care about work conditions, and go back to reputation.
This medium piece attacks the character of the NYT's source, which is comedy gold coming from someone who was paid to be a lying weaselly bastard, performing active disservice to the citizenry.
Former Minister of Propaganda aside, if his account of one of the key sources of the story is true, it kinda affects how it should be perceived, right?
Right. How do we properly discern between professional bullshitters?
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 plenty of witnesses available to me that could have proven that it wasn't a performance issue, but in an at-will company, that doesn't get me anything at all.
I don't go around recording random conversations, and corporations have a lot of ways to cover their tracks. When that is your reality and the burden of proof is on you, you don't do anything. You get fucked and you learn from it.
I don't go around recording random conversations, and corporations have a lot of ways to cover their tracks. When that is your reality and the burden of proof is on you, you don't do anything. You get fucked and you learn from it.
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.
I'll give you two hypothetical situations:
1) Vendor manager Jim tries to defraud a vendor. He gets caught, and confronted about it. He realizes he messed up, accepts responsibility, and resigns on the spot.
2) Vendor manager Joe gets pressured by boss to defraud a vendor because the boss is under pressure from his boss to cut costs or be fired. Joe pushes back, gets reprimanded for not following Amazon's "disagree and commit" principle, and gets a poor performance review. Joe learns his lesson, defrauds his vendors, and everything is fine. The boss's boss and boss leave eventually because they never could get costs down, and the newly re-orged boss notices some discrepancies. Joe gets blamed for defrauding customers, and is told that he is now violating Amazon's "Insist on the Highest Standards" leadership principle. Joe immediately quits out of frustration with Amazon's leadership and culture.
Here is the problem: Both scenarios have the same paper trail of a fraud allegation and immediate resignation. And that paper trail is enough security to defend a position in court...especially if it is the employee's burden of proof to show what really happened.
1) Vendor manager Jim tries to defraud a vendor. He gets caught, and confronted about it. He realizes he messed up, accepts responsibility, and resigns on the spot.
2) Vendor manager Joe gets pressured by boss to defraud a vendor because the boss is under pressure from his boss to cut costs or be fired. Joe pushes back, gets reprimanded for not following Amazon's "disagree and commit" principle, and gets a poor performance review. Joe learns his lesson, defrauds his vendors, and everything is fine. The boss's boss and boss leave eventually because they never could get costs down, and the newly re-orged boss notices some discrepancies. Joe gets blamed for defrauding customers, and is told that he is now violating Amazon's "Insist on the Highest Standards" leadership principle. Joe immediately quits out of frustration with Amazon's leadership and culture.
Here is the problem: Both scenarios have the same paper trail of a fraud allegation and immediate resignation. And that paper trail is enough security to defend a position in court...especially if it is the employee's burden of proof to show what really happened.
RE: #2, agree that this absolutely happens just seems implausible in this situation. For argument's sake, let's assume this happens but it's not widespread at Amazon. I have not read any former employee accounts of it and the NYT would have ABSOLUTELY published something even if they had a whiff of it. Under that assumption, this guy happens to be one of the few people quoted by name in the article that happened to have undergone something shady at work? I don't know why he put his name out there if what Amazon claims is true and I definitely don't know why he would have put his name out there if your second hypothetical is remotely true. Just doesn't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
>> This medium piece attacks the character of the NYT's source, which is comedy gold coming from someone who was paid to be a lying weaselly bastard, performing active disservice to the citizenry.
I started reading and got halfway through and went back to see who the author was and stopped at that point.
The one guy who doesn't have a shred of credibility attacking sources as less than credible? Unreal.
I started reading and got halfway through and went back to see who the author was and stopped at that point.
The one guy who doesn't have a shred of credibility attacking sources as less than credible? Unreal.
"Here’s what the story didn’t tell you about Mr. Olson: his brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately."
It doesn't matter. If the devil tells the truth, it's still the truth.
It doesn't matter. If the devil tells the truth, it's still the truth.
But if it's the devil talking, you have fair grounds for increasing your suspicion that what's said isn't the truth.
And in this case, if Mr. Olsen did in fact get caught by such an investigation, he may be significantly biased against Amazon. That does not automatically make what he says untrue, but it does increase suspicion that it may not be the straight story.
And in this case, if Mr. Olsen did in fact get caught by such an investigation, he may be significantly biased against Amazon. That does not automatically make what he says untrue, but it does increase suspicion that it may not be the straight story.
While Mediums (Jay Carney's) article has a fair point, in that once you look at article under a microscope its conclusions start to fall apart, I think Jay may have missed what the article is. The authors knew from the get-go that they were going to publish a scathing "insider", "never-before seen" review of Amazon. The NYT article is First-Class clickbait. It's Buzzfeed in a suit with a degree.
Jay Carney did an excellent job debunking it; however, it's much like debunking a Buzzfeed article. You might come out ahead logically, but that isn't what people are going to be talking about. The NYT isn't going for truth, they need people to read their newspaper, and then talk about it so they decided to write a bad article about Amazon, and then they found the "sources" for it.
Jay Carney did an excellent job debunking it; however, it's much like debunking a Buzzfeed article. You might come out ahead logically, but that isn't what people are going to be talking about. The NYT isn't going for truth, they need people to read their newspaper, and then talk about it so they decided to write a bad article about Amazon, and then they found the "sources" for it.
The similarities and inaccuracies remind me of the Rolling Stone "A Rape on Campus" story. What is wrong with today's journalism? These are established, mainstream publishers. There is so much focus on the message instead of the facts that entire stories can be fabricated.
I canceled my NYTimes subscription last year because it has become increasingly frustrating to read, especially their "women in tech" articles. For example, their recent "What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech"[0] op-ed blames nerd male culture for making women uncomfortable, and argues for a more neutral environment with no Star Wars posters or tech magazines or nerdy t-shirts...
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/what-really...
I canceled my NYTimes subscription last year because it has become increasingly frustrating to read, especially their "women in tech" articles. For example, their recent "What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech"[0] op-ed blames nerd male culture for making women uncomfortable, and argues for a more neutral environment with no Star Wars posters or tech magazines or nerdy t-shirts...
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/what-really...
Acting like Scientology.
Here are some more people for Jay to slander:
http://qz.com/482080/dear-jeff-bezos-i-wish-you-had-asked-fo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123456 ( https://medium.com/@jcheiffetz/i-had-a-baby-and-cancer-when-... )
http://qz.com/482080/dear-jeff-bezos-i-wish-you-had-asked-fo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123456 ( https://medium.com/@jcheiffetz/i-had-a-baby-and-cancer-when-... )
Disclaimer: I am a former Amazon employee. I worked there for exactly a year. I assume I was doing well, I was offered increase bonus and base after my initial year.
This response from Amazon continues to amaze me - first a post from Bezos that quoted an employee's anecdotal experiences and makes the (totally absurd) claim that Bezos doesn't know what life is like working there.
Then they have a post (http://recode.net/2015/09/25/why-i-work-for-amazon-a-respons...) from a Senior VP who doesn't have the same experience as someone who isn't a Senior VP.
Now they are digging up dirt on employees to paint them with a bad brush. First, the person with the killer quote should have been removed, no question. Huge bias.
But the second and third people? Nothing in the piece is wrong - they could have been strafed with aggressive language and/or they could have been berated in their reviews. Look at the wording:
The third example is similarly vague/wrong: "Chris Brucia, who recalls how he was berated in his performance review before being promoted, also was given a written review... Mr. Brucia was given exceptionally high ratings and then promoted to a senior position." That doesn't mean he wasn't berated - it could have been overly aggressive/wrong (and you cannot dispute ANY claims written in the feedback, all you can do is complain to your manager), just because it ended on a good note doesn't make it less hurtful.
But what this really shows is that Amazon is as ruthless as ever. They WILL go after you, they will dig up dirt on you, and they will terrify you into never speaking out. If you are a former employee (as I am), you know the stories are very very true, and NEVER speak out publicly.
This response from Amazon continues to amaze me - first a post from Bezos that quoted an employee's anecdotal experiences and makes the (totally absurd) claim that Bezos doesn't know what life is like working there.
Then they have a post (http://recode.net/2015/09/25/why-i-work-for-amazon-a-respons...) from a Senior VP who doesn't have the same experience as someone who isn't a Senior VP.
Now they are digging up dirt on employees to paint them with a bad brush. First, the person with the killer quote should have been removed, no question. Huge bias.
But the second and third people? Nothing in the piece is wrong - they could have been strafed with aggressive language and/or they could have been berated in their reviews. Look at the wording:
All three included positive feedback on strengths as well as thoughts on areas of improvement.
Far from a “strafing,” even the areas for improvement written by her colleagues contained
language like: “It has been a pleasure working with Elizabeth.”
The third example is similarly vague/wrong: "Chris Brucia, who recalls how he was berated in his performance review before being promoted, also was given a written review... Mr. Brucia was given exceptionally high ratings and then promoted to a senior position." That doesn't mean he wasn't berated - it could have been overly aggressive/wrong (and you cannot dispute ANY claims written in the feedback, all you can do is complain to your manager), just because it ended on a good note doesn't make it less hurtful.
But what this really shows is that Amazon is as ruthless as ever. They WILL go after you, they will dig up dirt on you, and they will terrify you into never speaking out. If you are a former employee (as I am), you know the stories are very very true, and NEVER speak out publicly.
When the story came out, we knew it misrepresented Amazon.
I left a few months ago and I have mixed feelings about the company. I went through a period where I felt pretty depressed and hated it there, but it wasn't really anything in particular that amazon did. I actually had it pretty good. Things did start to go downhill really bad this year (on my team). The team culture became pretty toxic because of some organizational/ operational changes and management didn't seem to care. There was also pressure from above that I don't think my immediate manager handled well, and things were bad.
i don't think the article was entirely fair, but amazon has some deep flaws. There was a pastebin on reddit by a few that was much more accurate.
I do think in the right situation I would consider working there again. It really is a minefield though.
i don't think the article was entirely fair, but amazon has some deep flaws. There was a pastebin on reddit by a few that was much more accurate.
I do think in the right situation I would consider working there again. It really is a minefield though.
Just love that Bezos quote: "that's not the amazon that i know" ... hmm gee uthink? billionaire founder has a different experience, wow who'd a thought?
glassdoor has spelled this out for a long time but its amusing that amazon doesn't admit they'll change.
my thinking is: a company that relishes in frugality = your machine your monitors and your coffee will suck, you will never get promoted, stack rank Plus all this bs about suing via nda and indebtedness around relo assistance etc sounds like the suck .. amazon is downright hostile
glassdoor has spelled this out for a long time but its amusing that amazon doesn't admit they'll change.
my thinking is: a company that relishes in frugality = your machine your monitors and your coffee will suck, you will never get promoted, stack rank Plus all this bs about suing via nda and indebtedness around relo assistance etc sounds like the suck .. amazon is downright hostile
Saw a great post relating to this a few months ago.
http://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/using-data-...
At the very least the reporters could have checked Glassdoor and seen that employees actually rate Amazon fairly well.
http://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/using-data-...
At the very least the reporters could have checked Glassdoor and seen that employees actually rate Amazon fairly well.
American journalism is like the American judiciary: the truth is irrelevant and whoever can produce the more convincing story wins.
It seems bizarre to me that this rebuttal took two months to publish. Are they seeing a problem with recruiting all of a sudden?
Taking a high level approach here, there are a lot of details on both sides that could be disputed. But what remains true, is there is a reason this article was written about Amazon and not any of the many other tech companies out there. There is obviously an element of truth to the story, even if specific details can be disputed.
"Give me six words of an innocent man, and I will find something in them with which to hang him"
How should companies interact with the press today in order to avoid an outcome like the original NYT article?
How should companies interact with the press today in order to avoid an outcome like the original NYT article?
It's "six lines", not "six words". I think Cardinal Richelieu would be hard pressed to find six words to be as incriminating, unless they were, "I have just committed high treason".
For someone who had to stand at the White House podium for years, it's got to be gratifying to get a shot back at the media for once.
[deleted]
> Also, [the anytime feedback tool is] not anonymous
I assume by this they mean managers can see who left feedback.
I assume by this they mean managers can see who left feedback.
The headline seems very click-baitish and uninformative. Can we be more specific? The New York Times doesn't tell me a lot of things.
Jay Carney Rebuts New York Times Article About Amazon's Work Culture, perhaps?
Jay Carney Rebuts New York Times Article About Amazon's Work Culture, perhaps?
How about some proof that Olson committed fraud. With everything I've been hearing about Amazon, I have to wonder if Olson was innocent or scapegoated by a group of people involved in the fraud.
I’m pretty sure I know what the headline of this article didn’t tell me. What it was about.
> What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You
Am I the only one tired of click-bait titles that don't tell you anything about the article? Had to read the comments here to understand what the article was about and decide if it was worth reading.
All it takes is 4 extra words to give the title context:
> What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You [about working at Amazon]
Am I the only one tired of click-bait titles that don't tell you anything about the article? Had to read the comments here to understand what the article was about and decide if it was worth reading.
All it takes is 4 extra words to give the title context:
> What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You [about working at Amazon]
[deleted]
It works, you clicked.
I didn't click into the article, but into these comments.
HN posted the clickbait title (using its lame rule of cloning the web page title out of context), and you clicked into HN. Ergo, it worked.
HN's rules explicitly call for changing clickbait titles.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Bah, you're right. :-)
Ambigous title.
Does this kind of behavior indicate we should stop using Amazon? Despite loving my Kindle, is it time to boycott a company that behaves this way?
I can't completely quit them, but I have reduced the number of purchases from Amazon - based on many previous stories. Will probably give up Prime when it comes up for renewal.
O wow, this makes Amazon look really bad - it's like when politicians opponents try to discredit opponents with criminal charges or whatnot without actually refuting them.
Note how they don't really deny or refute the text of original article but just go full on to personally attack a person to discredit him.
Note how they don't really deny or refute the text of original article but just go full on to personally attack a person to discredit him.
While selective storytelling has been a staple of traditional news media for ages, this article does tempt me to ask: why Amazon? Of all the workaholic culture tech companies of the last 20 years, why did the New York Times choose to center the exposé on Amazon.com?
My entirely baseless suspicion is that unlike many other tech companies, Amazon is a direct competitor in its ability to drive information to their customers through their proprietary devices and channels, and can also slowly chip away at the newspaper's clout with Amazon ratings for books displacing the Times' bestseller list, for example. Instead of reading Times' reviews of books, films, products, and so on, a customer might consider Amazon's 5-star review system to be enough for them.
Amazon's work culture is hardly unique in corporate America, especially among the tech industry. The New York Times knew that they would make an adversary with that piece. They chose their target carefully.
My entirely baseless suspicion is that unlike many other tech companies, Amazon is a direct competitor in its ability to drive information to their customers through their proprietary devices and channels, and can also slowly chip away at the newspaper's clout with Amazon ratings for books displacing the Times' bestseller list, for example. Instead of reading Times' reviews of books, films, products, and so on, a customer might consider Amazon's 5-star review system to be enough for them.
Amazon's work culture is hardly unique in corporate America, especially among the tech industry. The New York Times knew that they would make an adversary with that piece. They chose their target carefully.
The motivation you speculate on seems, uh, awfully complicated compared to "Newspaper airs dirty laundry of Fortune 29 company."
[deleted]
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 experience at Amazon, in AWS specifically. It really is an awful place to work where management is entirely ego driven and in cover your ass mode 24/7 to the supreme detriment of everyone involved. Subordinates are seen as drones who should work without appreciation or thought for self. And the idea that subordinates are not drones is considered un-Amazonian.
I did in fact witness someone cry at their desk. Well, they didn't cry, it was more like they were in an emotionally precarious daze after being berated for 30 minutes straight by a manager who only did it to make himself feel better about his own worries about the project.