4 ms·

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'

by baldfat 11y ago

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."

roymurdock 11y ago
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.
- eclipxe 11y ago
  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.
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    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.
    - serge2k 11y ago
      Even before the times article amazon had a rep as a place that ground through people in a year or two.
      - retbull 11y ago
        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.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Show not tell doesn't work. Otherwise there would be no such thing as marketing.
    - CaptainZapp 11y ago
      I'm assuming they published it on medium as a blog post targeting the tech community because they were trying to persuade potential future employees that Amazon is a good place to work. What it actually shows to me is that Amazon really is a horrible place to work. Splattering internals from employee files onto a public forum in order to smear them (because none of those smears actually refute what those employees said) is the same underhanded tactic Scientology uses to smear critics, who happen to be ex-members. I for one would never, ever work for an employer willing to use such despicable tactics.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >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.
fweespeech 11y ago
> 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.
chrissnell 11y ago
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.
- philh 11y ago
  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.
- debaserab2 11y ago
  I believe you're referring to this: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1ygat?context=3 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.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>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.
pm24601 11y ago
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.

by baldfat 11y ago

roymurdock 11y ago

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.

eclipxe 11y ago
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.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  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.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Even before the times article amazon had a rep as a place that ground through people in a year or two.
    - retbull 11y ago
      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.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Show not tell doesn't work. Otherwise there would be no such thing as marketing.
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    I'm assuming they published it on medium as a blog post targeting the tech community because they were trying to persuade potential future employees that Amazon is a good place to work. What it actually shows to me is that Amazon really is a horrible place to work. Splattering internals from employee files onto a public forum in order to smear them (because none of those smears actually refute what those employees said) is the same underhanded tactic Scientology uses to smear critics, who happen to be ex-members. I for one would never, ever work for an employer willing to use such despicable tactics.
Dylan16807 11y ago
>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.

fweespeech 11y ago

> 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.

chrissnell 11y ago

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.

philh 11y ago
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.
debaserab2 11y ago
I believe you're referring to this: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1ygat?context=3 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.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>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.

pm24601 11y ago

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.