Well, that's what I'm wondering but the article doesn't specify at all. It's like an article's headline states: Amazon stopped paying thousands of employees it

Well, that's what I'm wondering but the article doesn't specify at all. It's like an article's headline states: Amazon stopped paying thousands of employees it hired last year. Incendiary title, is Amazon perhaps breaking the rules? And then you click on it and read that Amazon did not renew contracts of 10% of the employees it hired last year, and is therefore not paying them anymore as they're not working for Amazon anymore. Which is normal business procedure, just like not having to pay taxes when you take a loss. And then the second question is, were the people fired illegitimately perhaps? Or did Amazon use a ta trick? Well who knows, the article doesn't mention a shred of evidence of it. That's why it's poor journalism. I'm not absolving Amazon of any faults, it's obviously a company with many faults and issues and I would not be surprised if there's any more. What I am saying is that this article doesn't present any evidence of any faults, yet insinuates them. I tend to like reading the Guardian so it's a disappointment to see a lack of nuance or information.