3 ms·
Where does it explain it? There's a lot of words in this op-ed with almost zero actual substance. It's a pure play on emotions, without even the effort to talk
by tomnipotent 5y ago
Where does it explain it? There's a lot of words in this op-ed with almost zero actual substance. It's a pure play on emotions, without even the effort to talk to past or present employees potentially affected. Just more lazy "journalism".
- roenxi 5y agoTaking the article at face value (a risky move when journalists get warmed up against business) - Amazon is effectively lying - they are claiming that they have work for someone to do and that they think the person can do it. In reality - the hiring manager doesn't have work for the person and doesn't care about their qualifications. So Amazon is misrepresenting the situation to their hires. People make big life decisions based on their employment - doing that is very unethical and disruptive. If you want the conversation to be about legality then that is one thing. It seems like a practice that should be legal to me. But it is objectionable.
- tomnipotent 5y agoThe OP article, the referenced Insider article, and most of the comments here are all pure speculation... based on a single memo. The Insider quotes are laughable, themselves speculative "it could happen" comments rather than "it did happen" examples. "Some say that leads to stack ranking" isn't actual valid criticism or journalism, it's a comment on a possibility. It fuels the anti-Amazon rhetoric and so everyone just runs with it, assuming every worst case scenario is true and extrapolating every rumor to the extreme to validate their disdain for the company. It's exhausting.
- banku_brougham 5y agoStrangely the vaunted leadership principles of Amazon dont include one for ethics