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.
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.
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.
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.