If that were the case, you would think that Amazon would address the issues raised my employees instead of firing them.
By firing them, they discourage others from coming forward so it’s not really possible to get a good picture of the situation.
By firing them, they discourage others from coming forward so it’s not really possible to get a good picture of the situation.
You are begging the reader to throw out any knowledge of the company and the country it's in so that they can arrive to a conclusion of "We don't have all the facts!!!!". That's not going to be very effective.
1. News outlets have a huge incentive to report on anti-Amazon facts, but little to no incentive to report on pro-Amazon facts. "Megacorp is imperfect, but mostly okay" is not a headline that generates clicks.
2. Amazon has a huge incentive to ensure that they comply with the law. Every labor lawyer in the country wants to take them to court and extract a settlement. And there are plenty of politicians that would love to make their career by bringing Amazon to heel.
You are aware that Bezos owns one of the world's most influential news organizations, right?
Also, no, they don't. There's more money in sponsored puff pieces about how Amazon is tackling this or that recent controversy.
Your implication that the media is an anti-amazon conspiracy is absurd. The truth about bad actors is not kind to them. That doesn't turn truthtelling into a conspiracy. I seem to remember some positive reporting on Amazon recently, when they promised higher wages and more PPE for warehouse employees -- how does that fit into a conspiracy?
>At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people.
End this solipsistic tripe. Or else drive down to your nearest fulfillment center and start interviewing folks.