Amazon Responds To 'Harsh' New York Times Report

According to The New York Times, Amazon's style of management is unique – and certainly not in a good way.

The New York Times published a scathing report on August 15, detailing terrible working conditions at Amazon's head office.

One such example included human resources executives partaking in an annual "cullings of the staff," or "purposeful Darwinism." Meanwhile, employees lucky enough to keep their job following a cancer diagnosis, miscarriage or other personal crisis were "evaluated unfairly" or "edged out rather than giving time to recover."

The report went on cite Bo Olson, an Amazon employee of less than two years. During his tenure, he claimed that "nearly every person" he worked with would "cry at their desk."

Related Link: Wedbush's Pachter Previews Amazon's Q3 Earnings, Reiterates Outperform, $700 Target

Amazon's Carney Responds

In a blog post published on Monday, Jay Carney, Amazon's senior vice president for global corporate affairs and former reporter at TIME and White House Press Secretary, stated that Olson was in fact fired from the company for attempting to defraud vendors and cover up his activities it with falsified business records.

"Why weren't readers given that information?" Carney questioned. He added that the New York Times failed to disclose the possibility that the ex-employee "might have an axe to grind."

Carney continued that the New York Times article was full of one-sided, inaccurate or flat out false statements. Another example included a testimony by Chris Brucia who received a "punishing performance" from his boss, along with a half-hour "lecture" before being notified that he was actually being promoted.

Carney responded to this particular allegation: "Had the Times asked about this, we would have shared what [the performance review] said. "Overall," the document read, "you did an outstanding job this past performance year." Brucia was given exceptionally high ratings and then promoted to a senior position."

Carney also suggested that had The New York times properly "checked their facts" and sought out Amazon's side of the story, the article would have been "a lot less sensational, a lot more balanced, and, let's be honest, a lot more boring."

"It might not have merited the front page, but it would have been closer to the truth," he further argued.

Finally, Carney stated for the record that he participated in the article by sharing what was initially asked for, but was "not offered an opportunity to see, respond to, or help fact-check the 'stack of negative anecdotes' that was ultimately used."