It may have been inappropriate to "share" some of the evaluations, even though they were so very vague and non-descript. But, it's also possible that the employee voided any contract between themselves and Amazon by speaking to a third party (NYT) about the inner workings of Amazon.
Amazon just did real harm to Mr Olsen's employability. To be so casual about this is typical Amazon. Also this is classic ad hominem attack. If the message is true attack the messenger.
Jay wouldn't need to attack Mr. Olson personally if the message was wrong.
Why does Jay lead with an attack on Mr. Olson? Could it be that that is the best he can do?
I wouldn't quite call it an ad-hominem. In my opinion, when having to rely on second-hand information, you should take into consideration that individual's motives, and possible biases that may manifest as a result. Of course, the same applies to Amazon.
Short of the actual, detailed facts from an impartial source (apparently not the NYT it seems) we're forced to make assumptions based on individual's personal experiences / comments. Maybe Amazon indeed was a horrible place to work at...for those individuals that complained. But if we're at that level, surely we should consider motives/personal circumstances?
