I have zero problem with a company releasing info pertaining the character of an employee.
I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.
So in this situation, where this ex-employee's remarks are being used by a large media source to damage the reputation of the company, you don't think the company should have the right to say, "just so you know, this guy resigned after we caught him stealing from our vendors, so you might want to take his statements with a grain of salt."?
The problem here is that the buying public doesn't give two hoots about how Amazon employees are treated. They just want cheap goods that are delivered quickly. So there isn't a need to rebut the NYT for them as there's no gain.
What has been harmed by the NYT article is Amazon's ability to recruit. And what Mr Carney did makes it even harder. Why would you willing join a company that then goes all Scientology on you if you dare speak against it?
He's preaching to the kool aid drinkers when he should have been working on the ones that weren't sure if they should join.
I'm not sure what you are arguing for. That if a person complains about a company that company can instead of replying to the issue just bring up things it thinks are wrong with the character of an employee? I'm not sure how that makes anything healthier.