OTS is really just a collection of pretty common-sense guidelines like don't have more than a certain percentage of inventory in backstock, don't have backstock of stuff that doesn't sell well, keep your backstock organized, etc.
There are a few details about it that can be irritating, but the comments from employees in the article are extremely misleading. If they're having a hard time passing their inspections it's because they're doing something very wrong - no one is failing an inspection for having 1 box facing the wrong way like it says in the article.
> Usually when I see (or say) something like that it's an exaggeration with a significant amount of truth behind it.
So by your logic, any accusation has the cachet of a significant amount of truth behind it?
The press needs clicks. Their needs (more click and revenue) is diametrically opposed to our needs (a somewhat unbiased view of reality).
Just by saying "<outlandish accusation> has to be backed by something" is ridiculous. It can be backed by nothing. As long as you click through, they get what they want.
No, my point was merely that dismissing that accusation because it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean you can assume there is no merit to the point at all. I have no idea whether the system is as employee-hostile as the sources indicate.
This reminds me of a SaaS product roll outs where customers are complaining, revenue is falling, sales people are complaining but the bosses point out at the great new metric they found which says "Everything is great as long as the day name ends with a 'Y'"
