Elizabeth Willett made the misleading accusation that she was “strafed” through the Anytime Feedback tool. In my mind that frees Amazon to defend themselves with relevant information which might otherwise be protected by social contract. By being specific where Willett is being opaque, Jay Carney is clarifying rather than revealing information. I believe Willett used purposefully opaque words to mischaracterize her experience without unequivocally lying. She shouldn’t be rewarded for her trickery and Amazon shouldn’t be at the mercy of it.
Like WIllett, Chris Brucia, not Carney, broached the subject of his own performance review. If he wanted it to remain a private matter he could have kept it that way. Instead he painted an incomplete and unfair picture by revealing certain details and omitting others. The fact that, in addition to an oral “berating”, Brucia received a glowing written review changes his story in a way that’s critical to understanding the truth. You cite Carney’s quotation of the sentence “Overall, you did an outstanding job this past performance year.” from Brucia’s written review as proof that he crossed a line but I think it reveals little personal information and certainly wasn’t retaliatory.
I have limited experience in the tech sector so I’ll defer to your knowledge of its social contracts but if there is one that prohibits Amazon from defending itself against untrue or only partially true accusations with factual and pertinent information, it’s unjust and unhelpful.
I think Carney’s disclosure of the findings of the internal investigation into Bo Olson’s fraud were intended to discredit Olson’s character. In my opinion Carney should have stuck to discrediting the story rather than the storyteller and you’re right to criticize him. But when a person commits a crime against his employer’s customers (if not his employer itself) as Olson did, I find it hard to believe there is any social contract which continues to bind the employer.