[gisely]

The article indicates she contacted Whole Foods corporate and they didn't respond. So what exactly is wrong with her coverage? Also, you say you are Whole Foods employee. But are you store employee or a corporate headquarters employee?

[jimmywanger]

> The article indicates she contacted Whole Foods corporate and they didn't respond. So what exactly is wrong with her coverage?

Because it doesn't mean anything. No large company will respond to supply chain questions.

> But are you store employee or a corporate headquarters employee?

What is the relevance?

[deftnerd]

I think it's very relevant. The article points out that store employees have tried to bring it up to the new Amazon Management team who was unaware of the problem and that everything looks good on paper, but the view "from the trenches" is very different.

One of the points of the article is that corporate isn't aware of these problems.

[jimmywanger]

I don't think so, because corporate would especially not comment on employee complaints if they were aware of them.

Let's take this from the other side. Your employees have gone to the press, and the press is asking you for your side of the story. Why would you give the press anything to write about? Pictures of empty shelves have much more impact than in-stock statistics. You clam up, try to find the employee (probably disgruntled) and terminate him/her.

In other words, corporate not responding is not a signal one way or another, it's the sign of a mature company. Not to kick a dog, but Uber might have responded and made things worse.