Because there is still an off-hand chance that an employee who has been let go isn't speaking out of spite and merely stating the facts - depends on a combination of their honesty and the feeling they harbor about being let go. Everyone who is let go isn't bitter and/or a liar.

However, every company yes-man is paid to be a yes-man and will speak in favor of the company without exception - that literally is the job. Otherwise they will be fired and will join the ranks of the aforementioned people.

So logically it makes more sense for me to believe the former more than the latter. The two-sides are not equivalent (as you may have alluded) in term of trustworthiness.

Agreed. As a data point, i'm not disgruntled (i'm quoted in this article).

Mostly disappointed.

Yes, I am very much biased toward being anti-company and I make no apologies for that. I've been in the corporate world long enough to know first-hand the sins that PR and corporate management commits on the company's behalf and the harm it does. I find information coming from the individual more reliable than having it filtered through corpo PR, legal, ass-covering nonsense, the latter group often wanting to preserve the status quo than getting out actual info.

OK just checking. Nice that you at least acknowledge your bias.

Well, in this case, we know one side (pro-company) fucked up big time. The other side (anti-company) may or may not have fucked up.

That makes it easier to trust one side over another.

You’ve kind of set yourself up in a no-lose situation here.

If the employees fucked up then you’ll say the company still fucked up because it wasn’t managing the employees well.

And then in that situation you’ll still believe the lying employees who say its the company’s fault while leaving out their culpability.