Out of 4,000 workers, a newspaper managed to find three tents out in the woods, one of which they reported as apparently abandoned and the actual person in one tent made it clear he had a home elsewhere he could sleep in, but preferred to be closer to work to save on commuting costs.
Clearly Amazon is at fault for daring to provide someone employment. Probably the other 3,998 or so people they hired are just sleeping without tents because of their super low wages, right?
In most places (notably, non-prisons and without servant's quarters...), companies don't decide for and aren't responsible for their employees where and how they are allowed to live. That's up to the employee to decide for themselves.