41–50 of 507 posts
A decent outcome here would be if Glassdoor revealed all employers that attempt to go after former employees with alerts like the current one on the Zuru page.
Glassdoors business model is selling the ability to take down bad reviews. Why would they out their customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Glassdoor Alert: Employer Legal Action > This employer has taken legal action against reviewers and/or Glassdoor for the reviews that have appeared on this profile. Please exercise your best judgment when evaluating this employer. Learn more about Glassdoor Alerts. i.e. "FFS stop writing reviews, but assume the worst is true and stay the hell away from these clowns"
Wow. That statement is the worst kind of review any potential employee could ever read.
competitors are surely celebrating this ruling. especially those who physically cannot put anonymous commenters at risk while somehow still turning a profit without being able to traffic in tracking data.
Once had a contract where my client wanted me to do "security work", which was initially meant to be for pentesting their clients, but it turned into me building their wifi auth system. At some point in the gig, one of their clients went to them asking them if it was possible to de-anonymize someone glassdoor review since someone still-employed worked with them. They then went to me to see if I could do it for them.…
DNS records of your VPN or corporate work station would be pretty easy. You can line then up with when the review was posted. Then investigate their workstation more "thoroughly".
Edit: yikes, people.
I read through all the reviews. https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297_P... I don't see anything out of the ordinary, and there are definitely some common threads amongst negative reviews. Wouldn't they have to prove the allegations are false?
That's mostly a US thing. England and many former english colony countries have quite liberal (illiberal?) libel laws that puts the onus of the person making the claim to prove it's true.
>defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth
Would these companies have a case if an employee left refusing to sign the paper work agreeing to not talk shit? One company I left tied their severance package to a signature on that kind of agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DNS records of your VPN or corporate work station would be pretty easy. You can line then up with when the review was posted. Then investigate their workstation more "thoroughly".
Pretty uncool to give employers ideas on how to force their IT staff to rat out employees who speak out. Edit: yikes, people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DNS records of your VPN or corporate work station would be pretty easy. You can line then up with when the review was posted. Then investigate their workstation more "thoroughly".
Pretty uncool to give employers ideas on how to force their IT staff to rat out employees who speak out. Edit: yikes, people.
A decent outcome here would be if Glassdoor revealed all employers that attempt to go after former employees with alerts like the current one on the Zuru page.
Glassdoors business model is selling the ability to take down bad reviews. Why would they out their customers?
That said, it seems like negative reviews can easily end up violating one of the many other terms of use[1] around review content. Specifically that a user will not: "Post Content that is defamatory, libelous, or fraudulent"... and "Act in a manner that is [...] otherwise objectionable (as determined by Glassdoor)". That's really broad, and negative reviews can easily be framed as "defamatory" or "objectionable" even if they are factual...
[0] https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/Can-employers-pay-Glass...