Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glassdoor not so anonymous

webworm.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 507 posts

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#391

Post by goodpoint »

stareatgoats wrote: post #340
closewith wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the country in question. In Ireland, for example, any workplace surveillance must be necessary, legitimate, and proportional. The employee also must be informed in advance of who, what, how, and when they may be surveilled. It is very hard to see the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC - the body which handles workplace disputes) accepting that identifying a user on Glassdoor would meet the test of bein…

OK thanks interesting, although I would like to add that I did not address trying to identify and punish reviewers on Glassdoor, which may or may not be illegal all over Europe depending on the nature of the review. That point I tried to make was that the GP was exaggerating when painting the US as an outlier regarding the rights of employees of not to be monitored. The US is more "employer-friendly" if you like, and…

> The US is more "employer-friendly" if you like

Understatement of the year.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#392

Post by wityak »

lazide wrote: post #213
ls15 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it’s a company provided laptop then it’s a good idea to assume that every keystroke, DNS request, and network packet is fair game. In the USA and other countries with subpar privacy laws.

Which countries don’t allow a company to monitor activity on company equipment and company networks during company time?

Just about every EU-based company allows for network defense and visibility to include things like SSL inspection and egress monitoring. Some may consider this surveillance, but what needs to be stated from a governance standpoint is that this monitoring is reasonable from a risk mitigation standpoint and the expectation needs to be written within acceptable usage policy.

Even more restrictive countries like Germany are fine with this.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#393

Post by BurningFrog »

trasz wrote: post #373
sgjohnson wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NDAs have got nothing to do with public interest whatsoever. If you disagree with what the NDA covers, don't sign the NDA.

NDAs exist for a reason. If they don’t serve public interest, why allow them to exist?

Contracts between two parties exist to serve the interest of those parties.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#394

Post by EUROCARE »

sofixa wrote: post #319
cyphar wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it’s a company provided laptop then it’s a good idea to assume that every keystroke, DNS request, and network packet is fair game. From an OPSEC perspective, sure. But the question was whether it's legal for an employer to do it. You might also get a phone call (on your private phone) about a private medical matter while at work, but I would hope your employer couldn't use the CCTV audio they have in the office…

At least in the EU, it's illegal yes - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/05/romanian-chat-me...

It's definitely NOT illegal in EU if the user is appropriately informed, usually in your employment contract you sign a clause about that. Even the government does it to their employees.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#395

Post by goodpoint »

lazide wrote: post #213
ls15 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it’s a company provided laptop then it’s a good idea to assume that every keystroke, DNS request, and network packet is fair game. In the USA and other countries with subpar privacy laws.

Which countries don’t allow a company to monitor activity on company equipment and company networks during company time?

Most of developed countries except the US.

People have legitimate expectations of privacy in the office and/or during working time.

Employment means selling your skills and effort, not becoming a servant or a slave in a feudal society.

Additionally, having delicate information in the hands of the company in general or sysadm/security engineers create a ton of liabilities.

There has to be a balance between security needs, corporate surveillance, privacy and worker rights.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#396

Post by brightball »

8589934591 wrote: post #386

My current company had around 20 or so negative reviews bringing the ratings down to 2. We had a new HR head come in and asked employees to rate 5 stars. Poof. 16 of the negative reviews have vanished. They're now replaced with 5 star reviews. We're currently at 3. HR's goal is to bring it up to 4. I definitely don't trust glassdoor. :(

I don’t trust online reviews in general.

I read 1 and 2 star reviews to check for anything I may need to be cautious about but I generally assume that 5 star reviews are intentional padding.

Do you find yourself leaving 5 star reviews regularly? Leaving reviews at all? Are you more motivated to leave a review if a bad experience or a good experience?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#397

Post by exabrial »

Where is glassdor located? If it’s not in New Zealand, what are the consequences of giving them the middle finger and saying “No, we will not comply; feel free to block us in your insignificant country”?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#398

Post by goodpoint »

pickovven wrote: post #5

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.

Glassdoor is in no way taking the side of employees. It's business model is based on selling out to the employers.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#399

Post by verelo »

Someone wrote something very shitty, and damaging about (it wasn’t 100% clear - i suspect on purpose) me or some of the people i worked with. It was categorically false for me to be included in these allegations (i believe the entire claim was untrue but i guess i only really know my truth), and i had no way to even ask the person to omit me or why they felt i should be bundled in. At one point this became such a stress i was having panic attacks. I had zero recourse. I hated the job but stayed longer just to prove me leaving wasn’t related to that review which became the topic of the company all hands when they hired an investigative lawyer to look into the allegations.

So yeah…Screw that person but also screw glassdoor for facilitating their narrative.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#400

Post by ricardobeat »

verelo wrote: post #399

Someone wrote something very shitty, and damaging about (it wasn’t 100% clear - i suspect on purpose) me or some of the people i worked with. It was categorically false for me to be included in these allegations (i believe the entire claim was untrue but i guess i only really know my truth), and i had no way to even ask the person to omit me or why they felt i should be bundled in. At one point this became such a str…

This doesn't mean they should de-anonymize reviews, but have some moderation to stop any kind of personal attacks or information from being posted on the platform.
Post reply on HN