421–430 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Lol I nominate the above to the title of most entitled and out of touch comment of the month. How is this "basic human need" if online porn didn't even exist before 1990?
This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…
This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm
> 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.
This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…
Except where’s the money in that for Glassdoor? Glassdoor makes money from job listings and it’s in their interests to have positive reviews of companies as that’s going to get companies to pay for job listings because they’ll get more/better applicants if they have positive reviews.
I'd argue that "bad" companies with predominantly positive reviews, were the negative reviews were all effectively sued away, presumably hurt Glassdoor's model more than they help it, so it's in their best interests to flag "bad" companies using other means.
Also, "good" vs "bad" is an oversimplification. In reality the most likely outcome is that this badge will become another point for companies to game. But if the result of that it acts as a disincentive to suing employees that leave bad reviews, to me that's presumably a good outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, this subpoena is possible because of this US statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782 Edit: there is even a Wiki page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1782_Discovery
upvoted for relevance, but really it's NZ law that fails to sufficiently protect free speech
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.…
If you experience deliberate techniques* used to erode your sanity inside-outside the company, then no matter the cost, you must make sure it gets public. There is an ongoing epidemic at certain companies where individuals who refuse to become a lapdog on all fours, who reject the brainwashing experiments and who reject the pretend you are stupid and should not excel in your job mantra are forced out. * psyops: runni…
Is this supposed to be a moral obligation? I'd be careful about putting moral obligations on other people.
As long as your reviews are true and factual based, they don't have much of a case against you (libel or defamation), with exceptions of course like Depp v. Heard which wasn't trialed in the court of Virginia but really trialed in the court of public opinions and lots of lawyers thought Depp would loose.
Another exception to the high bar of winning libel/defamation case is Bollea v. Gawker - which Peter Thiel has enough deep pocket to literally bankrupted Gawker media.
Otherwise, stay truth state facts in reviews, you should be fine for the most scenarios.
This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…
They already do that. https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm > 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.
1) This alert doesn't show up at all on mobile.
2) IMO this should either affect the overall score or be displayed in search results as well, which is not currently the case: https://www.glassdoor.com/Search/results.htm?keyword=ZURU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already do that. https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm > 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.
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. But it could be better: 1) This alert doesn't show up at all on mobile. 2) IMO this should either affect the overall score or be displayed in search results as well, which is not currently the case: https://www.glassdoor.com/Search/results.htm?keyword=ZURU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already do that. https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm > 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.
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. But it could be better: 1) This alert doesn't show up at all on mobile. 2) IMO this should either affect the overall score or be displayed in search results as well, which is not currently the case: https://www.glassdoor.com/Search/results.htm?keyword=ZURU
Having said that, apart from what you also flagged, it's also a bit bland. Like "there's some legal stuff here, exercise caution".
Instead the badge could have symbolic character, an emotive icon ... something. Something that strongly implies "Danger Will Robinson" without explicitly saying so. Something any company would want to avoid risking that thing showing next to their logo, unless it was absolutely necessary.
As it is now, all I'm getting is a bland "huh, something legal must have happened here".