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

Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#31

Post by yardie »

alexanderstears wrote: post #9
yardie wrote: post #8

Let me guess. Salesforce will blame the guards. Because the workers with the least amount of influence share an inordinate amount of blame. Some platitudes about being a welcoming company when clearly they weren't. Finally, a small donation to appears the media. And things will continue on as usual.

The guards were the ones who told the students they didn't belong there and the ones who made the determination to eject the students. Unless Salesforce commanded the guards to eject the students, the guards failed to use their judgement properly and they failed to handle the situation gracefully.

The guards have a watch commander who is supposed to make the judgement call. The watch commander was given instructions on who was and wasn't supposed to be there, most likely from Salesforce's on head of security, which he relayed to the guards.

I imagine Salesforce created a standing order to have any removed that didn't have the correct badge. This was passed on to the watch commander and, unless Salesforce intervened, if asked for clarification by the guards the watch commander would re-iterate the standing order.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#32

Post by FreeCrypto »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #24
FreeCrypto wrote: post #12

Personally, I would like to thank Salesforce for a strong security presence at the event. There were bomb sniffing dogs, many security staff, and vehicle barriers with armed guards at street entrances. Despite being a sponsor and speaker at the event, I was denied access (due to different badge type) to the expo hall to help the rest of our company setup our booth. It was frustrating, but at least the security was pa…

You're happy they had security theater in full effect even though it inconvenienced you and others?

Yep. My company paid a lot of money to sponsor a booth and make sure the majority of our interactions were with customers that we could sell to/partner with. Having a free for all would have greatly diminished the value of our time there.

I should note, I don't know which part of the show this group was trying to enter (Developer Zone, Expo Hall, Keynote Talk). As I mentioned, I enjoyed talking with a number of the STEM student groups that came through the expo hall.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#33

Post by praneshp »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23
RickHull wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it explains the behavior of the security guards, presuming they didn't "get the memo" about a small group of people with fake-looking badges that are actually legitimate.

Again, why would the security guards not trust the judgment of an employee of the company that hired them? In the absence of an immediate and obvious threat, how is that justified?

> Again, why would the security guards not trust the judgment of an employee of the company that hired them?

This would be a stupid thing to do, even at the office. They could listen maybe the director of physical security, etc, but not a random employee. Especially for a company of Salesforce's size.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#34

Post by viraptor »

FreeCrypto wrote: post #26
dcole2929 wrote: post #13

While I agree that security guards are most responsible here at the end of the day they are correct to blame Salesforce. If you hold an event you are ultimately responsible for what the staff does, even when they are just contractors. And that's both from a legal, and optics perspective. In this case, Salesforce did these kids a disservice by providing them substantially different badges from other attendants, and by…

Mostly agree. The Salesforce employee should have been able to escalate the issue to the right people to get it solved. Simply having a Salesforce employee vouching for them should have been rejected, as it was. There are thousands of Salesforce employees at the event, not all of them should have the power to override a guards instructions. So the guard acted correctly in that way, but sounds like they took it way to…

> Simply having a Salesforce employee vouching for them should have been rejected, as it was.

It could be handled better. If there's a disagreement from anyone in the company that hired you, you can always escalate inside that company. They could've checked the situation with someone who does have a final say in this case.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#35

Post by viraptor »

FreeCrypto wrote: post #32
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're happy they had security theater in full effect even though it inconvenienced you and others?

Yep. My company paid a lot of money to sponsor a booth and make sure the majority of our interactions were with customers that we could sell to/partner with. Having a free for all would have greatly diminished the value of our time there. I should note, I don't know which part of the show this group was trying to enter (Developer Zone, Expo Hall, Keynote Talk). As I mentioned, I enjoyed talking with a number of the S…

I find it quite weird that you're putting "free for all" as an alternative to armed guards at a conference. There's a whole spectrum in between that conferences happily operate in in other places. Like having gates / pass checks, but without involving armed security. I've never seen that before and hope never will.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#36

Post by viraptor »

praneshp wrote: post #33
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, why would the security guards not trust the judgment of an employee of the company that hired them? In the absence of an immediate and obvious threat, how is that justified?

> Again, why would the security guards not trust the judgment of an employee of the company that hired them? This would be a stupid thing to do, even at the office. They could listen maybe the director of physical security, etc, but not a random employee. Especially for a company of Salesforce's size.

If a random employee told them the badges are ok, they should've deferred to someone who can make the decision. Either a) the employee's right and the badges are ok, or b) the employee's trying to trick security and should be reported to the company. They did not have to make a final decision on the spot.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#37

Post by rhapsodic »

FreeCrypto wrote: post #26
dcole2929 wrote: post #13

While I agree that security guards are most responsible here at the end of the day they are correct to blame Salesforce. If you hold an event you are ultimately responsible for what the staff does, even when they are just contractors. And that's both from a legal, and optics perspective. In this case, Salesforce did these kids a disservice by providing them substantially different badges from other attendants, and by…

Mostly agree. The Salesforce employee should have been able to escalate the issue to the right people to get it solved. Simply having a Salesforce employee vouching for them should have been rejected, as it was. There are thousands of Salesforce employees at the event, not all of them should have the power to override a guards instructions. So the guard acted correctly in that way, but sounds like they took it way to…

>So the guard acted correctly in that way, but sounds like they took it way too far - “Your kind don’t belong in here.” WTF!?

I don't believe those words were spoken.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#38

Post by FreeCrypto »

viraptor wrote: post #35
FreeCrypto wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. My company paid a lot of money to sponsor a booth and make sure the majority of our interactions were with customers that we could sell to/partner with. Having a free for all would have greatly diminished the value of our time there. I should note, I don't know which part of the show this group was trying to enter (Developer Zone, Expo Hall, Keynote Talk). As I mentioned, I enjoyed talking with a number of the S…

I find it quite weird that you're putting "free for all" as an alternative to armed guards at a conference. There's a whole spectrum in between that conferences happily operate in in other places. Like having gates / pass checks, but without involving armed security. I've never seen that before and hope never will.

Sorry for the confusion, there was a spectrum. I don't think we're in disagreement here, you may be envisioning things that were not happening.

To clarify, Security Guards checking badges wore suit jackets and did not appear to be armed. They mostly said things like "please turn your badges forward", "sorry you can't go in there yet, only [X] badges right now". The few people with the bomb sniffing dogs I think were armed. The people that were very clearly armed were outside the conference standing at the vehicle barricades, there were a limited number of them.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#39

Post by praneshp »

viraptor wrote: post #36
praneshp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, why would the security guards not trust the judgment of an employee of the company that hired them? This would be a stupid thing to do, even at the office. They could listen maybe the director of physical security, etc, but not a random employee. Especially for a company of Salesforce's size.

If a random employee told them the badges are ok, they should've deferred to someone who can make the decision. Either a) the employee's right and the badges are ok, or b) the employee's trying to trick security and should be reported to the company. They did not have to make a final decision on the spot.

Maybe they should have done (b), sure. Otherwise, the badges are not ok for security, and a random employee telling them anything doesn't change status quo.

Re: Low income SF students from Mission nonprofit ejected from Dreamforce

#40

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #29
alexanderstears wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the legal system constrains what employers can consider in candidates. Perhaps these hires would have failed a cognitive test? Unfortunately, we'll never know because the courts read disparate impact as proof of discrimination. It's an ugly truth, but we would be better off with more discrimination. Stupid people should hold less power in society and discrimination is the means to keep stupid people away from pow…

> Unfortunately, we'll never know because the courts read disparate impact as proof of discrimination. “Disparate impact” which is prrof of illegal discrimination is not just unequal impact by protected category, it's unequal impact that cannot be shown to be sufficiently tied to job function. > Stupid people should hold less power in society and discrimination is the means to keep stupid people away from power. “Stu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN