To the post about the communication DEI folks? Stepped on the wrong toes?
5 replies (most recent on top)
What did the post about DEI say or elude to?
Here is the summary of content rules listed in the footer (not my post, I’ve just copied it from one of the older threads):
- no foul language
- no personal insults
- no politics
- no religion/race/ethnicity talk
- no asking for votes (of any kind - political, union, etc)
- no threats & violence, bullying, slandering
- no personal names (ok to name c-suits as they ar public figures, not ok to name a middle manager or an employee),
- no doxxing/ posting someone's personal info of any kind (regardless of one’s position)
Jun 22 by Anonymous
3 reactions (+3/-0)
I saw that post and don’t believe that s-xism or any other ism was the motive. My opinion they were highlighting the hypocrisy of letting go productive bottom line contributors while having these feel good phony jobs that are paid a lot of money still employed.
@npm+1oHtmMQP Agreed, plus I smelled s-xism that they were deliberately targeting a woman.
Yeah - that role probably isn’t necessary, particularly in todays economic environment. But what is definitely not necessary is effectively posting someone’s resume (the individual could be identified with an easy Google search). Bill, Beau, Mike, Joe, Donta and the rest of the company killers are probably fair game, but no reason to specifically identify non execs