4 ms·

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

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 not doing enough to keep them in once they confronted problems. The head of the outing mentions that their contact tried to keep the guards from kicking them out but I have to question how an actual employee vouching for them wasn't enough. Seems like the ball was dropped several times, by multiple different parties.

FreeCrypto 9y ago
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 too far - “Your kind don’t belong in here.” WTF!?
- viraptor 9y ago
  > 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.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >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.
alexanderstears 9y ago
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 power.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 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. “Stupid people” are not a protected class; discrimination against “stupid people” is not generally prohibited, nor where this is actually tied directly to job performance is discrimination against “stupid people” that incidentally has effects on a protected class owing exclusively to the distribution of stupidity.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

FreeCrypto 9y ago

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 too far - “Your kind don’t belong in here.” WTF!?

viraptor 9y ago
> 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.
rhapsodic 9y ago
>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.

alexanderstears 9y ago

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 power.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> 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. “Stupid people” are not a protected class; discrimination against “stupid people” is not generally prohibited, nor where this is actually tied directly to job performance is discrimination against “stupid people” that incidentally has effects on a protected class owing exclusively to the distribution of stupidity.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]