7 ms·

Glassdoor has posted a notice on ZURU's page regarding this: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews

Glassdoor has posted a notice on ZURU's page regarding this: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.htm https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.h... It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/ https://www.kraken.com/) as you can see here: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Overview/Working-at-Kraken-Digital-Asset-Exchange-EI_IE938667.11,40.htm https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Overview/Working-at-Kraken-Digi... EDIT: If anyone from Glassdoor is reading this, please advise on a way to either unlink my profile from my identity - or remove my profile and contact information altogether. I believe GDPR may provide some assistance here.

ohazi 4y ago
> 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. i.e. "FFS stop writing reviews, but assume the worst is true and stay the hell away from these clowns"
- 300bps 4y ago
  Wow. That statement is the worst kind of review any potential employee could ever read.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    Yeah. Definitely Streisand effected themselves. Wonder if they can sue their own legal counsel for causing themselves so much monetary loss (given that's the grounds they're using to de-anonymize the reviewers)?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Yah. The reviews didn't even look that bad. Nothing like getting lots of press for suing critical employees to improve your rep.
      - _archon_ 4y ago
        The... remaining reviews may not look that bad. I imagine a scenario may exist where a fired employee has to sign an NDA and take down their review to receive severance or suchlike.
        astura 4y ago
        The review that started this legal case was reposted to Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_glassdoor_review_read_the_review_they_dont/ https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_gla...
      - ahaferburg 4y ago
        They didn't sue the employees.
        mlyle 4y ago
        Not yet, but they need to know who the employees are, first. In their filing against Glassdoor, they declared their intent to sue the employees. The judge's order only permits them to use the information for the purpose of pursuing defamation actions in New Zealand: > 5. Zuru may use the information disclosed by Glassdoor only for purposes of the anticipated defamation action in New Zealand. https://casetext.com/case/zuru-inc-v-glassdoor-inc https://casetext.com/case/zuru-inc-v-glassdoor-inc
    - b_mc2 4y ago
      Agreed. This banner is the new warrant canary [1] The Legal Action Canary? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
      - latexr 4y ago
        A canary is something which is present when everything is fine and removed when the situation changes. It’s a stealthy technique for when you can’t be explicit. Adding a giant red warning at the top of a page is the opposite of a canary.
    - edisondotme 4y ago
      Ha, like poking more holes in a sinking ship!
Someone1234 4y ago
That's actually a fantastic response. - Reminds reviewers to avoid libel, since it may undergo legal review. - Tells potential employees or customers that this is how the company responds to bad press/negativity (i.e. disproportionately). - Doesn't subject Glassdoor to potential libel since the statement is objectively true (see court records). Although I won't get too positive about Glassdoor as I've read negative reviews disappear[0]. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_removes_bad_reviews/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_...
- onelovetwo 4y ago
  If they really wanted to make a statement they would boot them from their platform.
  - poisonborz 4y ago
    This is both more fair and more informative than censoring the company altogether.
- cubancigar11 4y ago
  I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc. I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and concocted a story where I have falsely accused someone of sexual harassasment and since it is false, I can be fired without that 2 months of money. Then they asked my to nicely sign a letter where I forfeit that salary willingly or they will report "this gross misconduct" to future employers. My review in Glassdoor lasted a year.
  - Mandatum 4y ago
    PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it. Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.
gumby 4y ago
That may not help former zuru’s employees but obviously is a clear message to prospective ones. A nice FU from Glassdoor. More interestingly it’s a nice way to forestall future lawsuits as well.
- pcurve 4y ago
  They're going to have a heck of a time hiring. I hope this gets a lot of media attention globally.
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  Not a good look on the current employees either that their firm sues for bad feedback. Probably good idea to start looking to move on to firms with better practices.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jarym 4y ago
That’s really gonna help the Zuru recruitment effort
bibabaloo 4y ago
> It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/ https://www.kraken.com/) Kraken is still silly for going after them, IMO, but the Kraken case isn't as cut and dry. The person who had left the review on Kraken had accepted a large severance package that was conditional on signing a NDA. I think the bad PR Kraken got for going after them wasn't worth it (especially as the review wasn't really even that bad) but the ex-employee was also not really in the right there either, having violated their NDA.
- mehlmao 4y ago
  Who cares if they violated an NDA? NDAs are supposed to protect company secrets, not prevent criticism.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    It’s a contractual agreement to not air dirty laundry in exchange for money. If you want to bitch about the company publicly, don’t accept a payment not to.
    - gzer0 4y ago
      Unfortunately, this is not true. An NDA is not a free pass to being able to censor whatever you want, even if the person signing the NDA took a fee, or received payment. "NDAs do not prohibit people from reporting suspected corrupt conduct to an appropriate authority. The Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 provide safeguards that allow people who have signed an NDA to report suspected wrongdoing, including corrupt conduct, maladministration and the misuse of public resources. Under no circumstances do they oblige people who have signed them to maintain secrecy about suspected wrongdoing. You can still report suspected wrongdoing despite signing an NDA." [1] https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publications/CCC/Prevention-in-focus-Use-of-non-disclosure-agreements-what%20are-the-corruption-risks-2020.pdf https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publicat...
      - 4y ago
druvisc 4y ago
> At this time, we do not allow members who have created their accounts with Facebook or Google+ to edit their Account Settings. We apologize for any inconvenience as we work to change this. :)
latexr 4y ago
Opened the Glassdoor page and content was obscured (including part of the warning banner) with a large unskippable overlay to “Sign up for free to continue using Glassdoor”. In light of these news, perhaps they should reconsider that policy.
Gareth321 4y ago
This is excellent. I'll never work for a company with that warning message.

ohazi 4y ago

> 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. i.e. "FFS stop writing reviews, but assume the worst is true and stay the hell away from these clowns"

300bps 4y ago
Wow. That statement is the worst kind of review any potential employee could ever read.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Yeah. Definitely Streisand effected themselves. Wonder if they can sue their own legal counsel for causing themselves so much monetary loss (given that's the grounds they're using to de-anonymize the reviewers)?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Yah. The reviews didn't even look that bad. Nothing like getting lots of press for suing critical employees to improve your rep.
    - _archon_ 4y ago
      The... remaining reviews may not look that bad. I imagine a scenario may exist where a fired employee has to sign an NDA and take down their review to receive severance or suchlike.
      - astura 4y ago
        The review that started this legal case was reposted to Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_glassdoor_review_read_the_review_they_dont/ https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_gla...
    - ahaferburg 4y ago
      They didn't sue the employees.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Not yet, but they need to know who the employees are, first. In their filing against Glassdoor, they declared their intent to sue the employees. The judge's order only permits them to use the information for the purpose of pursuing defamation actions in New Zealand: > 5. Zuru may use the information disclosed by Glassdoor only for purposes of the anticipated defamation action in New Zealand. https://casetext.com/case/zuru-inc-v-glassdoor-inc https://casetext.com/case/zuru-inc-v-glassdoor-inc
  - b_mc2 4y ago
    Agreed. This banner is the new warrant canary [1] The Legal Action Canary? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
    - latexr 4y ago
      A canary is something which is present when everything is fine and removed when the situation changes. It’s a stealthy technique for when you can’t be explicit. Adding a giant red warning at the top of a page is the opposite of a canary.
  - edisondotme 4y ago
    Ha, like poking more holes in a sinking ship!

Someone1234 4y ago

That's actually a fantastic response. - Reminds reviewers to avoid libel, since it may undergo legal review. - Tells potential employees or customers that this is how the company responds to bad press/negativity (i.e. disproportionately). - Doesn't subject Glassdoor to potential libel since the statement is objectively true (see court records). Although I won't get too positive about Glassdoor as I've read negative reviews disappear[0]. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_removes_bad_reviews/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_...

onelovetwo 4y ago
If they really wanted to make a statement they would boot them from their platform.
- poisonborz 4y ago
  This is both more fair and more informative than censoring the company altogether.
cubancigar11 4y ago
I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc. I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and concocted a story where I have falsely accused someone of sexual harassasment and since it is false, I can be fired without that 2 months of money. Then they asked my to nicely sign a letter where I forfeit that salary willingly or they will report "this gross misconduct" to future employers. My review in Glassdoor lasted a year.
- Mandatum 4y ago
  PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it. Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.

gumby 4y ago

That may not help former zuru’s employees but obviously is a clear message to prospective ones. A nice FU from Glassdoor. More interestingly it’s a nice way to forestall future lawsuits as well.

pcurve 4y ago
They're going to have a heck of a time hiring. I hope this gets a lot of media attention globally.
noisy_boy 4y ago
Not a good look on the current employees either that their firm sues for bad feedback. Probably good idea to start looking to move on to firms with better practices.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jarym 4y ago

That’s really gonna help the Zuru recruitment effort

bibabaloo 4y ago

> It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken (https://www.kraken.com/ https://www.kraken.com/) Kraken is still silly for going after them, IMO, but the Kraken case isn't as cut and dry. The person who had left the review on Kraken had accepted a large severance package that was conditional on signing a NDA. I think the bad PR Kraken got for going after them wasn't worth it (especially as the review wasn't really even that bad) but the ex-employee was also not really in the right there either, having violated their NDA.

mehlmao 4y ago
Who cares if they violated an NDA? NDAs are supposed to protect company secrets, not prevent criticism.
- kortilla 4y ago
  It’s a contractual agreement to not air dirty laundry in exchange for money. If you want to bitch about the company publicly, don’t accept a payment not to.
  - gzer0 4y ago
    Unfortunately, this is not true. An NDA is not a free pass to being able to censor whatever you want, even if the person signing the NDA took a fee, or received payment. "NDAs do not prohibit people from reporting suspected corrupt conduct to an appropriate authority. The Crime and Corruption Act 2001 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 provide safeguards that allow people who have signed an NDA to report suspected wrongdoing, including corrupt conduct, maladministration and the misuse of public resources. Under no circumstances do they oblige people who have signed them to maintain secrecy about suspected wrongdoing. You can still report suspected wrongdoing despite signing an NDA." [1] https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publications/CCC/Prevention-in-focus-Use-of-non-disclosure-agreements-what%20are-the-corruption-risks-2020.pdf https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publicat...
    - 4y ago

druvisc 4y ago

> At this time, we do not allow members who have created their accounts with Facebook or Google+ to edit their Account Settings. We apologize for any inconvenience as we work to change this. :)

latexr 4y ago

Opened the Glassdoor page and content was obscured (including part of the warning banner) with a large unskippable overlay to “Sign up for free to continue using Glassdoor”. In light of these news, perhaps they should reconsider that policy.

Gareth321 4y ago

This is excellent. I'll never work for a company with that warning message.