The OP is a management stooge and the Admins should remove them from this site. I will continue to name Old Mikey, New Mikey and the Chief Steak Cutter as they are all guilty of profiting from hardworking employees.
6 replies (most recent on top)
Take a deep breath...it’s the power of the crowd. They are public figures and nothing being said here we wouldn’t say in person or in a “digital” email. #ISeeYouDXC
Well original poster (OP), I respect and accept your viewpoint as regards privacy, but exactly where do you choose to draw the line? That's definitely a grey area.
I've seen any number of site posts (and complete threads) removed here, because they referenced DXC individuals by name; in nearly all cases upper level management. Why else would posters regularly add hyphens, abbreviations and other characters, but to notionally obscure the names of the people they want to reference, or hide some other profanity that would otherwise be removed without question?
The line in the sand, as you point out in your own reply, is that upper management 'consciously chose to be exposed and they are public personas'. In that respect, their history, deeds, and exposed strategy must be considered fair game. Indeed, even home address details are in some cases now in the public domain (ML now in Palm Beach for example).
Your Jane Doe example though, I'd agree, is beyond the pale. There's no justification for libel against family members, their idiosyncrasies or perceived foibles. However, DXC Management is something else.
As mentioned before though, it's a fine line. In many countries, we've already reached the point where people are afraid to voice their opinion (or in some cases say anything), in case someone is 'offended' and trolls aside, the threat (or reality) of litigation follows.
You've clearly got an issue with something specific here, but for me the phrase sticks and stones comes to mind. We should all count to ten, be less confrontational, and strive to be constructive in all respects.
Accepted though, this can be difficult where DXC Management are concerned.
@ @13167qUs-rvq - Is there a line at a certain salary (Salvino, Lawrie, Mason) or how many lives you impact with your decisions (David) ? Or is it the perceived bad guys ? I only see question like „ who is the successor“ in the latest posts ... what s the problem with that. Check up the compensation these guys have. They are trough that pretty public people. Why should there be no comments or questions on execs ? Bad conscious someone?
I am the OP... No problems with freedom of speech, it's really about privacy and where you draw a line.
For example, my daughter is 27 is she just got her first lead position in her org. As such, she's butting heads with some employees and she's trying to figure it out. She's following the rules, policies, etc.
Anyhow, let's say one of the folks that she's managing may get upset, come here and be like "Jane Doe is a horrible person - she lives in XYZ and her husband John is horrible" - frankly, I think this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's an opinion with some doxxing and I just do not see greater purpose for something like this. I think we ougth to protect an individual.
When it comes to execs, take Salvino for example - they consciously chose to be exposed and they are public personas - I think that's a fair game - the corp is trying to portray them as superheros, they are creating a narattive, etc - we have every right to criticize 'public personas' - but when it comes to a little guy, some manager here or there, a director or a lead - we should give them privacy rights in order to protect our own privacy rights.
Finally, the site policy is clear and should be enforced (I think layoff.com had a fairly good reason for putting it there in the first place)...
Site policy aside, you have a problem with freedom of speech?