Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9449286" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I didn't attempt to redirect anything. I pointed out that his messaging is unclear, and does in fact identify "shareholders" in a broad sense. You are assuming that he meant something much more specific. You may be right, but he intentionally chose to leave it more vague, and as he is a communications expert, I am assuming he had a purpose for doing so.If he wanted to make the point that you are making, he could have done so. He made a point that allows you to interpret it to suit your worldview, and others to interpret it in their's. In other words, spin.I'm also unimpressed by your uncalled for snark. I am addressing you civilly. You seem to want to make my criticism of his post personal. It's not; I don't know the guy and I wish him well. I'm just stating my opinion, which is that as a prospective employer I would find that particular post worrisome.Hard to say. It's certainly not a point in his favour. In my profession, lack of discretion is seen as a very serious problem. Typically, we shortlist down to 3-5 strong candidates, and then we look at them very closely.That seems like a stretch, to me. It seems to me like a reasonable response to have concerns about someone badmouthing both their former employer and a potentially wide swath of people with intentionally vague language.Objectionable to who? Calling shareholders an expletive is a pretty widely directed insult.I take it you've never worked with anyone who's had issues with their employer that were not entirely the employer's fault. I have worked with plenty of folks who have had beef, some of it justified, some of it not.You are using this one instance, that none of us know much about, to justify some pretty broad statements about employer/employee relationships everywhere. I quite like my employer. I don't agree with every decision and policy 100%, but who does? I feel like I have a voice, and if I left for a new job, which I have considered when other opportunities have arisen, I wouldn't badmouth them just because I didn't agree with every decision.Most companies would rather not hire someone who is likely to badmouth them when they leave. Sometimes, employees have very reasonable complaints. But not all the time.How would you feel about employers badmouthing their employees after they leave?So all employees are saints, and can never be unreasonable or vindictive? Obviously, we all agree that employees should be treated well. I'm an employee, and I expect to be treated well. Treated well does not equal my employer requiring my agreement for every decision.That could be an issue, or this could be a person who goes on vendettas and doesn't mind taking it public. When you're hiring someone, you don't always know the full picture, so this would be a cautionary sign. You'd want to look into it.No he didn't. He didn't say anything about how he personally was treated. He made a broad and not entirely clear claim about corporate policy. One that in a broad sense, I am sympathetic to, assuming that you are interpreting his statement correctly. I still would be unlikely to hire him in my profession, but given that he is being hired to do spin, it's probably not an issue. Or he wouldn't have done it. In fact, given that he is going into an ideological job, being willing to troll a bit is probably an asset in current American politics. I would not be surprised if he was making a bit of a statement to impress his new employers.</blockquote>

Verification