Seriously? Sex trafficking & abuse especially of underage people isn't a "live and let live" thing.
Neither are co-workers assigning hundreds of thousands of dollars in vendor contracts to themselves or their organization. If you think the author was too far removed from sex trafficking allegations to make an issue of it then this one is still very much appropriate to raise a red flag over.
Yes, which I mentioned, so thank you for restating my second point.
Failure of immediate managers to act on employees giving themselves hundred of thousands of dollars in contracts seems a good issue to speak out about, especially when the author might have been fired in retaliation for bringing the issue up in the first place. Your attempt to minimize it as just "... wine" is a thin veil to cover such a casual dismissal of the issue.
What exactly do you object to here? What threshold of wrongdoing do you hold up as necessary to cross before speaking out is appropriate? You're willing to shove aside illegal firing and unethical self-dealing, so what is enough to stop you from being annoyed that a person goes public on something like this? It feels very strange to need to defend the author's actions as reasonable, so I'm at a loss to understand your point of view here. Are you upset the author is making an issue of it in the first place, or simply that it's getting this much attention? Or is the issue that it probably wouldn't be considered newsworthy if Google or other high profile company wasn't involved? I have to think think there's something more substantial behind your opinion to be so dismissive of the issue, so what is it?
> Seriously? Sex trafficking & abuse especially of underage people isn't a "live and let live" thing.
Definitely not. However, they were allegations made over 25 years ago, that led nowhere. So, to revive them as if they are a thing that actually is happening now is dishonest.
> Neither are co-workers assigning hundreds of thousands of dollars in vendor contracts to themselves or their organization.
Again, not a thing that happened. The winery in question is Grant Marie, which is not owned by the cult. It is, however, run by an ex-member - the one that used to run the cult's winery.
And, as to the nepotism, the hiring is done by the same outside firm as that which hired Lloyd himself, so, again, not under the control of the cult.
> I'm at a loss to understand your point of view here.
I despise fear-mongering and FUD on principle. Much evil has been done by self-righteous, frightened people who have convinced each other that monsters hide amongst the shadows. Hopefully, your rational skepticism has been triggered. But, if you're like most people, probably not.
Possible. But when people say "what's the harm", well, it's spelled out in the linked Medium post. Meanwhile "I wonder if XYZ" has the disadvantage of not being substantiated by anything.
After reviewing the NYT article, there's much that independently vet's the claims put forward by Kevin Lloyd, the author of this Medium piece. Most notable in support of Kevin Lloyd's portrayal is the fact the director of GDS has already been successfully sued by someone else for similar treatment.
It's pretty clear from the linked article that there was no continuous reporting. In fact he never reported if officially, not once. He had multiple discussions about it with a friend that was outside of his reporting chain and was fired more than a year after his last stated contact with any another employee over the matter.
Each comment of yours seeking to dismiss the issue stretches the bounds of reason even further, each one more tenuous than the last. This time you are even going so far as to turn the situation around and claim that-- counter to any evidence-- he is himself the villain with others the victim of his harassment. What began as somewhat reasonable questions about the issue by you has, as myself & others have addressed your points, grown into the ridiculous.
Neither are co-workers assigning hundreds of thousands of dollars in vendor contracts to themselves or their organization. If you think the author was too far removed from sex trafficking allegations to make an issue of it then this one is still very much appropriate to raise a red flag over.