Red Balloon jobsite

Just saw this on Fox... someone needs to learn about branding...

"Red" Balloon started in "Moscow" Idaho.

Like the idea of the site. anit-Woke jobsite. But come on, this just screams "conspiracy theory".

 

Wait...there is a job site dedicated to conservative/QAnon job seekers?

How long until it gets the Gab or Parler designation and rumors of FBI infiltration run rampant?

Curious what an anti-woke company looks like? I'd think that would be a company just waiting for the next employment-related lawsuit. The labor laws are not friendly to anti-woke companies or employees.

 

From the website:
We connect employers who value freedom with employees who value it too. We envision a world beyond cancel culture, where employees are free to work... without fear that they will find themselves on the wrong side of their employer’s politics.

That’s it. No agendas, politics, or drama. Just work. Interested? Let’s create that world together.

 

This is going to be a short, fun ride. The Mr. Freeze of worksite job services.

 

Interesting. Would love to get @Mr. Deez view on how those companies can stay aligned to current labor law/practices. I've only worked for "woke" retail/tech companies in the PNW but it seems to me that modern HR practices are geared to limit lawsuits. "Cancel Culture" is usually tied to anti-harassment or public comments antithetical to a businesses bottom line.

I can see that maybe working in small business (construction?) fields but they also list IT. Unless you are working for Epik in IT you're likely going to have to endure the more traditional HR risk aversion policies.

 

If they are advertising on FoxNews they have funding. Of course, Mr. Pillow has spent a boatload of money on advertising on FoxNews too, more than I could fathom a pillow company could afford.

 

i work for a very large bank and our "cancel culture" has evolved to include comments that people make outside of work on personal websites. I have seen several investigations opened because someone made a comment on FB, and then some activist took it upon themselves to tie that persons personal FB persona to their Linked Persona and then report that person to our public page. And we are taking that crap seriously enough to open investigations. On top of that, the initial allegation email is shared to hundred of internal employees before it is even verified/validated. the lawsuits are going to start flying the other way pretty soon.

 

I can state with confidence that private company policies favoring those with certain birth characteristics represent the problem. Stopping racism and favoritism was the entire idea behind employment practice laws in in the first place. Reverse discrimination is not a better idea. For the dorks that agree with such policies, I look forward to your asses getting caught in your own web of bullshite.

 

I'm not disputing any of that. Companies are making a "business decision" to cancel employees who make controversial comments in a personal capacity. Heck the SC just decided in favor of a Cheerleader who was booted for social media comments. With that said, if you're an At-Will Employment state the workers have very little protection. The company doesn't need a reason for termination so simply removing a PR Headache can be enough.

From my perspective, this site is selling services to companies open to accepting that PR Headache. "Freedom" can be translated many ways and maybe these are the types of companies that don't value HR or PR. It's doubtful that activist shaming individual companies can impact small-ish blue collar employers though Google Reviews and their ilk can be painful to these companies' bottom line. Larger companies beware though. The reason those companies are "woke" is because of their customers desire to support "woke" companies.

 

There are a boat load of reasons you cannot fire, or even refuse to hire, employees in an At Will employment situation, and the strongest reasons involve discrimination, which is what we are discussing.

 

And you have those statistics handy, right?

 

I don't have my employer on any of my social media.

 

probably smart. Some of these investigations seem to indicate the activist-sleuth was willing to go to great lengths reviewing old threads/comments to be able to suss out who the subject worked for.

 

Like I've told my kids from the moment they were allowed on the internet, be prepared for anything you post to live forever. Be very careful of the image you project to future employers, schools, friends and family with your posting. In other words, don't be an idiot.

LinkedIn for career with NO political posts and Facebook for personal posts. Still, in neither forum do I pick fights that are nasty. It's tough too since I have some friends that are every bit as ornery as a few people here and seem to specialize in misinformation. I simply correct them with verification sites then move on as they dosey doe out of their spread of misinformation.

Even for Hornfans, if I was doxed I'm not that concerned about my posting habits. Most are defensible in the context of the discussion.

 

I'm so happy you stay above the fray and only post verifiable, quality information.

 

Smart move. A smarter move would be to avoid social media altogether.

 

Hornfans/West Mall is Social Media.

 

Anything can get back to your employer. Furthermore, you can never know who might see your posts that could screw with you in the future and can't foresee what could offend someone in the future.

 

It depends entirely on the specifics. If they are generally tolerant of conservative viewpoints on the job, they'll be fine. Where they could run into trouble is if they get some Richard Spencer-type spouting off on the job and harassing other employees and the manager doesn't do anything about it. If extreme enough, it can create a hostile work environment.

Again, it sorta depends on the specifics. When it comes to cracking down on harassment, then I would agree. However, when a company actively discriminates on the basis of race in its hiring even to create a diverse workforce, it's taking a significant lawsuit risk especially with the current Supreme Court that actually cares what the Civil Rights Act says.

I don't think they're doing it for risk management reasons. I think they're doing it for marketing and PR reasons. The problem is that this doesn't give them a defense against a discrimination lawsuit. Early Title VII cases attempted the "we aren't racists but our customers are" defense. It didn't fly.