Two examples:
1) Hiring 14 year old slaughterhouse workers (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pssi-hired-same-child-t...)
2) Gamifying of one its genealogy websites that tracked cemetery markers, which resulted in people "claiming" victims of mass shootings for points (https://dna-explained.com/2022/06/02/find-a-grave-owned-by-a...)
I don't think so.
It's more like "hit the numbers no matter what, we don't care what you do to hit them." They hire managers that are ruthless about following through. IMHO this style of ownership is more likely to lead to otherwise avoidable situations involving lax security, teenaged slaughterhouse workers, and trophy hunters on genealogy sites.
Well yeah, pretty much?
/S
I think the expectation on a message board is that you can name drop a big private equity firm and count on voting support for them. Unfortunately for you, I've spent the last 5 years working on rolling back single-family zoning in my municipality, and an alarming amount of that work has involved pushing back on NIMBYs arguing that if we allow housing construction Blackstone (very specifically Blackstone) will just come snap all the real estate up and hoard it.
So I've had some time to marinate in this particular bit of populist rhetoric.
Evidence?
I don't understand what you even think you're getting at. Are you saying we should accept this because all companies are like this? Except not all companies are like this.
The only way this kind of thing ever gets fixed is if it's not considered acceptable. You're essentially arguing that it's acceptable. Why? It's a weird sort of kowtowing to incompetent corporations that I just don't understand. Is it that you work for one of them?
You were implicitly defending the existence of this vulnerability by making the unsupported claim that this was "true of basically all the companies that do this." When asked to back up the claim, you deflected.
I'm reminded of the banality of evil. You're not trying to be evil, you're just defending large corporations because you've irrationally concluded from some individual examples you've seen that "everyone does it", and therefore there's nothing that can or should be done about it, including even just mentioning it in a post. That's false, and you're wrong.
This is no different than blaming the big AI tool because it messed up doing work in your spaghetti codebase - “how else was I supposed to do it?”.
Stay small enough to do business properly.
Yes, this is a ding on the parent company.
How indicative it is of their other companies making the exact same mistakes is a different question.
But I’d expect issues somewhere.
It’s one of the major ethical / effectiveness issues with business - especially American business - today.
Anyhow, all else being equal, so long as I am living in a transactional society, I prefer those transactions to be with people I actually know. I like real relationships. So much of the way we are changing as a society seems to be alienating us from each other - I make a point of trying to counter that in my daily life.
On the flip side, corporate PMs tried billing my friends for damage that was questionable/grasping at best on an apartment they'd told my friends, in writing, that was going to be gutted down to the studs on the expiry of their lease.
The largest corporate PM in my county has this "look how tenant-friendly we are, we won't raise your leases just because we can" all happy and smiley website where they advertise their open listings...
... and a much less advertised site dedicated just to property owners where they "promise to get you the maximum value out of your investment, looking for every opportunity to maximize its income-earning potential (i.e. raise rents at every possible opportunity to the maximum legally allowed), and "ensuring that when you do change tenants, the minimum effort and cost is required" (i.e. bill your previous tenants for as much of their security deposit as possible, while doing as little as possible).
This led to situations where my partner and I saw that the "inspection form" for the apartment we'd left not twenty minutes prior (it was initially meant to be previously) was sitting on the desk of the property manager filled with remarks like "blinds not cleaned, needed professional cleaning", "drywall holes, needed professional repair", "odors, needed remediation, professional cleaning".
In other words, they'd planned ahead to take the deposit, and when our meeting with the PM was rescheduled it pointed out the lie, "Oh, when was this inspection and these repairs all done? In the fifteen minutes since us locking the door and going down the elevator to wait for you in the lobby?" Of course, said PM company also owned, helpfully, a carpet cleaning company, a housecleaning company, and everything else, so you knew they were going to give you a good deal (not).
"Oh... um... oops... that's a mistake, I must have printed off from a template and not tidied it up".
But this is just dueling anecdotes.
Bad customer service (intentional and otherwise) comes in all shapes and sizes!
Mom-and-pop aren’t financially insulated from threat of lawsuits. Or being looked at poorly in public.
Some random LLC in Utah? Good luck.
There's nothing wrong with pitching stories this way, but for context, if you look at this researcher's archive, they're all basically "I found a vulnerability in some big company's thingy". The news hook here is literally just "I found a GraphQL bug". This is not Alex Schapiro's most interesting front-page story (by which I mean: they've posted some genuinely interesting stuff before).