Did he tweet her full name, or just Kimberly S, as the article says?
I find it interesting that everyone defending the airline thinks the issue is that the guy didn't get upgraded.
The actual issue is how they responded to his criticism.
First, this only applies to whomever is controlling the account in question (@SWA). In this case, I'm sure they have an entire team that handles this (also includes Facebook, etc) at the corporate level. No one at the airport would/should have this access. In my preferred app, it shows up as another tab (Mentions), and can be configured to give you various notifications.
If an account is public, anyone can view any tweets they made, and you can search for various terms (including, but not limited to, #Hashtags)
While the article doesn't say it, I'm guessing he later tweeted again with @SWA, with his complaint. That's when corporate noticed, and issued the apology.
Interestingly enough, @SWA is currently suspended by Twitter.
I wrote them off after the Kevin Smith incident. Yes, I do remember some of these things.
I need to start keeping an annotated blacklist though, because these things pop up frequently.
And apparently follows the Twitter feed like a hawk.
Seriously, who (outside of the corporate social media team) follows their employer's Twitter feed closely enough to respond while he was still there?
I was going to post this exact idea. If these jobs are really in such high demand, the salaries will reflect that.
It may not help the situation on the high end (e.g. H1B making $150k, instead of the industry average $200k for a given position) but it would certainly eliminate the problem on the cheap end
Most of them. I have installed a modified BIOS on many motherboards from many brands. (See BIOS-Mods.com for more info)
The challenge is finding a working replacement.
You have to focus on the upsides - these guys will handle almost all of the software development, for free.
Also, it's easy enough to restrict who gets any meaningful IP, and who gets the same blobs available to all.
An interesting idea, but you have to remember that Hollywood Accounting is already in place.
Example: Walmart (etc) is under too much scrutiny, so they can't hire any illegals directly. However, they contract janitorial duties to some small, local firm, with minimal oversight. This firm then hires all of the illegals, and takes the fall when the time comes. They quickly declare bankruptcy, and get away with it. Meanwhile, Walmart has already reaped the benefit.
This doesn't even account for shell corporations and the like.
There's probably a lot of stuff that you've looked at over time that changes what they think of you. There's really no way of knowing how interested you are in something, only what you've been interested in. Check your Youtube history - I bet there's a LOT of stuff in there that you really don't care about that's skewing the results. This includes any random YouTube link you've clicked.
Related: Tivo Thinks I'm Gay
Failing that, If YouTube actually doesn't know anything about you, or it can't find more appropriate ads, it will default to mass-market ads for things like cars, sugar-water, and new movies.
This is how Hulu operates with the default Adblock settings.
It's still a lot better than seeing the same ad for hippie soap, or some menopause drug, every single time.
Thing is, there is no trust in the chain of connections. While my telco can tell where the call came in to their system, it would have to trust that the next link is being honest. Eventually, your options are to block all calls from entire countries, or do nothing, since it's all spoofed.
Now, I am OK with blocking all calls that originate in another country, but many would not be.
I've always wondered why there weren't honeypot IDs. Fake SS#, card numbers, etc, that would serve as a red flag of fraudulent activity. While the calls may be untraceable, most payloads should not be.
if it is corporate policy not to say anything beyond verifying dates of employment and possibly other facts such as title and last salary.
But that's not what you said. You said "We can only say positive things about the employee. I will therefore remain silent."
This is very different from "Our policy says that we cannot give any review of any employee's service"
While it may be difficult to get the new employer to say why they didn't hire you, there are plenty that will admit that it happened at the reference check.
If you can intentionally convey a message, it can be taken that way, and be used in court that way. A jury would certainly agree that it was meant as a negative review.
Specifics may be difficult to nail down, but financial harm would be easy enough to prove. Even worse, this doesn't even have the benefit of using truth as an absolute defense.