How is it slavery if it's a contract either party can decide to remain committed to or not? It's either party's free choice. Last I checked, that wasn't the case when it came to slavery. I mean...to quote y'all leftists: "I'm not saying I agree with what she did...but I understand." People are saying they feel stressed - free them from what stressed them - everyone benefits. Of course, the part where this is "mean" (and the part that makes it funny, I'm sorry) is that people would obviously rightfully feel deceived if they thought this was a survey that was actually targeted at making them work less and feel better, and this is what they got instead and that the HR lady was stupid enough to put what the company did in an e-mail. Objectively, the outcome is the correct one, from the company's perspective, and if one is honest, also from the affected employees' perspective. But you can't say it openly lol. Or maybe in India you can. I don't know.
The only people who had slaves was apparently Diddy He made them do some freaky stuff breh @Rocket River @AroundTheWorld Him and jay z went bad boy for real
My team big dic, your team smal dic.... And you still want to be on your team? Omg lol /tweet - Srs Online Adult Politics 2024
It was a publicity stunt suckas. Anger after Indian start-up pretends to sack stressed staff A few days ago, an internal email from Yes Madam went viral on social media, in which employees were informed that the company had decided to "part ways" with those who had reported feeling stressed at work. But on Tuesday, the start-up clarified that it hadn't fired anyone and that the social media posts were part of a "planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress". The campaign has sparked mixed reactions online, with some praising it for drawing attention to an important topic and others criticising the company for misleading people and "toying" with their emotions. Some users also pointed out that the campaign had succeeded in propelling an almost unheard of brand into the limelight in a matter of hours. "Free promotion done right, huh? Who needs a marketing budget when you have outrage as your social media manager?" one user posted on LinkedIn. This isn't the first time that a start-up has courted controversy for indulging in a questionable publicity campaign. Last month, the founder of an Indian food delivery platform received bouquets and brickbats after he posted a job opening for the position of "chief of staff" but said that the candidate would not be paid for a year and would instead have to donate two million rupees to the company's non-profit venture that aims to provide food to the poor. He later claimed that more than 10,000 people had applied for the job but didn't mention if anyone had actually been hired for the post. In February, a celebrity faced massive backlash online after she feigned her death to draw attention to cervical cancer. Many users said that the publicity stunt was deeply traumatising to those who had actually lost friends and family to the illness. The marketing agency responsible for the campaign later apologised, but these controversies haven't stopped brands from pushing the limits of advertising to bizarre levels. Brand experts say that while such marketing gimmicks might help a brand shoot into the limelight, it does not necessarily boost the longevity or success of the company. On the contrary, it might do it more harm than good. Brands need to understand the difference between exaggeration and telling a blatant lie, says Karthik Srinivasan, a branding and communications consultant. "Exaggeration is an accepted and successful advertising strategy, where a brand uses creative licence to push the limits of the truth to make a point," he says. "But the exaggeration is so obvious or conspicuous that a consumer isn't likely or expected to believe it," he adds. He gives the example of the Axe deodorant ads, which would often show a scrawny-looking man transforming into a magnet for women as soon as he sprays himself with the deodorant. "But telling a blatant lie has no place in ethical advertising," Mr Srinivasan says. Brands engage in such extreme campaigns because they can garner massive publicity while using little to no funds. The idea is to pick topics that are likely to evoke strong opinions, thereby ensuring that people engage with the campaign, whether they like it or not, Mr Srinivasan says. In the case of the viral campaign by the beauty start-up, the company's email touched a chord with many professionals, who then shared it on their LinkedIn or X (formerly Twitter) profiles, criticising the company for its insensitivity and lack of care towards its employees. "Firing someone for being stressed at work is a serious issue and was definitely going to evoke strong reactions," Mr Srinivasan explains. But such campaigns can damage a brand or a company's reputation in the eyes of its employees and consumers, he adds. "Credibility and trust take time to build and a brand will find it hard to shake off the negative publicity that comes with an insensitive ad campaign." Mayank Sehgal, a marketing consultant, echoes a similar view. "It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion," he says. "While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation." You might be overthinking this and the reactions from the healthcare thread. People don't like soulless companies that cruely dangle the lives of their workers or customers. It's human to think so, and it's not a left or right thing either.
Women that look like this are the ones that are going to stop having sex for the next 4 years because Trump won lol....
