BSC One of the most unprofessional/arrogant co. ever

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
I do not work for BSC or in this industry, I do work for a fortune 100 company for over 17 years, and have witnessed this latest employment termination debacle conducted by BSC. While I do not know but a few of the employees who were impacted, this thread is more about BSC then it is about those employees. I have never witnessed such complete arrogance, stupidity, or gross misconduct by a large company then what BSC recently showed with this “witch hunt”. Certainly not enough room here to outline their poor judgment and mismanagement, but here are just a few key ones;
• Use of a consulting firm to conduct their investigation…a consulting group who showed nothing but unprofessionalism, poor decisions, and behaviors that alone will land their company in court. I was shocked to hear of their conduct and to think they are a “consulting firm” hired specifically to conduct an investigation on compliancy? They stepped out of compliancy from their first interviews on. Wow, and for BSC to choose such a firm only shows how ridiculous they are themselves.
• BSC’s HR group is one that leaves a lot to be desired. They couldn’t hold a candle to “real” HR organizations that reside in professional companies. I was amazed at just how amateurish they behaved; it really showed how ill-equipped they are in this area. Hell, just in my brief dealing with them they stepped out of their own policy and compliancy standards…and to think they are in charge of many of the activities that could and will end up landing their incompetent butts in court. No wonder they hired a consulting firm, they didnt have the skill sets to do it themselves.
• BCS leadership; this one amazes me, and certainly ties together why their stock price is where it is today. Guidant was a younger, more aggressive, more entrepreneurial culture, and as such they ran their business in that fashion. If BSC wanted to change that culture, and probably rightfully so, then it was up to the leaders of BSC and leaders in the Guidant division to lead in such a way….to take a hard working group and guide them to a new and might I say more professionally run organization. Instead, these leaders did nothing. They allowed the old culture, which while perhaps more aggressive but not “illegal” or “unethical, to continue to run business as usual, they fostered such behavior, in fact the leadership of the entire group expected the behaviors that were inherent in the old Guidant way…and then BSC comes in and hatches a bunch of them, while quite frankly allowing some who had far more reasons for termination to stay.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that BSC showed its true colors; amateurish, unprofessional, arrogant, and frankly stupid. While I am sorry for those impacted, I am certain that this will end up being a very good thing for all of you. Who would want to work for a company that treats long tenured employees the way they did. That is why they are ranked near the bottom of “admired” companies in their field. That is why they have awards such as “Worst CEO” and why they are not trusted by Wall Street since they are not forthcoming with financials, and inconsistent performance. The only reason they could hold any market share with such a poor solution portfolio is the relationships their employees had with their customers. So, imagine what these employees who were impacted will do when they sell solutions from the top competitors in this segment, not the lowest ranking one of the bunch. From admired companies, not one that is known to have poor management, poor leadership and poor product. So, for those who have been relieved from this debacle called BSC, have a good holiday, and just know your services will be well appreciated and respected from the top companies in this industry when you land there shortly. Taking BSC market share will be not only easy, but fun for you….

And for any BSC senior management reading this….go fuck yourselves. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You know what you did was wrong and it will come back to bite you, that I can assure you. And this is coming from someone outside your industry, no axe to grind, just a level headed person who knows bullshit when I see it. The whole lot of your senior leadership team ought to be fired for "gross incompetance in key leadership positions". Ass-clowns, all of you. And I'm not talking about all the solid RM's or VP levels, but the top brass who should be held accountable for this.
 






This is a most accurate description of the BSX, however, I am wondering if you don't work for BSX or even in the medical device industry, how on earth you have such an accurate information about BSX?

Hope you have not been implanted with Cognis or Teligen? These are ticking time bombs!
 






No, I am not with BSC nor have I ever worked in the medical field (pharma/devices, etc). I do have a lot of experience working for/with large companies and BSC certainly falls in that category. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure out what has taken place. It is one or more of the following;
• An obvious clash of cultures between Guidant and BSC. One ran more as a rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships and sell inferior product to the best of their ability. Not illegal, unethical or otherwise…just a culture that expected their employees to do a lot of relationship development, probably bc they knew that is how they could gain market share with inferior product. The other company, BSC, ran more conservative. When they bought Guidant there was obviously a clash of those two cultures.
• BSC decided to address these cultural differences after they allowed them to run rather autonomously for almost 2 years, hence in comes the consulting company; look through old emails, spend habits, etc.
• Also perhaps BSC simply wanted to downsize and chose a method that would alleviate them from paying severances…go look up the labor laws on how many downsized employees are defined as a “reduction in force” and I think you will find BSC “selected” just enough to fall under that guideline.
• And based on now how amateurish I see BSC, and how incapable they appear in so many ways, I cannot rule out one more possibility. That is that they decided to use a consulting company bc they recognized their inept ways and felt they didn’t have the proper HR and senior management to do this right. Then they made a huge error in judgment by hiring a 3rd rate consulting firm that violated just as many policies as the people they were investigating, not to mention they managed the process in such an unprofessional way. This alone will land BSC in court.
All that said, it comes down to integrity and leadership, or in this case the lack there of with BSC. If they wanted to downsize, then they should have done it like any large professional company; a handshake, a “thank you” for their years and services rendered, a severance commensurate to their contributions (especially their loyalty to BSC/Guidant during years of inferior products), and allow all parties to walk away with integrity and some semblance of dignity. No, they chose a different path, a selfish path, a path that gave no recognition to individuals who dedicated their lives to a second rate device provider.
If on the other hand BSC’s agenda was culturally driven, attempting to change the culture that Guidant had fostered for years, then they again should have done this as a large professional company would have; clear communication coming from the most senior levels, driven through and reinforced by a change in behaviors all the way top down from their leadership group within the Guidant division, continued communication on new expectations, etc. Changing a culture that was so ingrained and “expected” by Guidant is no easy task and doesn’t happen overnight. No, BSC again chose a wrong path, a path that allowed the Guidant to continue to ran as it did before, no clear communication of cultural changes, senior levels within the Guidant division making no changes in their behaviors, etc. And then one day, go out on a witch hunt and “select” some individuals to make examples out of. Again, poor judgment, arrogant choices, amateurish leadership….

At every turn there was far more professional, far more effective, and far more dignified options GSC could have taken. They were consistent, that’s for sure. They consistently chose the least professional, the least effective and the least dignified ways to try and force cultural changes. All for saving a few bucks in severance, they now will find themselves in court over this, they will see a tremendous negative hit to morale among those remaining (who wants to work for a company that treats their employees this way), and they just sent a very skilled pool of talent (and customer base) to their competition. This just screams with very amateurish leadership all the way up BSC. This was unjust, undignified, unprofessional, uncompetitive, and extremely poor judgment from their legal counsel. It’s kind of funny, one of the “causes” they list is putting the company at risk, and yet they just conducted a gross error of judgment that without question has put them in serious legal risk. Not to mention business risk with those who will be taking their professional services, their talent and their customer base to the competition.
 






Anonymous said:
No, I am not with BSC nor have I ever worked in the medical field (pharma/devices, etc). I do have a lot of experience working for/with large companies and BSC certainly falls in that category. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure out what has taken place. It is one or more of the following;
• An obvious clash of cultures between Guidant and BSC. One ran more as a rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships and sell inferior product to the best of their ability. Not illegal, unethical or otherwise…just a culture that expected their employees to do a lot of relationship development, probably bc they knew that is how they could gain market share with inferior product. The other company, BSC, ran more conservative. When they bought Guidant there was obviously a clash of those two cultures.
• BSC decided to address these cultural differences after they allowed them to run rather autonomously for almost 2 years, hence in comes the consulting company; look through old emails, spend habits, etc.
• Also perhaps BSC simply wanted to downsize and chose a method that would alleviate them from paying severances…go look up the labor laws on how many downsized employees are defined as a “reduction in force” and I think you will find BSC “selected” just enough to fall under that guideline.
• And based on now how amateurish I see BSC, and how incapable they appear in so many ways, I cannot rule out one more possibility. That is that they decided to use a consulting company bc they recognized their inept ways and felt they didn’t have the proper HR and senior management to do this right. Then they made a huge error in judgment by hiring a 3rd rate consulting firm that violated just as many policies as the people they were investigating, not to mention they managed the process in such an unprofessional way. This alone will land BSC in court.
All that said, it comes down to integrity and leadership, or in this case the lack there of with BSC. If they wanted to downsize, then they should have done it like any large professional company; a handshake, a “thank you” for their years and services rendered, a severance commensurate to their contributions (especially their loyalty to BSC/Guidant during years of inferior products), and allow all parties to walk away with integrity and some semblance of dignity. No, they chose a different path, a selfish path, a path that gave no recognition to individuals who dedicated their lives to a second rate device provider.
If on the other hand BSC’s agenda was culturally driven, attempting to change the culture that Guidant had fostered for years, then they again should have done this as a large professional company would have; clear communication coming from the most senior levels, driven through and reinforced by a change in behaviors all the way top down from their leadership group within the Guidant division, continued communication on new expectations, etc. Changing a culture that was so ingrained and “expected” by Guidant is no easy task and doesn’t happen overnight. No, BSC again chose a wrong path, a path that allowed the Guidant to continue to ran as it did before, no clear communication of cultural changes, senior levels within the Guidant division making no changes in their behaviors, etc. And then one day, go out on a witch hunt and “select” some individuals to make examples out of. Again, poor judgment, arrogant choices, amateurish leadership….

At every turn there was far more professional, far more effective, and far more dignified options GSC could have taken. They were consistent, that’s for sure. They consistently chose the least professional, the least effective and the least dignified ways to try and force cultural changes. All for saving a few bucks in severance, they now will find themselves in court over this, they will see a tremendous negative hit to morale among those remaining (who wants to work for a company that treats their employees this way), and they just sent a very skilled pool of talent (and customer base) to their competition. This just screams with very amateurish leadership all the way up BSC. This was unjust, undignified, unprofessional, uncompetitive, and extremely poor judgment from their legal counsel. It’s kind of funny, one of the “causes” they list is putting the company at risk, and yet they just conducted a gross error of judgment that without question has put them in serious legal risk. Not to mention business risk with those who will be taking their professional services, their talent and their customer base to the competition.
Click to expand...

People, this is very obviously written by an attorney based on the legal jargon and knowledge of employment laws. It's very clear to me as someone who DOES work in this business that the due diligence has already started with attorneys who are salivating over this! BSX BEWARE! This is going to hit you HARD...And I for one am going to jump off this sinking ship before the tidal wave hits! Bon Voyage!
 






Anonymous said:
This is a most accurate description of the BSX, however, I am wondering if you don't work for BSX or even in the medical device industry, how on earth you have such an accurate information about BSX?

Hope you have not been implanted with Cognis or Teligen? These are ticking time bombs!
Click to expand...

Well, as I am saddened that it has come to this...whoever wrote this is right on. I believe it is written by someone well-versed in the law. I can tell you this...as a veteran of GDT/BSX for over 10 years now, I am interviewing with the competition this week. I am in full agreement that BSX breached so many HR rules and regulations that I am extremely uncomfortable working within this company. The competition has been made well aware of what happened and is very aware that this was a sleezy way for BSX to "RIF" positions w/o compensating these people who have persevered through turmoil year after year for this company. They didn't have rationale and consistency bc if they had dug through my own email and expense reports, I would've been fired too. Any of us could be. They hand picked these people to send a huge message of fear throughout the organization and I applaud each of them for taking their cases to an atty. For the person who started this dialogue, if you are in fact an atty, I want you to know that once I solidify my employment with the competition, I am going to reach out to some of those who were impacted by this disgraceful behavior and volunteer to testify on their behalf and prove that consistency was not put into play. I can gte you that due diligence was not done across the board and they didn't look fairly into everyone's emails and expense reports. If so, there would be MANY more who were "let go," but then...oh yeah! it would have to be classified as a RIF and they would have to pay severences. They had to keep it to a certain # of people and search for reasons rather than having a consistent search across the board with every employee within the division. I agree with the person above that BSX will pay millions for this mistake. Again, you have a witness from within. I will make myself known to these reps and if you are their atty, you have me! Time will tell.
 






Some advice from a 2008 escapee:
FILE THE SUIT NOW ! precedent will be set by decisions from the various courts that will hear cases stemming from these actions.
It really is a tragedy. When I got to GDT in 2000, we had a kick-ass culture, and were really poised for greatness. We never saw it coming.
 






Anonymous said:
No, I am not with BSC nor have I ever worked in the medical field (pharma/devices, etc). I do have a lot of experience working for/with large companies and BSC certainly falls in that category. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure out what has taken place. It is one or more of the following;
• An obvious clash of cultures between Guidant and BSC. One ran more as a rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships and sell inferior product to the best of their ability. Not illegal, unethical or otherwise…just a culture that expected their employees to do a lot of relationship development, probably bc they knew that is how they could gain market share with inferior product. The other company, BSC, ran more conservative. When they bought Guidant there was obviously a clash of those two cultures.
• BSC decided to address these cultural differences after they allowed them to run rather autonomously for almost 2 years, hence in comes the consulting company; look through old emails, spend habits, etc.
• Also perhaps BSC simply wanted to downsize and chose a method that would alleviate them from paying severances…go look up the labor laws on how many downsized employees are defined as a “reduction in force” and I think you will find BSC “selected” just enough to fall under that guideline.
• And based on now how amateurish I see BSC, and how incapable they appear in so many ways, I cannot rule out one more possibility. That is that they decided to use a consulting company bc they recognized their inept ways and felt they didn’t have the proper HR and senior management to do this right. Then they made a huge error in judgment by hiring a 3rd rate consulting firm that violated just as many policies as the people they were investigating, not to mention they managed the process in such an unprofessional way. This alone will land BSC in court.
All that said, it comes down to integrity and leadership, or in this case the lack there of with BSC. If they wanted to downsize, then they should have done it like any large professional company; a handshake, a “thank you” for their years and services rendered, a severance commensurate to their contributions (especially their loyalty to BSC/Guidant during years of inferior products), and allow all parties to walk away with integrity and some semblance of dignity. No, they chose a different path, a selfish path, a path that gave no recognition to individuals who dedicated their lives to a second rate device provider.
If on the other hand BSC’s agenda was culturally driven, attempting to change the culture that Guidant had fostered for years, then they again should have done this as a large professional company would have; clear communication coming from the most senior levels, driven through and reinforced by a change in behaviors all the way top down from their leadership group within the Guidant division, continued communication on new expectations, etc. Changing a culture that was so ingrained and “expected” by Guidant is no easy task and doesn’t happen overnight. No, BSC again chose a wrong path, a path that allowed the Guidant to continue to ran as it did before, no clear communication of cultural changes, senior levels within the Guidant division making no changes in their behaviors, etc. And then one day, go out on a witch hunt and “select” some individuals to make examples out of. Again, poor judgment, arrogant choices, amateurish leadership….

At every turn there was far more professional, far more effective, and far more dignified options GSC could have taken. They were consistent, that’s for sure. They consistently chose the least professional, the least effective and the least dignified ways to try and force cultural changes. All for saving a few bucks in severance, they now will find themselves in court over this, they will see a tremendous negative hit to morale among those remaining (who wants to work for a company that treats their employees this way), and they just sent a very skilled pool of talent (and customer base) to their competition. This just screams with very amateurish leadership all the way up BSC. This was unjust, undignified, unprofessional, uncompetitive, and extremely poor judgment from their legal counsel. It’s kind of funny, one of the “causes” they list is putting the company at risk, and yet they just conducted a gross error of judgment that without question has put them in serious legal risk. Not to mention business risk with those who will be taking their professional services, their talent and their customer base to the competition.
Click to expand...

Maybe an attorney, but not a well-informed one. The "rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships" was indeed behaving illegaly. And hence the need to clean house.
 






You might want to brush up on your use of "illegal". Company policy around spending and many other aspects is NOT illegal. Perhaps against comany policy, but not illegal. And yes there are instances where spending can be illegal given governmental regulations, I am fully aware of that and peole should be fired for those behaviors. However what is in question is amount of spending, not spending on things that break federal law. That said, the company policy part of this is what is intruiging. ALL LEVELS of the Guidant division spent lavishly, in most part because of an organization that expected that and leaders who conducted themselves in the same way throughout the years. then BSC has the arrogance and ignorance to come in and to a selective witch hunt. Whoever wrote the last comment about schooling people inaccurately on illegal, are you suggesting that you yourself couldnt be fired. Im affraid you are grossly wrong. EVERYONE, across all corporate america could be fired if the company so chooses to go into every little nook and cranny to find some excuse. And you are no exception. In fact I guarantee all I would have to look at is last months expense reports from you and find viloations...without exception and that I GUARANTEE. Maybe not illegal, but definately against strict company policy.
 






Anonymous said:
Maybe an attorney, but not a well-informed one. The "rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships" was indeed behaving illegaly. And hence the need to clean house.
Click to expand...

You're right...but to be legal it has to be done consistently across the board. THAT is legal. And it has only just begun.
 






Anonymous said:
You might want to brush up on your use of "illegal". Company policy around spending and many other aspects is NOT illegal. Perhaps against comany policy, but not illegal. And yes there are instances where spending can be illegal given governmental regulations, I am fully aware of that and peole should be fired for those behaviors. However what is in question is amount of spending, not spending on things that break federal law. That said, the company policy part of this is what is intruiging. ALL LEVELS of the Guidant division spent lavishly, in most part because of an organization that expected that and leaders who conducted themselves in the same way throughout the years. then BSC has the arrogance and ignorance to come in and to a selective witch hunt. Whoever wrote the last comment about schooling people inaccurately on illegal, are you suggesting that you yourself couldnt be fired. Im affraid you are grossly wrong. EVERYONE, across all corporate america could be fired if the company so chooses to go into every little nook and cranny to find some excuse. And you are no exception. In fact I guarantee all I would have to look at is last months expense reports from you and find viloations...without exception and that I GUARANTEE. Maybe not illegal, but definately against strict company policy.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true! Who is it out there that thinks BSX sets the law!? hahahahahahaha! Pathetically ignorant.
 






Anonymous said:
Maybe an attorney, but not a well-informed one. The "rogue, young, entrepreneurial company that probably spent more in expenses in order to develop relationships" was indeed behaving illegaly. And hence the need to clean house.
Click to expand...

And clean house they will. Do you really think these good people were the only ones to be part of this plan? Talk to any MDT VP or STJ VP...they ALL know what was behind this and think it's pathetic. Just let the courts decide. None of us have all the information to write posts about it. The facts are the facts and time will tell.
 






If I'm a rep at BSX, I am throttling back on anything that could get undue attention on my expense reports. At the very least, I am changing my spending behavior.

Will my docs who have seen me as a human ATM all these years
stick by me as I make this change?

The payola was the spoon-full-of-sugar that helped the daily dosage of recall information go down.

All companies induce, but none are / were more reliant upon than Boston.
 






Then if you don't work for BSC or in the industry, you have no right commenting on any of the occurrences in the last few months. What you have done is show unprofessionalism and poor judgment by posting anything at all. Perhaps in the future you should stay off the message boards and worry about your own company and industry. I have never seen such inappropriate and unprofessional comments before.
 






To the person who wrote the last string; for the record I wrote #1,#3,#8.....And I stand solidly behind those messages. They are accurate, they are balanced and they simply state the truth as to what has recently happened at BSX. Couple comments to your "ready, fire, aim" comment above......


1) You bet your ass I have a right to comment, regardless of the fact I don’t work for BSX or the industry. If anyone messes with someone I care about in an unethical fashion then they have messed with me too. I am sorry you don't have friends that would do the same for you, and therefore you don't understand that concept.
2) Poor judgment and unprofessionalism? You're kidding right? Anyone who is against unveiling the truth should be questioned about their own judgment, ethics, values and character. If I am not mistaken, my right to do so is still exists in the Bill Of Rights; you know that document that our soldiers risk their lives to protect? The very freedom you yourself cherish every day of your life. Perhaps you don't know about that document, you may want to look it up.
3) Don't worry about my company, it is a professional company that has demonstrated solid character and judgment for over six decades of existence. It is "most admired" in its industry, it is "top company to work for" in its industry, it is "top company for woman and minorities" in its industry (of which I am neither but very proud of none the less), etc. So no worries here. No, the worry needs to be on pathetically run companies such as BSX, and how they subject loyal employees to unbelievable treatment, select who in very inconsistent ways.

As my strings suggest, I am all about self responsibility. And if someone does something unethical in their line of business then they should be fired. However, this latest debacle was not about that. If BSX nailed a couple of unethical employees during this witch hunt, then all I can say is they had that coming. But the majority of those impacted were solid and loyal employees who simply conducted themselves in a manner that was consistent with the culture that Guidant fostered, consistent with senior leadership and how they themselves behaved, it was the norm. And people shouldn’t be hand selected to be made examples out of. BSX should have acted professionally and started an initiative that would have changed the culture that was so prevalent, accepted, and the norm at Guidant.

Last thought. Many of those impacted would have done the same as you, and that is put up a post supportive of BSX. Because they were loyal to their company. And because you weren’t in this initial action you sit back and feel as though you are protected and ok. If you really think that your own behaviors couldn’t be questions and lead to your own termination, you're simply out of touch. I'm not suggesting you should be terminated unless you were unethical/etc., but if you act in a way management approves of, consistent with years of being the "norm" at Guidant, then no, people shouldn’t have been hand selected in this witch hunt. And don’t think for a moment that one of the possibilities that may come of all this is a mandatory re-investigation of all so as to be consistent. But don’t worry, it won’t be your actions from today on that gets you fired, it would be your actions over 2 years of expense reports and email they have on file.
 






Anonymous said:
Then if you don't work for BSC or in the industry, you have no right commenting on any of the occurrences in the last few months. What you have done is show unprofessionalism and poor judgment by posting anything at all. Perhaps in the future you should stay off the message boards and worry about your own company and industry. I have never seen such inappropriate and unprofessional comments before.
Click to expand...

The truth hit a nerve with you, but it's still the truth...call it what you want. This is only the beginning of a professional outside of BSX pointing out the facts to you...be it attorney or reporter, it WILL happen with an audience MUCH larger than these boards. Once these suits are all filed they will be public record and hit the press. It will be well within the statue of limitations timeframe. What humiliating headlines await... whether you like it or not. It's the truth and there are people inside the company waiting to help the truth come out and wanting the truth to come out.
 






To the person who wrote about it being unprofessional for me to post here; for the record I wrote #1,#3,#8.....And I stand solidly behind those messages. They are accurate, they are balanced and they simply state the truth as to what has recently happened at BSX. Couple comments to your "ready, fire, aim" comments......


1) You bet your ass I have a right to comment, regardless of the fact I don’t work for BSX or the industry. If anyone messes with someone I care about in an unethical fashion then they have messed with me too. I am sorry you don't have friends that would do the same for you, and therefore you don't understand that concept.
2) Poor judgment and unprofessionalism? You're kidding right? Anyone who is against unveiling the truth should be questioned about their own judgment, ethics, values and character. If I am not mistaken, my right to do so is still exists in the Bill Of Rights; you know that document that our soldiers risk their lives to protect? The very freedom you yourself cherish every day of your life. Perhaps you don't know about that document, you may want to look it up.
3) Don't worry about my company, it is a professional company that has demonstrated solid character and judgment for over six decades of existence. It is "most admired" in its industry, it is "top company to work for" in its industry, it is "top company for woman and minorities" in its industry (of which I am neither but very proud of none the less), etc. So no worries here. No, the worry needs to be on pathetically run companies such as BSX, and how they subject loyal employees to unbelievable treatment, select who in very inconsistent ways.

As my strings suggest, I am all about self responsibility; that includes both employees and companies. And if someone does something unethical in their line of business then they should be fired. However, this latest debacle was not about that. If BSX nailed a couple of unethical employees during this witch hunt, then all I can say is they had that coming. But the majority of those impacted were solid and loyal employees who simply conducted themselves in a manner that was consistent with the culture that Guidant fostered, consistent with senior leadership and how they themselves behaved, it was the norm. And people shouldn’t be hand selected to be made examples out of. BSX should have acted professionally and started an initiative that would have changed the culture that was so prevalent, accepted, and the norm at Guidant.

Last thought. Many of those impacted would have done the same as you, and that is put up a post supportive of BSX. Because they were loyal to their company. And because you weren’t in this initial action you sit back and feel as though you are protected and ok. If you really think that your own behaviors couldn’t be questions and lead to your own termination, you're simply out of touch. I'm not suggesting you should be terminated unless you were unethical/etc., but if you act in a way management approves of, consistent with years of being the "norm" at Guidant, then no, people shouldn’t have been hand selected in this witch hunt. And don’t think for a moment that one of the possibilities that may come of all this is a mandatory re-investigation of all so as to be consistent. But don’t worry, it won’t be your actions from today on that gets you fired, it would be your actions over 2 years of expense reports and email they have on file.
 






Anonymous said:
To the person who wrote the last string; for the record I wrote #1,#3,#8.....And I stand solidly behind those messages. They are accurate, they are balanced and they simply state the truth as to what has recently happened at BSX. Couple comments to your "ready, fire, aim" comment above......


1) You bet your ass I have a right to comment, regardless of the fact I don’t work for BSX or the industry. If anyone messes with someone I care about in an unethical fashion then they have messed with me too. I am sorry you don't have friends that would do the same for you, and therefore you don't understand that concept.
2) Poor judgment and unprofessionalism? You're kidding right? Anyone who is against unveiling the truth should be questioned about their own judgment, ethics, values and character. If I am not mistaken, my right to do so is still exists in the Bill Of Rights; you know that document that our soldiers risk their lives to protect? The very freedom you yourself cherish every day of your life. Perhaps you don't know about that document, you may want to look it up.
3) Don't worry about my company, it is a professional company that has demonstrated solid character and judgment for over six decades of existence. It is "most admired" in its industry, it is "top company to work for" in its industry, it is "top company for woman and minorities" in its industry (of which I am neither but very proud of none the less), etc. So no worries here. No, the worry needs to be on pathetically run companies such as BSX, and how they subject loyal employees to unbelievable treatment, select who in very inconsistent ways.

As my strings suggest, I am all about self responsibility. And if someone does something unethical in their line of business then they should be fired. However, this latest debacle was not about that. If BSX nailed a couple of unethical employees during this witch hunt, then all I can say is they had that coming. But the majority of those impacted were solid and loyal employees who simply conducted themselves in a manner that was consistent with the culture that Guidant fostered, consistent with senior leadership and how they themselves behaved, it was the norm. And people shouldn’t be hand selected to be made examples out of. BSX should have acted professionally and started an initiative that would have changed the culture that was so prevalent, accepted, and the norm at Guidant.

Last thought. Many of those impacted would have done the same as you, and that is put up a post supportive of BSX. Because they were loyal to their company. And because you weren’t in this initial action you sit back and feel as though you are protected and ok. If you really think that your own behaviors couldn’t be questions and lead to your own termination, you're simply out of touch. I'm not suggesting you should be terminated unless you were unethical/etc., but if you act in a way management approves of, consistent with years of being the "norm" at Guidant, then no, people shouldn’t have been hand selected in this witch hunt. And don’t think for a moment that one of the possibilities that may come of all this is a mandatory re-investigation of all so as to be consistent. But don’t worry, it won’t be your actions from today on that gets you fired, it would be your actions over 2 years of expense reports and email they have on file.
Click to expand...


You can have any opinion you want, but I still feel that it's unprofessional and in poor taste to post it publically when it really has nothing to do with you (except you care about the issue, as we all do). However, posting it in the manner you did is completely unprofessional. You can have an opinion, we all do, but to publically display it, whether it's right or wrong or well written or not, it's just rude and disrespectful to yourself.
 






To the person who wrote the last string, of which I really hit a nerve with them.
Just to set the record straight, I have every right to publicly state my opinion. If I'm not mistaken, you have now written two or more comments PUBLICLY STATING YOUR OWN OPINION! So whats your position on this; that not all opinions should be public, oh wait a minute, except for those stating their opinion that not all opinions should be public? So are you now the new goverment acency that determines and police's publicly stated opinions? Maybe Obama added yet another Czar that I was unaware of.

All that aside, while I do not work for BSX or in that industry, I AM A SHAREHOLDER, which in case you're not aware means I am a partial owner of BSX along with all other shareholders. And I believe that gives me the right to voice my opinion anytime, anywhere and anyhow I see fit. Correction; I know it gives me the right. As if our very own constitution doesnt already give me that right. Wake up. Additionally, I would argue there is nothing unprofessional with how I presented the information as I know it. You may not like it or agree with it, but again unless you're the new Public Opinion Czar whos making a new constitutional amendment, I still have every right. Out!
 






Anonymous said:
You can have any opinion you want, but I still feel that it's unprofessional and in poor taste to post it publically when it really has nothing to do with you (except you care about the issue, as we all do). However, posting it in the manner you did is completely unprofessional. You can have an opinion, we all do, but to publically display it, whether it's right or wrong or well written or not, it's just rude and disrespectful to yourself.
Click to expand...

Sanity check douchebag- these boards are for EXACTLY that purpose...to publically display your opinion. Love the guy/gal who did it so professionally. You don't have to like it, but respect the right to do so. Also, sorry you are still stuck at ButtSeX. I understand your life sucks.
 






Wait, let me get this straight. After 4 years of recalls, class action lawsuits, FDA warning letters, unrelenting negative press about the worst acquisition in history after AOL/Time Warner, a stock price at a fraction of it's former value, multiple rounds of layoffs and top talent leaving all the time; now that BSX has fired less than a dozen reps, the company is going to go under? Really? Are you that full of yourselves? Get a grip. It may have been ugly, and not a very nice Xmas gift to those affected, but I hardly think this action spells the end for the company.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote