What's the eBay response to 60 minutes segment on harassing journalists for trying to do their jobs?

[peszar-0]

This is SICK tactics by eBay to try and bring down a journalist who is trying to bring to light a crackdown on 2nd Amendment rights. And the CEO exits with a golden parachute. **bleep**!!!!!!

[farmalljr]

I think it's funny when people say it "wasn't eBay that did this, but a few rouge employees". I would not call the heads of several important positions random. I would not call the big cheese at the top who knew what was happening and ordering it, "not representative" of eBay as a whole. 

The whole of the company is responsible for what it's representatives do. These "rouge" employees, represent the WHOLE of eBay. It was the CULTURE (and may still be, who knows) of the company. It came from the top DOWN. This wasn't the janitor that hatched a plan to make eBay look bad. It was executives that attacked someone with corporate funds, with full knowledge from those at the helm. 

If your lawn guy's worker decides one day he is gonna spin doughnuts in your lawn with the company truck, it's not the employee that pays for the damage, it's the company. That's why companies are required to carry liability insurance, as your employees represent the company. Any damage they do, is a direct reflection of the company, and is the responsibility of the company. 

This wasn't a case of a couple "rouge" employees. These horrible things were directed from the TOP. It may not have involved all the workers at eBay, but I can bet it could have been stopped sooner, had some lower level employee stepped up to stop the madness. It was not just executives that had dirty hands, I can bet there were more than one subordinate, that knew what was going on. May have even been involved in assisting with all this craziness. But you can be assured those subordinates justified their actions by saying "I was just doing what I was told". 

Again, it's a culture when it comes from the top down. It's not "just a few rouge employees". 

[my-cottage-books-and-antiques]

@valueaddedresource "General reply - for what it's worth, even the deputy US Attorney, Seth Kosto, who prosecuted some of the criminal cases said what happened was "abhorrent to First Amendment values." Several judges also made mention of the first amendment in their sentencing hearings in these cases."

I think the point pburns was making was that First Amendment CASES are those that involve the government in some way, for the First Amendment protects against government infringement on the enumerated rights. So, this is not, from a legal point of view, a First Amendment case.

Kosto referenced First Amendment values, and he is correctly saying this was an attack on the freedom of the press. Most Americans have traditionally put a high value on that freedom. We have been uncomfortable when we see it attacked, whether by the government OR a corporation. And Americans tend to support "the little guy" versus either the government or a big corporation, and the Steiners are definitely the little guy in this situation. 

As for the whole situation, I admit I'm still not sure which shocks me more, that the Steiners were subjected to this, or that a major corporation had a security team that was so abysmally incompetent. Maybe I read too many thrillers, where corporate security guys are usually ex-Navy Seals and run by smart , experienced, well trained people (who, depending on the novel, either have no conscience or are willing to risk everything for what is right.)  The guy who ran this Op appears to have derived most of his ideas from the movies, and appears to have had a hard time recognizing that what works in the movies doesn't necessarily work in real life.  

[vintagecraze50]

The other thing is that these people did not cover their butts as far as incriminating discoverable evidence. That’s just UNPROFESSIONAL. Lol.

[vintagecraze50]

If this plan was devised right and straight from corporate office it would have been thought through better. Using alias names in the hotels they stayed at, alias names from their credit card purchases. Truly a work of an either unstable not thinking too clearly person and a zealous staff of impressionable employees wanting to make their supervisor proud of them and keeps their jobs.

[vintagecraze50]

You not I nor anybody else knows if big cheese had anything to do with the actual plan.

[bonjourami]

"You not I nor anybody else knows if big cheese had anything to do with the actual plan."

True, I just dont see Ebays responsibility in this whole episode. Doesnt every company have a few crazy employees? Just look at the post office.

[coolections]

OMG, they left out so many facts and allowed the yahoos to continue to do what they do best, bash Ebay. They should have included the other side of the story about how they continually harass Ebay and only allow Ebay haters to post on the site. Thye take a few dozen posts bashing Ebay but never mention there are 100,000 sellers who have no problems with Ebay. Even though not right what those execs did, the story was one sided as usual. I'd be curious to know if those two had been booted from Ebay and that is why they have so much hatred against them to run a 5 year or more campaign.

[vintagecraze50]

Correct. And you would not paint the entire organization as an evil entity because of that. Nor would you stop using USPS or any other company that had that issue. 

[maxine*j]

---

@slippinjimmy wrote:

It's "new" because the civil suit is starting to warm up.

I watched the eBay segment......

Steiner Whiners!

To be clear, I do not condone the actions of the eBay employees...they deserved to be fired and the legal smackdown as well.

BUT!

Ina has been taking digs at eBay for a decade plus, she has made a living being a "home" for eBay malcontents (failed ex-eBay sellers). In the modern age the more negative you are the more clicks you get, the more clicks you get the more money you make selling ads.

---

Yes, I get the same feeling, that the Steiners get too much mileage out of this to let it go. 

In the criminal cases, seven people were charged, two immediately arrested.  They did not get off lightly in final sentencing, with three sent to jail (for one year, two years, five years), one put under a year's house arrest, two put under lengthy supervised release.  So the criminal justice system worked. 

Now, we have this civil suit to get through, to keep this whole sorry incident in the limelight. The seven already convicted in the criminal case are being sued, along with eBay, former CEO Wenig, former CCO Wymer, and some security firm used by eBay.

Was the  harassing of the Steiners ugly and egregious?  Of course it was.   They were harassed, and they were threatened, and more of the same was planned.  Did someone higher up at eBay do the old, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" thing?  Probably.  But that alone is no crime, or even unusual, although it is heedless.

But I just can't keep from thinking that people who make a living in any other way than the Steiners do would be gratified at the results of the criminal investigation, arrests, convictions, and sentences, and would want to put all the rest behind them. 

-

[bonjourami]

For sure....And Im sure the post office was not happy with the new term of 'going postal' from those few insane employees. Everybody knows what that means now.Maybe 'going Ebay' will be next after this.

[my-cottage-books-and-antiques]

As an ebay seller: It is terrible what was done to the Steiners. But this is actually old news (yes, the civil case continues, with an outcome yet to be determined). However, something like 80% or more of ebay's stock is held by institutional investors, and they have almost certainly factored this mess into their valuation of the stock. And ebay is still standing.

The 60 Minutes story , and coverage yet to come, is bad publicity for ebay, but it is also a reminder that ebay still exists, and people who had forgotten about ebay might actually come and shop after being reminded that ebay exists (And, sure, some sellers and buyers might leave because of this, but I doubt their departures will make any real dent.)

So, as a seller, I don't think the story itself matters all that much (for my business), and unless there is such a huge verdict against ebay that it actually cripples the company (which I don't foresee), I see nothing much to worry about. 

One thing though: ecommercebytes might have gotten under Wenig's thin skin, but it was never a serious threat to ebay's business. When this is all over, the Steiners will likely have millions of dollars, and I imagine if they wanted to, they could increase the influence of their blog with an injection of capital. So, they could go from being a minor irritant to a real problem for ebay. Or, of course, they could retire and sail off into the sunset....only time will tell....

[farmalljr]

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

You not I nor anybody else knows if big cheese had anything to do with the actual plan.

---

I am a sensible person. You should be too. When the big cheese says destroy that person, and his underlings attempt to do so, they have at some point shared their plan and what they are doing, with said big cheese. In many cases, the big cheese lays out a plan and his underlings act on it. 

Don't act so aloof about this. Anyone that has worked around a corporation knows how things work. The CEO tells people what to do and how they want it done. 

If these people were so innocent, there would have been no need to delete emails and texts. Period. A criminal will attempt to deceive by hiding and destroying incriminating evidence. 

I'm not one of those people that think things should be swept under the rug because I might financially benefit from it. There was an obvious plan to cause harm to people, senselessly. All those involved should pay dearly for what they did. If eBay went down in a ball of flames because of this, I don't really care. For what was done, everyone involved should pay. And I mean prison time for life, type of pay. Not just monetarily. It's a horrible injustice to attack someone. This whole situation was EVIL and those involved should pay for the rest of their natural born lives for this. They terrorized people and made this a game. That's completely insane. Anyone willing to accept that and be fine with it, is as evil as those who perpetrated this crime. 

[bonjourami]

"Don't act so aloof about this. Anyone that has worked around a corporation knows how things work. The CEO tells people what to do and how they want it done. "

You have proof that the ceo instigated this attack? I just cant imagine any ceo being that dumb to jeopardize his million dollar career to punish these blog writers, they are all over the internet with attacks on Ebay. Usually from disgruntled ex sellers. Personally, I take them with a grain of salt when I read them.

[farmalljr]

---

@bonjourami wrote:

"You not I nor anybody else knows if big cheese had anything to do with the actual plan."

True, I just dont see Ebays responsibility in this whole episode. Doesnt every company have a few crazy employees? Just look at the post office.

---

Hey that's a great attitude. When you have a new furnace installed and your house burns down because the employee did a poor job of installing your furnace, well you will be fine with that right?

The company can't be held responsible for what a bone headed employee does, right? I'm sure you would not want the company to pay for your loss, right? Because one bad employee, doesn't mean the company is at fault, right?

Pfffft. Do you guys even hear what you are saying? Even the law holds the company RESPONSIBLE for what their employees do. Seems obvious to me some of these responses are coming from people who have NEVER had an employee. It's laughable. 

Personally, I think responses like the one I quoted, are people's own greed peeking out, wanting THEIR own incomes protected, even at the cost of another person's well being. Yes, there may be millions of sellers here. Yes there may be people depending on money made here. But this begs the moral question "How many children would you kill to save the rest of them?". How many people will you allow to be terrorized, harmed, or otherwise exposed to evil/greed/power trips, to save your own "income"? 

It all might seem ok or justifiable, until YOU are the victim. If you don't want to be a victim of it, you can't let others be one either. 

[bonjourami]

"people depending on money made here. But this begs the moral question "How many children would you kill to save the rest of them?". How many people will you allow to be terrorized, harmed, or otherwise exposed to evil/greed/power trips, to save your own "income"? 

Not sure what a house burning down, or children being killed has to do with all this, other than great exaggeration and high drama trying to prove a point.