In the news for the wrong reason. Hope they’ve not been bullying any one from our admin team. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....1/jun/10/brewdog-staff-craft-beer-firm-letter
No bullying here but appreciate the concern. I’ve been at BrewDog nearly three years now and not worked with a single name on that list. Interesting day that’s for sure!
It'll be the usual case of a few bad apples in middle management who have created this. Tarnishes the company's name once it leaks out. They make great beer and their response seems on point, so hopefully it won't cause any long term damage. It's the same in most businesses what's occurred, it needs outing but hope folk don't rush to judgement against the ownership. In my organisation, we have authoritarian middle managers who think they own the place. Treat staff terribly and then when it finds its way onto senior positions and lawyers desks they finally realise. Cultures of fear are nutured in dark of corners of businesses and hidden from those with real power and authority (ownership). Some folk like managing staff because they get a buzz developing them and achieving goals together. Others are sociopaths, and the problem with them is they're hard to spot. There's a great scientific paper and book about workplace sociopathy. Shame my organisation is now run by a sociopathic minister. Civil servant and politician are in the top 5 professions for sociopaths.
To be honest I’ve got to be careful what I say online, even though it’s only the BBS. But this story isn’t really middle management and definitely disgruntled former employees attacking the very top of the tree. There’ll be some validity to their claims, areas where improvements need to made, and BrewDog is definitely a high pressure environment that isn’t for everyone - which is why some of these are former employees and not current. But my biggest gripe on this is why do these people get to speak on my behalf when some of them haven’t worked for the company in over five years, and have spent almost every day since they left bitching and moaning about BrewDog on their Twitter accounts. Why is it assumed they speak for me and the other 3,000 people who work here, and why is what they say assumed to be gospel straight away? Any company in the world could find a group of disgruntled ex employees and I don’t know many businesses of significant size where there isn’t a little bit of fear of the MD, CEO, etc. Also hypocritical of them to claim mental health challenges when their actions yesterday put an immense amount of strain on my mental health and hundreds of others I work with. Anxiety levels dialled up to the ten yesterday, today, and for the next few weeks as we deal with the fall out.
I saw this yesterday picked up through the Guardian news feed. They certainly didn't pull their punches.
Explain how? Because I think you might have taken it in a different direction to what it actually meant. And you've got anti-BrewDog posters liking your post so I want to be really clear about interpretation.
ive worked in a factory all my life, bullying is part of life, it will not change in real world, 5hit only flows one way
You say your stress levels have hit the roof since some of their management practices have been brought into the open. I question, is it said management practices that cause you anxiety; if not, why are you suddenly highly anxious?
That's no excuse for it, it should still be addressed if it is happening. As for Brewdog, I have a bit of a soft spot as they basically got me into craft beer. I don't drink their stuff much these days, but that's just because my tastes have moved on to more niche/interesting (and sadly more expensive!) beers. I loved the image of the company as something of a disruptor, and it's always going to be a difficult transition when that punkish upstart eventually grows and becomes "the man". There have been some stories over the past few years which have made me wince, but at the same time I'm conscious that a lot of it is just trial by social media and there's no way of finding out what the truth of such matters is. You get one side's story, then a rebuttal from the company and in most cases I expect the truth lies somewhere inbetween, but you will never know towards which end of that spectrum. It must be an absolute nightmare trying to manage a company's comms in such a way that you try and dispute any bullsh1t but don't be seen as dismissing victims.
Not at all. You've totally misinterpreted the point I was making. Some former employees have voiced their frustrations and experiences of the BrewDog they worked for, some left in 2014, some in 2017, some in 2018. None of them worked have worked here in my time. Some left on bad terms. Some left because it wasn't for them. Some left because they weren't good enough. Standard for most companies I'd say. But who are the employees that have to go and answer to this? Who has to stand out front and explain to customers that it isn't their experience of BrewDog? Me and dozens of others in UK Sales and Marketing but then hundreds in our bars across the globe. Naturally you'd expect the phone lines to be red hot right now, and with that comes a level of stress, anxiety and confusion that will be making this week and future weeks extremely tough. It's not to say there isn't validity in some of the claims, you can't challenge personal experiences, but there's always context to balance something so emotional, and most importantly there's always a desire to learn and improve.
I think you're missing the point; why are you getting so worked up about something you can't change?Management have conceded there may have been issues. You yourself say they may be valid. If you feel the you have to answer for this on the company's behalf then seek guidance and help from senior management on how they can help you deal with it. If they don't, then help you, clearly the initial claims are upheld.
I work for a large bank, and i've seen bank-bashing become something of a bloodsport over the last 15 years. Still is in many eyes. I've been insulted plenty of times, for working for a bank. I've had people have a go at me personally for the bank crash, toxic debt, LIBOR, PPI, pensions, you name it. I work in IT for a bank that employees around 80,000 people, and have absolutely zero to do with any of those things. Pretty much everybody I work with, comes to work to do the right thing. There's always issues that crop up, but it's unfair to tarnish an entire company, for the actions of a few. Hopefully the complaints are taken seriously and addressed if they're legitimate.
Likewise, I work for an estate agent, but I'm nothing to do with the sales side, yet I get a right shoeing from some folk when they find out! There are utter plums in all industries, but as you say, the vast majority of us just want to do the job we've been given as best we can without causing any upset. I expect it was similar at Brewdog, a small minority of workers have bullied another small minority of workers and then thats all anyone ever talks about.
If you've read the full open letter, it seems largely aimed at the founders. Generally, if something isn't true, legal proceedings take place latterly. An incredibly brave move for 61 of them to put their names or initials to it if there is no basis of truth in their claims.
Yeah, fair point, I was just drawing attention to the fact that large companies are generally staffed by good people who are trying to do a good job, but then the company gets dragged through the mud thanks to a minority of ne'er-do-wells. In this case the problem does seem to be largely rooted at the top of the pile which is a worry.
I'm intrigued as to why you are saying you don't know them, have never worked with them, you've been there 3 years and some of these people left in 2014, yet you go on to publicly criticise them, their suitability for the job, and their ability. How do you know they weren't good enough etc? You've said don't know them? It seems a bit biased to me
What are you on about. If you have a job like for example a marketing manager of a company that is in the news you are going to be more stressed regardless of the validity of the story. No matter what support he is given Loco's job is going to be harder for the next few weeks to say anything else is just dumb.
This is what I didn't want to get involved in. You're assuming bias when I'm just sharing my own personal experience to something that is global news. Just because it isn't in line with the story doesn't mean I'm being biased. As for the first sentence. You don't need to have worked with people to know some of the history behind them leaving or know of who they are, and whilst 'not good enough' might have been a bit strong which I'm happy to retract, saying 'not for them' isn't negative or critical. Social media also opens up 'knowing' people in a way it didn't five plus years ago. Feels like you're trying to trip me up here. But you won't personally find any better answers or insights in to the story than what you're hearing now - especially as I'm trying to support both sides and as with most things the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.
