While I agree that security guards are most responsible here at the end of the day they are correct to blame Salesforce. If you hold an event you are ultimately responsible for what the staff does, even when they are just contractors. And that's both from a legal, and optics perspective. In this case, Salesforce did these kids a disservice by providing them substantially different badges from other attendants, and by not doing enough to keep them in once they confronted problems. The head of the outing mentions that their contact tried to keep the guards from kicking them out but I have to question how an actual employee vouching for them wasn't enough. Seems like the ball was dropped several times, by multiple different parties.
>“Right off the bat, security gave us a hard time because of our badges, they were different than everyone else’s badge. It didn’t have our name on it, nor have a nice lanyard, it was Brown [sic] and cheap quality rather than the fancier ones every other guest had.”
So, you make the charity-case badges look different, you choose the color brown for them(!), and you don't put a name on them ... that seems like poor planning, guaranteed to invite suspicion.
Update: "A student of the tech education program reached out to Mission Local to say that the students were allowed to return to the Dreamforce conference after being told to leave, that the security guards who removed the students were disciplined, and that the students received numerous apologies from Salesforce staff."
Let me guess. Salesforce will blame the guards. Because the workers with the least amount of influence share an inordinate amount of blame. Some platitudes about being a welcoming company when clearly they weren't. Finally, a small donation to appears the media. And things will continue on as usual.
Personally, I would like to thank Salesforce for a strong security presence at the event. There were bomb sniffing dogs, many security staff, and vehicle barriers with armed guards at street entrances.
Despite being a sponsor and speaker at the event, I was denied access (due to different badge type) to the expo hall to help the rest of our company setup our booth. It was frustrating, but at least the security was paying attention.
It is very unfortunate that this group had problems getting in. I would have enjoyed talking to their group, as I did with the Girl Scouts group and other non-profits that sent STEM students to the event.
> He credited Pineda with trying to straighten out the situation. “Angelica did a fabulous job, she did everything in her power to keep us inside,” Sosa said. But the two security guards, who Sosa described as a black man and Latina woman, ejected them.
Having read the entire article it seems this was a case of uninformed security grunts doing what they usually do. The race of the security guards gets mentioned as a sign of the times. Angelica in this case is the salesforce employee.
In the photo the girl in the red shirt on the back right looks to be wearing a lanyard with a brown string whilst the Salesforce employee has a blue one. From going to various festivals different colours and materials are often used to easily signify to security where you can/can't go. When I've been comp'd tickets before for events they did look different to those that were paid for. This in itself isn't out of the ordinary IMO.
What seems most questionable to me is the behaviour/attitude of the (third party) security company and not Salesforce (yet anyway).
A case of more details needed I think.
The badges were issued by Salesforce.
This has the markings of a PR stunt. As a reader of the article, I'm very curious what the badges look like, as those are a legitimate cause for concern for security. Any legitimate reporting on this issue would investigate that detail.
The article doesn't elaborate on the badges issue at all.
Were the badges fake or not? That's the first question to investigate.