Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
It's just silly. If she was actually sharing consequential info, I'm sure they would be shut down already and terminated. Acting like they're important because they've seen things that would be seen by the GP if the park was already open... ridiculous.
Someday, I do want to share all the things I've told @Zachary over the years, but only in a "lol so that happened" kind of way, and not, hey I'll be at the pub at 3 p.m. on preview day, come meet me for pics and autographs... ?
Some day though....
 
Maybe Busch Gardens Williamsburg Insiders feels justified in their name because of the relativity of the word “insider.” “Insider” in what way? The employee entrance is not a secret kept only by top-ranking officials, yet people can still go to the park with upper-tier memberships for years before they know that it’s an option available to them. So, couldn’t that be considered insider info in a way?

While their name might be a bit misleading; if the page called themselves “Top Secret Corporate-Level BGW Info,“ then I would say they were undoubtedly in the wrong.

Aside from way they may sometimes come across; I’m always happy to hear about easily-missed perks and tips to maximize my day at the park. It’s kind of like how only the biggest Starbucks fans find ways to maximize the benefits of their loyalty by talking to other Starbucks fans. Allowing your most loyal customers to know things like this also makes it harder for them to rationalize leaving for a competitor- which is one more reason why I believe the park should embrace these very small communities that ultimately serve to reinforce loyalty.
 
You can't terminate someone if you don't have access to see what their posting is violating your rules ... just sayin'.
FWIW, there are other employees on the page. Particularly, people who have enough pull to do something about it if necessary.

I don't think I could go into further detail without risking identification, but yes
 
Last edited:
It really depends on what positions the employees hold. If they are supervisors in the same department, they absolutely have the duty to notify the employee's supervisor and have them write up the employee for violation of their social media contract. If I saw behavior like this when I was an ops supervisor, I would have absolutely notify the other supervisors of their violation.
 
Still, it comes down to if their willing to go through with that and TBH the people BGW hire nowadays aren't exactly the best and most committed.
 
Still, it comes down to if their willing to go through with that and TBH the people BGW hire nowadays aren't exactly the best and most committed.
Very true, but supervisors who don't really care about the park or their job aren't going to join a FB group about the park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
FWIW, there are other employees on the page. Particularly, people who have enough pull to do something about it if necessary.

I don't think I could go into further detail without risking identification, but yes
I'd be surprised if some of it hasn't been reported
 
That's kind of laughable in itself if I'm reading this right - assuming those are the admins, they're really doing a poor job of allowing their community to educate itself on other aspects of the business.

And to say there's a direct correlation between a financial performance discussion to a subject that they declared as taboo (yes, the potential pandemic is related overall, but it's still a different topic)...


Edit: the more I reread this, the more the horrible grammar sticks out to me. "Have a mute" - really!?
 
Might as well say that if you can get to the coronavirus Wikipedia page within three clicks from whatever the topic, its not allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonesta6
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad