Part 1 of proof that Parag is an ethical scumbag

Discussion in 'Johnson & Johnson IT' started by anonymous, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:01 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Parag has knowingly allowed a contractor to work for J&J that clearly has a conflict of interest. This contractor used to work for ‘Tech Vendor X’ and had significant access to NDA information including pricing and roadmap technology. That contractor has very recently left ‘Tech Vendor X’ and now works for ‘Tech Vendor Y’, which is a major competitor of ‘Tech Vendor X’. J&J has subsequently purchased a competing product from Tech Vendor Y, which Parag has direct responsibility in the acquisition of. In addition to that, the contractor is now working on site in Raritan helping to deploy the competing product from ’Tech Vendor Y’.

    How is this arrangement allowed in an organization that puts such high regard to their Credo? How is Parag comfortable with this situation. Does J&J procurement know of this arrangement?

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have proof that Parag and members of his team have provided detailed configuration and pricing details to ‘Tech Vendor Y’ for the sole purpose of allowing them to win an end of year bid of technology. It’s important to disclose that ‘Tech Vendor X’ also received business in parallel. However, this was only done as a cover up and done so under the premise of ‘Vendor Diversity’.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    All lies
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Why would a contractor have knowledge of pricing details for bids? Are these configurations proprietary info?

    Pretty bold accusations if these are commercial software products.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    This is all hearsay. However, is it true that the contractor is on-premises working for J&J? That's a pretty easy thing to confirm. If that's true, one HAS to question the ethics of that situation. Legal issue aside, I mean come on...that's a no brainer. How does anyone feel comfortable supporting that. It's a 'look the other way' scenario and just pretend it didn't happen.

    Either way, this all just speaks to the toxic atmosphere that exists in this TS org. The swamp needs more draining. I can't wait until Jim just puts all this stuff in the cloud and gets rid of these clowns.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    listen, this goes both way.s. There's a dude on parags team that gives tech vendor x all the secrets. It evens out well. feel bad for the contractor though...geesh find a new job!!!!

    (agree about prag though...hee hee)
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    This thread is tech vendor x and tech vendor y squabbling.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Agree, there are many examples of this type of unethical vendor crap going on the past few years. While we continue to hear this is “fake news” or hearsay, many know that this is in fact true. We have vendors using LLCs to hide the source and continued friends hired who are not qualified to do this work. What will it take? Headlines in The NY Times about how JnJ touts the credo but it is a joke to employees who are well aware of unethical relationships. Haven’t we had enough bad press lately - someone needs to have the guts to dig into these examples and do the right things rather than looking the other way to protect themselves.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I don’t know about this specific parag situation but within his team I know lot of folks from Varma gang (remembers Manish Varma and his gang), who openly conducts business in unethical way but nothing can be traced back... everyone knows , most open secret in the company.. Thanks to the SM,DZ, ML and Sani unethical culture... What Credo team can do ..... remember SQA RFP fiasco, Global Service Owner called Credo hotline survey and credo team couldn’t find any proof and person who called was gone .. only way is for Jim to get rid of lot of these jokers who came with SM
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Now you can call him Mr. VP.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    All hires from Stuart days should be fired, they were all non-qualified ass holes including Steve Wrenn who created this monstrosity of AS and Development Centers which are completely useless.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Wrenn was and is totally over his head in an IT role. What was amazing to watch was how Stuart blindly took all of Wrenns ideas and supported implementing them: development centers staffed up all over the world with no work, no funding model no leadership to pull something like this off. Wrenn had no clue what he as doing and those VPs hired from his past had no experience in IT, how to manage change not to mention some some very questionable practices. Wrenn himself had issues working with women and there is plenty of evidence of inappropriate stuff that he has said.

    Great step forward- get rid of wrenn and that loser CD and replace with experienced IT professionals with proven track record of leadership.
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I'm the original author to this thread. I'd like to submit a credo violation, but I don't know how to do that completely anonymously. Any suggestions? I'm concerned of repercussions. Is there an internal link that I can use?

    Although I feel it's important to make a report, I don't expect anything real to happen. From what I've experienced, there are people that have multiple violations reported on them and it doesn't appear to affect their employment. In this case, I'm confident there are people that will protect him because of his recent appointment.

    If you work for Parag, you should be very careful. He's only thinking of himself and those close to him. There are certain people (ie VV) that kiss his ass and report everything to him. You should be very careful of those individuals as well. It will become more obvious when you see who he hires to replace his former role
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Credohotline.com to file anonymously
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Put your name on it coward
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Having been close to one recent situation, I would strongly recommend not putting your name on it as submitter. Recent history has proven that there is no protection of a whistleblower. you are not a coward but just looking to protect yourself. There have been several high level Very respected IT leaders eliminated in the past few years for raising concerns of conflict of interest.

    My recommendation would be to use the electronic form, do not use your name as the submitter but instead list your name with others who have knowledge of the situation. The form asks for everyone who CIA should talk to. Usually those included are very broad some with first hand info some with extraneous info

    in the current jnj climate no one should be labeled a coward for trying to do the right thing when clearly there has been risk in doing so. If we all want to see change in jnj IT we need those courageous folks to come forward despite the risk.
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    ...great advice from the anonymous guy