This is an ad hominem attack, and logically without merit. Such a reference may raise questions in cases where the arguments may reflect a bias in favor of the employer; however those questions must then be answered by finding that actual bias, and arguing based on the direct evidence.
Quite so:
Alinsky's Rule 12: Destroy the Individual
"RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) "
Similarly Lenin:
"Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class"
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
Know these guys are one voice speaking through a thousand megaphones, each one in perfect conformity to a line that has ten thousand points, and covers every issue in minute detail, though entirely without regard to any logical consistency - the line is emotionally and politically consistent, but fails to actually make any sense.
On many points, those points where the official line is most flagrantly and outrageously false, the official line comes in three similar but logically incompatible versions. If you should prove A is false, they will call you a liar and a troll and will shift to B, if you should prove B is false, they will call you a troll and a racist and shift to C, and if you prove C is false they will call you a racist and a liar and shift back to A.
For some reason the line is always one version or three versions, never two, nor four. Perhaps they are inspired by the doctrine of the trinity.