Slashdot Mirror
The Repercussions of Blogging
hende_jman writes "How much should you be allowed to say in a public blog? There's an article on CNN that looks at different situations in which people have been fired for blogging about their company. The main issue brought seems not to be one of a lack of trust (blogs, after all, are most often public), but rather a lack of policy outlining repercussions for negative blogging about one's company."
Slashdot had editors not named Zonk?
Anyway, don't blog anything you wouldn't say on TV.
Yes, God/Allah/Budda/Satan/Mataki forbid that attention be brought to a company's bad business practices and employee mistreatment....;)
WTF does that mean?
It's about the companies rights. They can fire you for whatever reason they like.
It's a two way street, you can leave whenever you want, and the company can leave you.
Stop this bellyaching about your freedom. You don't have the "right" to keep your job.
duh?
My blog (full of cobwebs) are stories about me, not my employer. I'd fully expect to be fired if I told the story about
NO CARRIER
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
If you've signed a NDA or any other legally binding agreement that compells you to STFU about a particular subject, then you're not allowed to talk about that subject, be it to your family around the dinner table or to the world via a blog. Seems pretty simple...
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
lack of common sense by the blogger.
The possibility of having one's blog data mined by identity theives, or your family's enemies is something to keep in mind when writing too. If you wouldn't want your Grandmother discussing what you're talking about, it's probably a better idea to vent verbally to a friend [as long as you don't know Linda Tripp], than to put your rant into writing for potentially hostile people to read.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
1. Never fuck anyone from the office.
2. Never blog about your work either.
This isn't kindergarten... nobody should need a 'policy' to tell them that if they badmouth their employer in public (or otherwise reflect badly on them), they're not going to be welcome at work for much longer.
It's called 'biting the hand that feeds you', and it's never a particularly smart idea.
It's currently at +3 Insightful as I write this, but wait until the whiney victim mentality modders get their hands on it. To them, everything is an attack on your "rights" and your "freedoms." It's a sense of entitlement that has no basis in reality.
The problem of course is that blogs are accessible world wide and can potentially reach a much larger audience than if you were simply talking to friends about how crappy your company is. To some extent, the fired employees deserve some of the blame as they would have to realize the potential implications of posting the information they did, but this IS the problem with technologic advancement. There are always teething problems associated with new technologies being used within existing methodologies and communication paradigms. The trick is, always be careful of what you say and be willing to take the heat for it......even if it is on a personal blog that might be accessed by hundreds, or thousands of individuals. I am always amazed at the traffic my blog receives for a non-commercial ( I would rather keep it commercial free), personal site. Articles like my What is the iPod are some days getting a hundred hits or more from all over the world, so one should expect that some attention may come your way even with what you may consider minor posts.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Before we continue with this discussion, I propose that we wrap Jefferson's remains in a dynamo. Then, when he starts rolling around in his grave, we can all benefit from this endless free power resource.
Cheers,
Adolfo
most companies have policies about who in the company is allowed to talk to the press and/or public (almost always restricted to C* level execs or the PR department)
blogs are just another way of violating this policy.
Non-Disclosure Agreement
I've been warned that I can't state my opinion anywhere online even if it doesn't pertain to my company. One of our partners might somehow see it and get angry with us, or so they tell me.
TACO: Do you read and write proper English?
ZONK: Well, not really.
TACO: Do you have an inflated sense of self-worth? That is, would you refer to yourself as a "journalist" in an interview with Microsoft's security guy even though all you do is click a button to post user-submitted stories in a web queue?
ZONK: Sure, I can do that.
TACO: When's the last time you read the Slashdot front page?
ZONK: About a week ago.
TACO: YOU'RE HIRED!
I think part of the issue here is people have this perception of the so-called "internet" as a sort of anything-goes space of freedom where ordinary rules of human conduct are relaxed. People on-line say the most outrageous things and have access to images and descriptions of extreme situations and behavior that you would never see in real life.
In reality, the internet is just a bunch of computers linked together. But what happens is people only concentrate on the wild stuff and the exhortations of so-called "freeedom" advocates who push the internet as some sort of intellectual wild west or something, and they do things like spread work gossip or post naughty pictures of themselves in their work uniform. Then they get fired.
I think we all share some of the blame for this and need to be more thoughtful about what we say and do online. Remember, the next time you link to goatse, it could cost someone their job.
Yes, employment is "at will". Does that mean that employers should have the write to fire an employee for publishing a novel written on personal time? Or should society place limits on employers rights to fire employees over off work hours speech unrelated to their job? Personally, I think giving employers the right to squelch employees by threat of arbitrary termination hands them a bit too much power. What you say (unrelated to work) on your own time is your own business and not that of the employer. JMO. --M
I believe the correct term for being fired for bloggin about the company is "being dooced".
Most companies do have them.
They're called NDA's.
not comments, that's for sure...
But ... what if I own the company? :)
With blogging, you have to imagine the person or company you're badmouthing reading it. If you've disguised your identity, (or the identity of the company if it's small) they can fume away but can't do anything. Ditto personal blogs- the less anonymous you are, the more cautious you should be about what you say, because with tools like Google and "Find a blog in your area" someone will read it.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
I go through alot of resumes.
:
With the advent of blogging, I can't believe:
1. The number of people who give a link to their website on their resume
2. Have a blog
3. Refer to themselves negatively in their blog
"I couldn't find the motivation to get out of bed".
"I'm a loser, I can't find a job".
"I just don't feel like working".
Hey, let's call these people...
a few days ago or last week? When are we going to see some repercussions for excessive duping? C'mon guys. It's a big world out there. There's lots going on. You're starting to look like the patent office, granting patents on prior art. At my age, when I see this now, I begin to wonder if I didn't forget something. That and excessive deja vu.
Basic rules of behavoir still apply. If you are working for a fried chicken company and post a blog about them selling deep fried rats in order to get back at them and damage the company you are responsible. Political satire is for the moment still protected but staments made to slander or defame are not covered by the constitution and have always been banned. The internet is not exempt. If it's not something you want everyone to know why are you posting it in a blog? It's like posing for a nude picture for a billboard then getting upset because people are looking at it. It's a public forum. Don't say anything you don't want your boss to know. They may not be as ignorant of technology as you claim they are. If you want to rant anonomously find a less public forum.
Most blogs seem quite lackluster and pointless; individuals use these online journals to post ramblings about their menial lives as though some great Internet audience waits on the edge of their seat for johnsmith348 to post the latest exciting update in the saga of his life on livejournal.com and will meet his every cutting comment with great applause.
Then there are these, these controversial blogs. There was one young woman who worked a government office job in Richmond who created an entire blog devoted to her sex-life and the politics of her job and what went on "under the table", to 'euphemize' it. Following the tsunami crisis, you have folks who play on the fame to harass victims of the tsunami and their families with sites such as "I Love Tsunamis", all using blogs to target the masses. Many people would argue that controversial content such as this should not be allowed to be published.
The only real reprocussion is that free speech is being taken to dramatic extremes on these blogs, like it or not.
Donald Ferrone, Ph.D
Professor of computer science
http://www.geocities.com/donald_ferrone/
If I started handing newsletters out on the street corner that had articles about the inside dirt about my company, could I be fired? Of course I could and with good justification. Corporations are under no obligation to uphold the First Amendment. (And that's one big reason I'm against privatization of government services.)
Blogs are simply a more efficient means of communicating a message, nothing more. Why is this even controversial?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
except now your dissention is documented.
Mildly offtopic, but it does reflect on the blogsphere a bit. (Did I just use that word?)
I am a gentle employee bunny.
1) I am a gentle bunny. I will listen carefully before I speak. In so
doing I might get some faint clues from my manager as to who is going to
get screwed next, and so take steps to make sure I am not in the penumbra of
blame when it happens.
2) I am a gentle bunny. I will think before I speak. I will make very
sure I don't violate my employer's non-disclosures or talk about the stock
during blackout periods. Nor will I reveal what I know about management's
little hobbies. I will remember that my employer is *not* a gentle bunny, but
is part wolf, part rat, and part Emperor Palpitine; and his lawyers are
even worse.
3) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that when I speak I can hurt
others. Will what I say cause others pain? Will they take it out on me in
my next review?
4) I am a gentle bunny. Can I change the way I say something to avoid
hurting another yet still say it? I will strive to remember that in these
situations, precise factual accuracy must give way to the survival instinct;
it's a lot more important not to tick them off.
5) I am a gentle bunny. The things I love are not loved by all. I will not
force the things I love onto others. Not even if it is honesty, decency,
and fiducial responsibility, and the people lacking these things are thereby
risking jail time.
6) I am a gentle bunny. If I wish to show others the things that I love I
will check with those present in case they do not wish to be involved.
This is especially true when I am comtemplating whistleblowing.
7) I am a gentle bunny. I will accept any gift freely given, yet I will
never ask for a free gift. The last time I did, I was fired, and I learned
from that.
8) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that though I may not love
something, that does not mean another may not love it. Everyone has their
own take on these things, and just because I don't like fraud, doesn't
mean the CEO isn't into it bigtime.
9) I am a gentle bunny. I will listen and think on everything a person
says, not just the parts I wish to fight with or the parts with which I
already agree. If I find that everything presented is utter fantasy and
absurdity, I will still carefully consider that this is, after all, my
employer, and that in fantasy one may sometimes find humor, especially in
schedules.
10) I am a gentle bunny. What I believe in is important to me. I will
remember that what others believe in is important to them. And if they
believe that lying to the employees is important, then I will remember
that "gentle" is not the same as "gullible".
11) I am a gentle bunny. Another person may hold dear to their heart a
view that contradicts mine. This does not mean that their view or mine is
wrong for each may be the right choice for each of us. After all, there
are no ethics in my workplace, so how can there be right and wrong
choices?
12) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that words hurt worse and longer
than blows. I will remember that this is occasionally useful, and is
frequently the only response which is both legal and rational.
13) I am a gentle bunny. If someone speaks to hurt me, have I given them
cause? Is there something I have said or done that has caused them pain?
Probably not; they probably weren't doing it intentionally, and simply
wounded me in blithe, unconcerned self-interest. They are, after all,
management.
14) I am a gentle bunny. If I find myself wanting to hurt someone to make
my point, I will look at what I am saying to see what is lacking in my
view that I must harm another that they might agree? And if what is
lacking is a modicum of intelligence in the other party, I will nonetheless
remember that punching out the mentally enfeebled is neither gentle nor
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Ellen Simonetti's blog, mentioned in the CNN article as having "suggestive photographs of [her] in uniform," dies a slow horrible death...
Second, labor laws vary from State to State - South Carolina believes in "employment by will", which (given that all they employers seem to belong to one gigantic Satantic cult) really boils down to slave labor for slave wages. On the other hand, States with better protections generally pay better, have better standards of living, have more jobs in areas like Technology, generally have mass transit and other "socialised" services, and massive problems from radiological and toxic waste from Government sites.
Third, the First Amendment only applies to Governments, including State Governments. However, it could reasonably be argued that massive international corporations that have monopolies or near-monopolies are essentially Governments within themselves. They tax, they create laws, they even enforce them. The difference is only in the choice of words.
HOWEVER, having said all that, it is certainly true that malicious gossip never helped anyone and will burn the gossiper as surely as it burns those gossiped about. Here, I draw an important distinction between malicious gossip (or gossip of any kind, really) and whistleblowing. A crime is a crime is a crime, and those who stay silent ARE accessories to the fact. American courts would do everyone a favour by prosecuting the "silent witnesses" who enable the crimes as vigorously as the criminals themselves. Enabling is just crime at arms length.
I also agree that a job isn't a right. Wrongful dismissal should be prosecuted, as it slanders the dismissed, but employment per se is a mutually agreed-upon contract. Now, if the contract is vague (for the employer's benefit), then the employee has every right to use those same loopholes for THEIR benefit. As another person said, it is a two-way street. And two-way means that whatever the employer can take, so can the employee.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The First Amendment doesn't protect you from your employer; it protects you from the government (and even then, only congrefs). Read through it sometime, it might clear some things up.
Maybe that was his point?
...just look at Slashdot where the most popular pasttime is modding down people who's opinon you disagree with... tsk tsk.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This is precisely why I started http://www.novoice.org/.
To provide an outlet for those who are afraid to speak out about their jobs.
I don't think Ellen's pics are compromising and it is not obvious that it is Delta airlines that she works for.
m ments&dcid=393&entryid=393
Here's the link: http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/?cmd=displayco
I will admit that I'm surprised that I haven't heard about certain bloggers being visited by the Men in Black for referring to Bush as the living, breathing personification of evil yet...especially when I consider the number of bloggers who do so. Although I suppose it's extremely possible that such visits have taken place, and we simply haven't heard about them. Still, I would have thought sites like this, would be the target of der neugeboren Fuhrer's jackboots even if no others were.
Where you have the freedom to speak your mind, unless you offend someone. Or piss someone off. Or do it on the radio. Or outside of a designated "free speech" zone...
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...I mean was anyone surprised when they saw the blog: "Dude, working at McDonald's blows".
Some people say bad things about my COmpany, but not me. My boss is an absolute saint, and my coworkers are knowledgable about software and increDibly talented. really I feel blessed, in that I have a job for life, and my stock purchase plan can only increase in value.
People are sometimes envious, and ask me how i was lucky enough to leverage my skills into an exciting company like SCO, to which I reply, "I'm just lucky, I guess!"
...don't bite the hand that feeds you? How about look after your workers so they're not so pissed off all the time. Does anyone know exactly when we all traded good leadership for threats and extortion?
- unethically exploiting employees
- conducting business in an illegal manner
- killing people in the course of business
- about to kill people in the course of business
- conducting business in a non-competitive, monopolistic fashion
you are morally bound to speak out about it, on your blog, to the press and to whomever will listen. (If your employer is a Chinese mining company, you should just quit your job and become a full-time blogger.)Blogs only expand the reach of your message, they do not magically remove the responsibility for what you say (that's what anonymous email accounts are for).
If a company doesn't like you I would understand they could fire you. Part of your job is to make the company money, and you can't do that by causing harm to the companies image. What I am really interested is in relation to blogging and school. If someone goes out and blogs a bunch of information about how a school sucks (which I think could happen quite a lot) is the students education and freedom of speach be protected. I feel this is much more interesting considering the fact the student is not employeed by the school, but the school is employeed by the student.
mnewberg.com
The CNN article can be distilled down to a couple of chilling sentences: "Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst at the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said employees often 'don't realize the First Amendment doesn't protect their job.' The First Amendment only restricts government control of speech. So private employers are free to fire at will in most states, as long as it's not discriminatory or in retaliation for whistle-blowing or union organizing, labor experts say."
The problem with blogging is that the words are documented. An employee can badmouth about his company or chat up the company's trade secrets in private settings and probably get away with it, but if he types those gripes or company secrets into his computer and hits the "publish" key, then he'd better realize that those words are permanently stored in a server, and the possibility that they might come back to haunt him is there.
Sun and Fun
You know, it's all well and good to say it's unfair for someone to be fired over talking negatively about their company, or to say that a company should have the right to fire someone who is badmouthing them, I think that I could go either way depending on the situation (for example, I don't think there is anything wrong with an employee saying "my boss is kind of a prick" or "I wish I got more time off, and was paid better", but on the other hand, it would be kind of inappropriate to say "my company has just begun to implement a new plan to build a polution factory powered by burning puppies that will enable the CEOs, powered by nuclear waste, to rape every third newborn in montana").
But the thing of it is, if someone hates their job so much that they have to spend all their free time bitching about it on a blog, then maybe they are better off fired. A company doesn't need employees who are unproductive because they absolutely dispise what they do, and a person doesn't need to live a myserable life shortened by stress because they a working a job they hate.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Isn't this what anonymous speach is for?
I agree there are parts of my life the employer doesn't need to know about, but on the other hand there is so much I wouldn't mind a employer to know about. Hopefully possible employers get a better sense of who I am, and what I can do by what I do in my free time. I do have a personal website that I use to promote who I am and I do try to get employers to look at it. There are a few things I want them to take from it:
a) I am a well rounded person.
b) I like to do a diverse range of things
c) I enjoy a wide range of media
d) I like to code in my free time and show some explains
Hopefully employers look for these things, becuase the people I enjoy working with tend to fit these catergories. I feel a website is a good way to show employers that.
mnewberg.com
Shouldn't Tim Bray have more important things to do?
Blogging about your company is full of unforeseen traps. Probably the biggest one would be insider traiding laws.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Seems to me that many of the people being fired are not for badmouthing the company or revealing big devastating secrets, but for having loose lips. In the same way that a person shouldn't go about blathering to every stranger that they meet at school or on the job about Aunt Mary's incontinence, sister Jane's problems finding clothes that fit or their father's gambling problems, they shouldn't go about discussing all of the birthmarks and warts of the company where they work. The remarks being made are not all that damaging, but reveal a certain lack of discretion and loyalty. It's like they are trying to gain the affection and admiration of those about them by gossiping about everyone and everything else, like little puppy dogs over-eager to please.
CNN mentions the guy who got fired from google for blogging.
What they don't mention is that the guy who got fired from google for blogging seems to have been violating SEC regulations by publicly posting certain information relating to Google's financials...
Common sense really needs to become an issue at some point.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
> but rather a lack of policy outlining
> repercussions for negative blogging about one's
> company.
Comporations have held off from creating blogging policies because they didn't want to look like they were keeping people from posting...now, they'll be able to justify it by saying "well, we don't want to have to fire people."
Why not just use an online alias? That's what the Internet was all about 5+ years ago. Now people are trying to be anonymous and get their 15 mins of fame online.
No sig for you!!
all you Fascists amaze me. That people accept this much authority in their lives totally amaze me - the founders have rolled over in their graves. I say any company that is going to monitor what their employees say and then punish them for it instead of finding out if they actually have a point that needs rectified in the company doesn't deserve to have that person's talent anyway.
If you went on TV and described the inner workings of your company and painted them as idiots - would you still have a job after your management saw you mouthing off about them to an audience? Why is a blog any different.
If you were at a party and made a joke about your girlfriend's terminal yeast infection and inability to master a bar of soap and washrag, do you think you would be getting any ever again?
You can say anything you want but that doesn't mean there will be no consequences.
IMHO, bloggers are the AIDS of the internet. Just a bunch of assholes with worthless opinions - much like a comment on Slashdot.
Hi, I'd just like to clear something up. Freedom of speech is a right that is only relevant when a private person interacts with the government. It has nothing to do with what private entities do to each other. So why are so many clueless slashfucks discussing this?
about a web site that speaks against censorship, and yet is the most aggressive censor I have ever encountered on the net.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Not because they are legal constructions, though. Only when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverment could privitize everything and get away with murder (literally, in some cases). Specifically, I'm thinking of malls that have had trouble prohibiting a right of free assembly.
I think the main issue here is not about freedom of speech... but lack of right to job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job if your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - in theory at least.
Hey, it's all theory until it gets before a judge.
If you are dumb enough to speak out against your employer in public, regardless of whether its a blog or right outside the company door, you deserve to be fired.
At least have the brains to bash your employer anonymously. No one wants to have known morons in their staff.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Any reason except race sex and maybe age...
There is no such thing as "Wrongful Termination" in most States in the USA unless you have a contract or can prove it is based on one of the above.
But when you're ready for the real world, leave the xanga/livejournal behind. It's that simple.
However, if your blog is used for matters of a technical nature, or if it's more about news than it's about you (or if you have the political clout to keep one without worry of repercussion), then go for it. Photoblogs are good in this respect, when they're not simply pictorial documentaries of what you and your friends did on the weekend.
My digital rights don't need management.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America secures everyone the right to free uncensored speech. Period.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
When I worked at AT&T Wireless, someone posted a bunch of fliers promoting new "cost-saving policies" that were going to be instituted. Mostly they mocked real existing ones(AWS doubled the price of cans of soda in break rooms) and the fact that money-sink MMS and the Executive divisions never seemed to be on the receiving end of these sorts of decisions.
A lot of people assumed I wrote the flier for some reason.
In any case, apparently, a scan of flier got included in a presentation to the SVP of Human Resources as an example of how bad morale was at the company.
That's the right attitude to take: take the criticism into consideration instead of shooting the messenger.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
yes, you are working in an "at will" work contract in most states, so by definition they can fie you for whatever reason they want.
:D
you CAN file for unemployment though
Fall into line and do what your corporate "massa" says. You should be grateful that this wonderful company is willing to pay your overeducated, experienced ass 5% of what the brain-dead, jerk-off, sad excuse for a CEO makes, even though he couldn't manage his way out of a fucking paper bag. That's right drop to your knees and fellate the corporate tools just so you can afford that big house, SUV, dancing lessons for your spoiled kids, and a health club membership for your lazy-assed "stay at home" wife.
We just don't like the vulnerability we feel when other people have it too.
I find it interesting how little people see of the big picture -- the world centering around themselves so often yields such a limited perspective. I've brought the comparisson of western (by which I actually mean U.S.A.) society to eastern (by which mean Japan) society to illustrate an alternative way of thinking and considering things. Because the two societies are so different, it grants an opportunity to see how other people do things... a chance to see how things might be if they were different here.
The issue about "blogging" is really no different than if it were discovered that you were talking to a reporter about your company or, for that matter, if your boss overheard you at a dinner conversation. If you're unhappy with things at work, it is an embarassment for the people you work for to have you go around telling people how you feel. While I'm sure they wish they had a better recourse such as violent retaliation against your family or the ability to erase the memories of those to whom you have spread your filth about the company, firing is just about the only weapon they can wield.
In Japan, I think it is pretty well accepted that people will talk. They talk a lot. And what's more, people often worry about it so much that they do everything in their power to avoid anyone saying anything negative about themselves. This is a key motivator for many of the "positives" we see in Japanese society... if you've ever been there, you'd recall that they are patient, kind and generous to a fault. (At least, that was my experience.)
It is also often said that asian women usually don't become obese like western women very often do. Many people attribute this to their dietary habits, which I will agree helps, but if you don't think they love them burgers and fries, that pizza and spaghetti, you name it, then you'd be very wrong. So why? Because they don't want people talking about how fat they are!!!!! So they simply do what it takes to avoid it.
Again, it's the shame and embarassment issues that are motivators more than just about anything else. Here, it's simply bad manners to notice if someone is a fat pig and has unusually large breasts for a man. And if you SAY anything about it, it's on you! So the stigma is on the speaker rather than on the object of the speech.
This is not usually the case in blogging, however -- the stigma goes to the object. So what are we to do as a society? Should we, the people, embrace our freedom of speech by making allowances for the fact that it is simply unavoidable? Should we, the businesses of the U.S.A., defend our public image with litigation and termination or through kindness and generosity?
One thing is certain -- we, the people, are pretty damned short-sighted much of the time and care only about pleasing ourselves... this is pretty true about we, the businesses of america too... a damned shame isn't it?
I think civics and social studies should be very emphasized in our schools now more than ever. (And they shouldn't graduate unless they can pass a U.S. Citizenship exam.) The kids will know, most of the time, if they are being lied to anyway -- so even being taught lies could be of value.
Sounds like people are getting dooced.
English is easier said than done.
If you're really dumb enough to speak poorly of your company in public, you really do need to be fired.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
I believe the correct term for being fired for bloggin about the company is "being dooced".
I'm pretty sure that's "douched". At least, if it isn't, it should be...
This isn't new. It has been pretty common sense that if you speak publically about your employer in a bad way you are likely to see repurcussions. Why are people so surprised when they go out on the Internet and write about how stupid their employer is or how stupid what they are doing is. Duhhhhhh, you get fired.
Top secret Logitech space equipment?
You mean like some sort of zero-gravity USB mouse based on alien tech from Area 51? Or a special force-feedback joystick for operating orbital mind-control lasers?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
What is a blog?
And how exactly, does "Writing about your employer in a blog" differ from "writing about your employer on a webpage"?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
What you should and should not say is not changed by blogging. There is no real difference to making a public statement by any means, including blogging, newspapers, TV etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In my communications class (it's basically English for Dummies -- resume writing, powerpoint presentations and the like, all aimed at us socially-inept Computer Science students), my prof likes to use a modblog.com blog to communicate with the class. Before this term, I had a LJ that I rarely used, but in order to post on the class blog I decided to make myself one on that site as well and actually use it. This basically means that my Communications prof reads my blog... and sadly, she's probably my most frequent visitor.
Now, I realize that this is a very different situation than a boss reading a blog, but I still have to watch what I say. This is a rather unpredictable prof (a feature that I think she's quite proud of), and I'm always afraid that she'll suddenly get her wireless connection working on her laptop, link to my blog to give an example, and click on one of the NOT WORK SAFE (but carefully labelled to avoid this problem) links to my artwork. None of it's bad, per se, but there are some religious types in the class who might freak out a wee bit at even an artistic nude of a Tauren with big boobs... and I don't want to have to deal with that. Furthermore, since the class's marking is very subjective, if I accidentally embarrass or disturb the prof, my marks might suffer... and I wouldn't even be able to complain because the whole purpose of the class is to learn how to communicate effectively and NOT embarrass/disturb people.
I'm just glad I'm smart enough not to ever blog anything personal... though I think my boyfriend was a bit disappointed when he discovered that I'd only mentioned him once or twice in passing. In Slashdot posts, however... think I'll get in trouble for any of these? :D
"A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name" - Evan Esar (1899-1995)
He's coming out as a furry.
On a related note, I need to find a different forum.
run amuck, namely that of the East India Corporation.
In fact, after the revolution, American corporations were severely limited in how big they could get and how long they could last by them ol'time laws. For instance:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
It wasn't until a SCOTUS clerk (right, not even one judge) declared corporations were people too, in 1886, that the socialist anti-corporate tendancies of our founding fathers were finally over turned, and corporations could once again regain their rightful place as our supreme rulers.
So now you still have your little freedom of speech, but you just don't dare use it, or you'll end up poor, homeless, and alone.
How about them Mets?
Unfortunately, these laws are pretty easy to get around. Legally, you can't fire somebody for exercising their first amendment rights in ways that don't affect the company. But I have a friend who was targetted for termination the moment her personal web site was deemed "un-Christian". Of course, they had to find another official reason to fire her -- but HR departments are good at that.
Even if there's no legal reason for an employer not to show an employee the door, it's stupid to call the relationship a "two way street". That guy who lost his job at Google after working less than a week had just left a secure job at MS and relocated to a new state. He's probably not gonna be homeless, but he underwent real hardship. By contrast Google is a huge entity that doesn't suffer much when an "individual contributer" bugs out. When they lose top management, it's a different story of course -- but those folks tend to have a much nicer severence package!
Before you dismiss me as another bleeding heart liberal, stop and think what America would be like if employers had the power you think they do. They could dictate every aspect of their employees lives, from what church they belong to to who they associate with, to what books and magazines they read. (How would they know all this stuff? By sending inspectors out to employees homes. Ford Motors actually used to do that.) When one side has all the power and the money, there's no fucking two-way street.
It's good sense not to dis your employer in public.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
I have heard that some leftwing american online activists have been persecuted by rightwing Limbaugh-programmed protofascists who have, among other actions, stalked them online, found out details of their personal life, and contacted their employers, trying to get them fired. One such protofascist found a purported photo of me online and posted it as part of a response to one of my posts here on Slashdot. I have no doubt that if the rightwingbots here on Slashdot could find out where I work, they would persecute me there, too.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
When blogging, you play the roles of subject, writer, editor and publisher. The whistle blowing laws are probably the best recourse for a fired blogger; however, without an established publishing institution behind blogs, I doubt whistle blowing cases will succeed.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the whistle blowing laws pretty much assume a hapless employee blowing the whistle to an authority. Publishing your blog puts you in the compromised situation of being both the hapless whistle blower and the authority.
The problem with the current state of employment is that employees really don't build up any solid assets. If we were building assets while we work, we wouldn't be beholden to any particular employer.
Different jurisdiction, of course, but when I worked for British Rail, like the other then 120,000 employees I was subject to the appropriate sections of the Rule Book which included gems like "All employees must observe passing trains and ensure there is a red light showing on the back" (without saying what we were supposed to do if there wasn't one), but more to the point it included the notorious rule A.1.4.4: "You may not make any public statement which reflects to the detriment of your employer". Then they went and privatised us, splitting BR into over 100 companies, so while we couldn't slag off our own employers in public, there were plenty of other railway companies we could criticise if we felt adventurous!
I'm not an American so this confuses me.
People have been fired over here (NZ) for blogging about their work, but only if they revealed privileged info.
I don't get it - can your employer fire you for anything there? Whats the deal? Don't employees have protected rights, such as against frivolous termination?
Employers aren't "granted" the right to fire you for what you do on our spare time at all. That's a natural right they have, and the government can only step in to intervene when society has deemed those reasons improper, such as with sexual orientation.
My employer has every right to fire me because of a novel a right.
Conversely I have every right to quit my job if my employer writes something that I don't agree with.
It works both ways... if you have the ability to quit at any time for any reason then your employer has the ability to fire you at any time for any reason.
Seriously, do people think that because there's a new and easy way of updating their websites (which is all that blogs are...simplified website management) that somehow they magically get a +5 Shield of I Can Say Whatever The Fuck I Want Without Repurcussions? Blogga, please.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
is fired for posting on /., I wonder if there will be an about face.
Should an employer be able to fire you even having a blog? How about for having a bumper sticker that says, "Bite me" ("that phrase does not promote a positive company image, and since your car is seen on company property...")?
The simplist will throw around 1st amendment quotes without really considering "if congress writes a law that says it is okay to fire you for saying 'sucko', that contradicts 'congress shall make no law'". Of course, you signed an NDA, so you are not even able to discuss why you were fired with your future employer ("discussing corporate policy is strictly forbidden").
Of course no one wants to discuss what happens when your employer keeps a blog.
If you want to make terms of employment 'at will', let's make it truly 'at will' and shitcan drug tests, NDAs, criminal background checks, and the like. You get to know if I have the qualifications to perform the job and nothing more. And when air traffic controllers quit en mass, remember employment is 'at will'. If that leaves you with a huge lawsuit (or a mid-air collision), oh well. Your hypocracy has served you well.
If you are going fire people for keeping a blog, it might be a good idea to consider how keeping the blog is negatively affecting job/company performance (which is the only credible criteria).
Short of that, you justify firing anyone from being black to having too many cutesy figures on their webpage ("they must be gay"). It's just a matter of how much you want to twist your logic to justify it (which it seems several here are fairly adroit at).
...we'll try to help you out at OmniNerd.com :-)
Mark A. McBride -- OmniNerd.com
without an established publishing institution behind blogs, I doubt whistle blowing cases will succeed
It occcurs to me that if a Court grants the Apple bloggers the same rights to protect their sources that "real" journalists have, then that could be considered a precedent in treating a blog like a real established publisher would be treated.
In the long term, I think it is inevitable that at least some blogs will be treated like established publishers, but it may be awhile.
It would be interesting to see a survey of how many established news sources are open to criticism of their own new organization by their own journalists.
"Employers aren't "granted" the right to fire you for what you do on our spare time at all. That's a natural right they have, and the government can only step in to intervene when society has deemed those reasons improper[...]"
Corporations are "granted" the right to exist as soon as the state registers their articles of incorporation. The state has a right to confirm or deny articles of incorporation, as well as revoke those articles by court order at a future date. Thus, employers are -- by definition -- "granted" rights by the state. Further, corporations and other organizations can NEVER have inalienable rights; that is something expressed within our constitution that is limited ONLY to human beings. Corporations and other organizations have NO natural rights.
However, you seem to support the notion that businesses should have every right to terminate employment "at will" for any reason whatsoever. And consider the right of an employee to resign "at will" gives equitable parity to this arrangement. I think Adam Smith would disagree. Speaking of the power relationship between the employee and business holder, as well as foreseeing the potential for future unionization disputes. Smith says:
"It is not, however, difficult to forsee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." - Wealth of Nations, Book I, Ch. "Wages of Labor"
Smith was actually quite concerned about power disparities between labor and employers leading to massive immoral conduct by employers. He knew very well who were the "masters" and was quite open to the use of government authority to curb unreasonable abuse of power. And while he is considered a paean of free trade due to his theories on capital allocation inefficiencies due to protectionist policies, he would have been the first to say that certain market inefficiency are still desireable by society, even if the misallocate capital in the process. I suspect he would consider our transfer of high technology manufacturing and engineering skills overseas outright policy insanity.
Anyway, your employer doesn't have a "right" to squat. The owners of that business have the same inalienable "rights" as do us all. The business the own, however, is bound to abide by whatever civil law legislators deem desirable.
Cheers,
--Maynard
doesn't mean you should. If you're writing a blog, you should know that you are writing for the world. If you go to work and cuss out your boss, you have every right to do so, but you still may get fired for it. Blogs are no different -- it's not as if you are complaining in your own home to your friends. Your boss could be reading your blog, and if you're dumb enough to cuss him out in that type of public forum, you had better be ready to face the consequences.
http://www.walkingtaco.com
Freedom of speech, as the saying goes, does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you have consequences, or if there is a cost to your speech -- it's not free.
It's about the companies rights.
"We hold these rights to be self evident..." refers to human beings, not social organizations. When were companies granted "human rights"? Companies have obligations to the state first, and their shareholders second. Which means if the state demands that they follow certain rules of conduct with their employees, companies will be forced to do so. Further, a corporation's articles of incorporation may be terminated by the state through a court order at will. Convention (and rational economic policy) deems it necessary for the state to revoke articles of incorporation very rarely. Further, certain states may set legislation which sets limits to for revoking and refusing incorporation articles within strict guidelines. However, federal and state constitutions do not give corporations "inalienable rights". Those are reserved for human beings, and will remain so without a constitutional amendment. --M
My business partner doesn't like me having a blog. He says that what I write in my blog may reflect badly on the business. Since it's a Public thing, and all you have to do is type my name into a search engine to find it, it may be true. I mean, people do have their opinions of others. If some big corporate type happens across my blog and finds out that I'm a skateboarder, or that I like 4x4 wheeling and that corporate type doesn't like those activities, then they may think badly of my company for having me as a partner. Never mind that I am writing their whole computer system and it works great.
Some people just look down on others for no good reasons.
The above is not worth reading.
Everything should be examined on a case-by-case basis. You shouldn't be fired because you support a different political party (though it's probably still legal if you are fired for that), but you can be fired for badmouthing the boss publicly.
Why are there so many people these days online who think everything is leading to something else? "Oh no, this happened, it's only a matter of time until so-and-so." Um, no. Not everything is some downward spiral to something else. There are boundaries that are defined by the law on a situational basis. You know how there are different levels of murder? Not everything is black-and-white, and just because someone isn't allowed to say whatever the hell they want doesn't mean your rights are getting "eroded away." Get real!
Well color me clueless. I thought that in the current job market you could not be an egotistical software engineer, since there is no shortage of engineers. This story sounds like something from the 1990s.
But perhaps it is just that I am a humble mortal of minimal skills and this is why I have this impression.
There's a HUGE difference between whistleblowers and the morons blogging their pea-sized brains out. Most of these bloggers are NOT whistleblowers. They're complaining about the boss. Or they're complaining about him, her, or the people down in department 99. They usually admit to doing stupid shit on company time, and that, my friends, is tantamount to theft. You fuck around on company time, that's grounds for dismissal. I don't care whose rights you think are being violated. If you cash your paycheck, and you did nothing to earn some or all of that money, that's tough shit.
Let's face it. Most people are stupid. They blog, they send emails, and they admit to shit that they wouldn't dream in their wildest hallucinations would come back to haunt them. Yet when the boss drops them the pink slip, they have the nerve to be shocked! Most of these dumb fucks that work for Best Buy or these other places were not there to put in an honest days' work, they were there to scam their way to some free shit. And they did their best not to get caught. While Best Buy happens to be the company in this particular post, I don't think that Best Buy is totally without blame either. They're just as bad (or as good) as any other company out there. But I think the actual number of whistleblower bloggers is a very small number. The rest of these bloggers, spouting off a bunch of noise? They have no clue that this shit will come back to haunt them. Face it. Email, blogs, this shit is forever. Google (and dozens of other sites) capture all this stuff and archive it. What are you going to do when your blog says you fuck off all day at work, and your employer fires you for admitting it? Are you trying to tell me that you think these morons have a right to a job?
Bullshit.
-- No sig for you!
"Doosh" is the spelling I'm familiar with... comes from some online gaming thing or another. I believe I first became acquainted with it in SOCOM 2 -- it means "we just waxed your bomb carrier hard".
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
In other words; How long until someone with an axe to grind, a long term grudge, or just to be an asshole, starts up a blog with their chosen target's name, and starts talking smack about the company they're employed by?
Hell, I could see something like that happening with interoffice politics. Don't like the guy who rejected your idea for a USB powered vibrator? Make a blog and watch as he clears out his desk, and is then escorted off the property by security/
As long as you have a rudimentary knowlege of your target, I doubt there's anything you cannot do, if you're a complete bastard.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
1. be anonymous or use an alias
2. avoid using personally related specifics
3. be ready to accept the consequences of being id'd
bloging about where you work in your own name breaks all three of these.
fwiw, an interesting historical fact is that the founding fathers used aliases when submitting letters to the colonial newspapers advocating revolution against england -- for obvious reasons. these days most newspapers will not accept letters without verification of identity, which is one reason online commentary is more popular and expresses more risky opinions.
Waitaminit- are you saying I should NOT have used my blog to post photos of me and the bosses' daughter at it on top of the copy machine?
If you'd included a URL, this would have been +5, Funny. Instead it's just -1, Disappointing.
Actually, at least here in California, you are not allowed to ask a person's religion or where they go to church or anything like that to a potential job candidate.
As an aside, though, there are variations in regards to contract employees. I worked through a headhunter many years ago and, one evening, I got home to find a message on my machine, something to the effect of:
"Hey, I have a contract position which you might be really interested in. Neat project, neat company. I only have one question: 'Are you Jewish?' Give me a call."
It turned out that the position would require some travel to Saudi Arabia and that might have been a problem if I were Jewish. Fortunately, it was not a problem for me. But because the company couldn't ask that question in an interview, they went through out-of-state headhunters who could.
I can see being fired for a lewd picture taken in the workplace. I can see being fired for revealing a hot new product on the web. I can see being fired if you revealed other corporate secrets on your blog but I cannot see why the Queen of the Sky was fired. First off, the pictures on the blog don't even reveal to me that she worked for Delta. So what that she showed a bit of cleavage. I have seen more cleavage when the attendent was serving my drink! Maybe we do need to revisit the first amendment. It should be allowed for you to state your opinion of your boss on your web page....just don't reveal his name! ;)
Gorkman
Let it be known where this notion comes from:
POKEY
Regardless that the risk of losing a job is real, the CNN and Washington Post stories fail to mention the benefits to society of news blogs like mine that highlight the relevance of buried stories, and even break stories from time to time.
The press is supposed to be acting as the unofficial fourth branch of the U.S. government, to keep the other three in check. This is eloquently summarized in a 2002 6th Circuit Court decision:
If the mainstream media were doing its job to serve society, it would picking up the stories from blogs rather than trying to scare bloggers. The bloggers are the ones on the front lines defending democracy, not the mainstream media. The mainstream media is interested only in defending its bottom line. (Which actually -- at least for those that are publicly traded -- they are required by law to do. How did we end up with such laws that strike at the heart of the First Amendment?)The mainstream media is scared. After the tenth anniversary of Yahoo!, they haven't figured out yet what to do with the Internet. In a desperate bid, the Washington Post just bought Slate -- a marriage as divine as AOL/Time Warner. Here are two quick suggestions for any mainstream media moguls who happen to be reading this:
- Provide deep links to primary source documents like the bloggers do (court decisions, legislative bills, corporate press releases, etc.)
- Allow the readership to vote stories up to the front page. (Advanced: provide for affinity groups, in the manner of Amazon.)
It's not that simple, of course. The mainstream media is afraid of losing access to information sources who also happen to be subjects of news stories from time to time -- e.g., the White House. There is also probably a bit of old-fashioned snobbery, that they're here to tell us the news, not to give us primary sources nor to let us participate in editorial decisions.The first mainstream media outlet that can leverage its brand, overcome these hurdles, and embrace the nature of the Internet (namely, linking and collaboration) stands to make a financial killing while simultaneously living up to their charge by the founding fathers of being our "guardian of liberty."
Being fired because you were photographed drinking Coors in a bar, when you work as a loader for Bud Light? I can't remember the exact beer brands, but this does happen.
Free speech is one thing, but what are a persons rights against a company dictating what you can do on your own time vs the risk of losing your job. Can they dictate personal preference?
*Note: Not a rhetorical question, I ask this because I'm not sure how it works in US law
All you have to do is find some excuse for requiring that all your employees speak English AND Spanish. It's mostly a non-issue for Anglo Miamians, because those who really, fundamentally, couldn't deal with having to learn Spanish fled to Broward years ago. On the other hand, the one group that consistently refuses to learn Spanish is blacks. Pragmatic white kids take Spanish in high school when they're forced to take a foreign language. Black kids think they're being "cool" by studying any language BUT Spanish. Ergo, requiring that your teenage mall sales staff (or waiters/waitresses, receptionist, etc) be at least passably bilingual filters out MAYBE .5% of the whites, but eliminates 99.8% of the black applicants outright.
I'm ex-Navy (US Navy). One thing I noticed while serving was a distinct reaction us "smurfs" had when "kahkis" (officers and chiefs) were present. Neither group could relax. Relax in the sense of lowering formalities, we continued to show the exact same military bearing and the excessive drinking didn't start till the cheifs and officers left. I learned, that there is good reason to seperate your social life and your professional life and gaurd this seperation fiercly.
Companies enforcing their regulation beyond the scope of their assets (workspace as far as I'm concerned) is both ignoble, and if it's not illegal it should be.
Instead of companies accepting the fact they are increasingly subject to public opinion (Internet, blogs, free communications to Hong Kong etc.), they prefer to oppress us and fire those that pop off hints that investors and share holders might not have known. I bet companies wouldn't like it one bit if I told them that if I am to abide by their corporate policy, on my free time, then they should pay me the overtime ontop of my salary for 24hrs work per day; 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Microsoft wouldn't even last long with employee pay being that high!
I very much disagree with the extortion these companies are pushing onto the workers. But, there is a precedent that the companies might use.
I'm a government worker. I hold a clearance. I'm not paid 24/7 all year round to... maintain my clearance... however, I gladly do so becuase I work for the government and the nature of my job. It's complicated I suppose, here's the difference in another way... I gladly pay taxes to support my government, but I do not want to live under the thumb of a corporate monopoly. That's the best way I can put it. Companies are different, and they are in NO position to enforce their policies on me while I'm not on the clock.
I say that every person that works for any public company should open up a blog. Every one of us, and talk about our work on our blogs. They CAN'T fire the entire work force, even if they tried the government would step in and settle matters.
Watch out, here comes Big-Business!
At least, that's what my dad used to say, so
I don't get my meat where I get my bread.
I have missed some great opportunities for
some "recreation" with co-workers, but have
never suffered from (AFAIK) the down-side.
Seriously, has anyone read the FA? It's absolutely clear that in those cases described by the CNN journalist employees were not fired because they disclosed sensitive information or badmouthed the company. They were absolutely within their rights to disclose those facts (Apples shipped to MS campus, Google relocation policy) or make those photos (in the plane). Such facts are routinely discussed with friends over dinner, with spouses, with colleagues from other departments, etc.
The firing were absolutely random and arbitrary. The manager didn't like it and thought it "could reflect negatively" on the company. Guess what, fucktard, your decision to fire a competent employee reflects on your company much worse.
Yes, in the capitalist shithole known as the USA workers have very few rights and most companies can fire them at will. But 1) it doesn't make it right to fire people, 2) it is stupid to fire competent people for no valid reason, and 3) the USA is still a capitalist shithole.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
what's the connection between trust and publishing in public? If a blogger says his boss is a corrupt toad stealing money from orphans, why is that statement more trustworthy than if it was made over a couple of beers in a bar? Lot's of people make mistakes and lie in public.
A blogger may expose his biases and influences on his blog, but that doesn't build trust. It just provides me an understanding of how I need to filter everything that blogger writes. That's the same process that clueful readers have always applied to the consumption of any news source.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
One day, me and a couple of co-workers were out having a smoke, watching the gentle bunnies graze. And along comes this big cat (siberian maybe?), scares the bunnies away and _literally_ goes and uses one bunny hole as a toilet. Hey, I suppose it beat digging her own hole for that.
Basically just because you're a gentle bunny, doesn't mean that the others will leave you alone.
"If someone speaks to hurt me, have I given them
cause? Is there something I have said or done that has caused them pain?
Probably not; they probably weren't doing it intentionally, and simply
wounded me in blithe, unconcerned self-interest. They are, after all,
management."
Management isn't your only problem there, Mr Bunny. Some of your team mates might be wolves just as well. You'd be surprised what petty low-reward interests can spark a jolly good office backstabbing game.
For starters, there's always the purpose of making oneself look good. Which often involves making everyone else look bad. For example, being seen as a better programmer might give someone ideas like "hey, if I don't do something about it, this guy will get promoted before me."
Yes, you've said you don't even intend to be one of the "blood-gargling wolves in management", but that won't stop anyone from trying to push you off a cliff anyway. Better safe than sorry.
Or then there's always just petty narrow-mindedness. I've already posted several times the story of the marketer-turned-programmer co-worker that made it his personal quest to get both female programmers on his floor fired. He succeeded too. And _only_ those. Why? I wouldn't know.
Or then there's the "no good deed goes unpunished" kind of co-worker. The person you helped, might have become your arch-enemy: you know he's incompetent, and that makes you potentially dangerous.
I've met one like that too: so utterly incompetent, that he couldn't even write code that compiles. _Not_ an exaggeration. I mean, _literally_. As far as it eventually turned out his _only_ skill was faking a resume, but had _zero_ knowledge of programming. So he asks some co-workers for help. And they do take pity and write his modules for him. What does the idiot do? Try to badmouth them to his boss.
Or then there are cases where someone might hate you just because you do your job. For example, I've had an admin co-worker go on a berserk crusade against me, for a rather silly difference of opinions.
See, he had to be admin for an utterly dysfunctional piece of crap. Had all my compassion for that too. He wanted to convince upper management that the product is crap and should be replaced by something that at least works. Had all my support there too. Heck, he had the support of every single programmer in the division: that crap was just as much of a pain in development as it was to admin.
The problem? Management couldn't be convinced as long as all they saw was that the programs do work. With a lot of extra effort and cost, partly admin work partly programmer work to implement weird workarounds, but hey, they do run.
So to make his point, he wanted that we all stop doing work-arounds and let productive programs crash and burn. Let the whole damn project fail, if needed. Just to make a point to management. And that's where he no longer had my support. I was pretty outspoken that no, no matter what it takes, our programs _must_ run. The boss will, of course, be informed how much extra time and budget it cost to implement those workarounds and make the programs run on that crap server. But no, I will _never_ deliberately sabotage the project just to make a point like that.
Somehow that must have marked me as his arch-enemy. I was one of those that caused him to be stuck adminning that piece of crap.
So next thing I know, he goes on an all out berserk crusade to prove that all my code is crap. And when I mean "berserk", I mean complete with fits of hysteria.
I should probably say: "luckily". See, he was a nerd like us, not a professional backstabber, so he just threw a _massive_ fit. An outright offensive like that is easier to defuse. If I had offended a marketter-turned-programmer, on the other hand, I probably never would have even known what he's doing against me.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Why !!! if u open the company bad things to public.Then you are to be fired. You have to move according to the rules of the company.
not stealing millions of lines of code and selling them on the cracer market is a courtesy I may extend to my employer.
Unless I get fired.
Seriously, get a union if your bosses have this power.
This is the link to the pics that got the flight attendant fired.
"sockholders". I like it. It is even better if you meant it.
"The puppet on the left is more to my liking"
doesn't ban what you DID say? Apparently, they can still sack you and a lot of numb-nuts here will cheer that on.
So what was the point of saying "NDA"? And why did it get "insightful"?
You would censor the boss for expressing his opinion of disloyal employees.
Also, the boss could say that he fired the employee for the employees own good, after all the employee was obviously unhappy.
Or, the safety of himself and/or other employees, because blogger is obviously disgruntled.
Or, for presenting a bad face for the company, which is against company policy in many companies.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
There was a website rumoured to be created by a former "anonymous" Ion employee who eloquently (before this fucking Blog word was coined) relayed the inside story of the downfall of Ion Storm. It proved to be quite the soap opera and at one point Ion execs got wind of the site when certain insider e-mails were published.
http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycom ments&dcid=393&entryid=393
these are hardly explicit photo's, yes she looks great in them.
but they are hardly pornographic, sure she looks sexy in uniform isn't this why the uniform was designed this way so old guys in first class get to be attended to by pretty women sexily attired.
perhaps it was more that you could get to see for free which so annoyed delta.
combined with america's moral indignation, should she have been fired when its part of marketings unofficial agenda fly with us we have hot babes to look after you.
for the rest of us if you want to blog with freedom then do it annonymously
my last blog entry was a silent scream of rage hurt and anger, no need for me to direct that at anyone, just having a bad day thats all.
better out then in, well i felt better afterwards.
Writing is also an art, not everybody is able to write insightful yet civilised text, it might be better to seek some coaching at the start. Perhaps searching Google for the beginner's guide for publishing on the internet might help - not that i'm aware of anything of that kind. It's great that the web makes it easy for anyone to publish stuff, sadly it's never been this easy for all kinds of stupidity to hit the masses at lightning speed.
Writing flames on a blog is the same as releasing the hounds on a prey, you're publicly calling for others to have a go at your organisation. What's the point in that? Why do you bother calling in everyday?
If possible i would avoid hiring anyone with a past history of flaming their current employers on their blogs, chances are they will do it again.
My advices, if you've got to get it out of your chest and you still want to stay with your employer:
Employees need to watch out that what they are posting in Blogs may be considered Proprietary information, may be considered Libel or may even be insider information. I can understand personnel getting fired for one of the above, but if Joe X is simply writing something to the effect of "I hate working for my company" then that's where administrative action for blogging is probably crossing over the line into a Freedom of Speech issue.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
He was posting on his personal journal AND a LJ community about internal practices of the company and confidential documents. They fired him after watching him for a number of weeks posting various things like the pay scale and other sensitive information.
Of course, he's the type who thinks that the kids in Ocala should be able to seek legal assistance under the Comic Book Legal Fund because there was some sort of art involved so his own actions were somehow without ANY repercussions because he was using his own public soapbox. Regardless of the fact that he signed papers stating he wouldn't disseminate any confidential information as a term of his employment.
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Maybe the real problem here is people who assume that because only a couple of close friends talk to them about their blog, that they are the only people who read it. Or, more importantly, the only people who can read it.
Whether it feels so or not, a blog is public. Anyone can read it. That includes your boss, your MD, your legal department, your colleagues, your parents, your partner -- in short, any and all of the people you criticise, insult, or slander. If you wouldn't wish any of those people to read it, then don't put it on your blog. D'oh...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Agreed Pi. At Will Employment is just that. At will. They can fire you. Or you can quit. Take your pick. Furthermore the employee was fired for being in The Company Uniform, on a company airplane on company time on company grounds taking pictures that the company did not deem appropriate to their image. I don't really see where she has any room to complain. The arguement of what a employee does on their own time is basically moot in this case, because she was not on her own time, in civilian clothes, or in her home etc. She chose to do it, its her own fault and anything else is just whining.
The truth does not change by our ability to stomach it -Flannery O'Conner
Conversely I have every right to quit my job if my employer writes something that I don't agree with. It works both ways... if you have the ability to quit at any time for any reason then your employer has the ability to fire you at any time for any reason.
Except it doesn't work both ways in reality. In almost all cases, it is much more easy for the employer to replace you, than for you to replace the employer (i.e., get a new job). In many ways, labor is just another commodity, and it's in excess. This condition gives the employer much more power than the employee.
After looking into it a bit, I came up with the counter to this.
A company's right to fire you without proper justification is offset by your ability to sue them for wrongful dismissal.
Blogging is vastly preferable to the standard disgruntled employee syndrome, usually euphemized as "going postal" or "changing all the passwords", especially since most bloggers are optimists and expect positive change to come of their efforts. However, from the company's point of view, slander is treason, just as it was in Elizabeth I's day, and a short stay on the company rack (followed by an eternity on the blacklist) is the best that can be expected, human nature being what it is. Enlightened company despots will, however, encourage blogging for the same reason that parliamentarian oligarchies encourage the apparent freedom of speech; viz., it's cheap intelligence, and an agile administrator can best prepare for the storms that loom, not the storms that gather.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
In many ways, labor is just another commodity, and it's in excess. This condition gives the employer much more power than the employee.
Sounds like a great time to start a company. Maybe you could bring to others the type of employment situation you are looking for.
Nothing in my union contract specifically states that I'm not allowed to discuss the company I work for with people outside or inside the company. If they want to negotiate what I'm allowed to say in the next contract, that's fine. But between now and then I can say what I think and not be fired for it, so long as I do what I've agreed to do in the contract. By the way, I actually have no complaints about my company at all. They are very good to work for. But it's good to know that if that ever changed, I'd be permitted to say so without fear of retaliation.
I know a guy who was fired from a place because they claimed he put up a web site to 'impersonate' them on the web. He had a page with some scans from public brochures saying "...this is were I work...". He mentioned what he did there and what he liked about the company. The company dicovered this can fired him shortly before various 10yr benefits vested.
"Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work."
Yeah, actually he COULD ask you that. There are a very few things that are explicilty illegal for someone to ask you in an interview, but an employer can still ask almost anything they want. Unless there's some sort of kooky state law where you live, there's no reason someone couldn't ask you about visiting strip bars in an interview.
At my own company my employees would be free to say whatever they want (as long as it's not slander) without fear of economic retaliation. It would be better to have employees who spoke well of the company because they were sincere than because they were afraid to speak otherwise.
Consider it a form of advertizing for higher quality of future workers. Moreover if I found out my competitors were censoring their employees, I wouldn't hesitate to use that.
Except I referenced another person in the article who was fired for posting fiction written while taking a class off company hours. Is it reasonable to allow a company to fire someone for unrelated work done off hours which in no way references the employer? I think not. "At will" should have limits, IMO. --M
Snowcrash, Neal Stephenson, the Reverend in said book was trying to develop memes as a way of controlling the workforse. Based on the idea that the knowledge, say a programmer, took home in their head was akin to stealing everyday when you knock off. Since Neal references ancient Mesopotamia and ancient gods such as Enki, sounds like this is not a new thing. correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I read the book, and it should also be noted that it's fiction.
I suspect that professional journalist who blog already have this protection.
Seems to me that there already is a big industry of publishing watch dogs, and the journalists have a love hate relation with critics. Journalists and publishers love the criticism (and resulting publicity) until someone manages to hit the wrong buttons.