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.
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.
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
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
Most companies do have them.
They're called NDA's.
I don't know. If I circulated flyers around my workplace that said it sucked, do you think I would be able to keep my job?
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...
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.
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...
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.
Didn't you see Office Space? It's that sort of "out of the box" thinking that gets you promoted.
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!"
- 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.)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
Once again, the distinction:
Are you doing it AT WORK (on company property) and/or DURING WORK (on company time)?
If YES, it is your company's business, and justification to fire you. If NO, it is not. This is not similar to your analogy, since it (presumably) wasn't done during work or on company property-a more appropriate analogy would be "If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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
"If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
But the answer to this question -- at least in the U.S., and in 49 of the 50 states -- is yes, your boss does have the right to fire you. Unless you are a member of a union, have a bonafide employment contract, or live and work in Montana, your boss can fire you for any reason at any time -- that's "at will" emplyment for you.
Now, whether your boss "should" have the right to fire you, that's another question altogether. But under current law, your boss CAN fire you for any reason at all, including off-duty badmouthing of the company.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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
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.
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.
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
[...]
and then your sig:
I've spent my money on booze, women, drugs, and the rest I just wasted mnewberg.com
Just pray your employer doesn't read
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
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."
"Um, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that many states, not just Montana, are not at-will states. I believe California is not at-will, for instance."
All of the states except for Montana are at-will states. Don't get confused with "right-to-work" states -- not all states are "right-to-work" -- but all except Montana are at-will.
At-will means that your employer may terminate you at any time for any reason that isn't specifically illegal, and you have the right to leave at any time without giving any notice. Right-to-work means that in general you can't be forced to join a union.
"They certainly have a lot of other employee-friendly laws, such as noncompete agreements being unenforcable."
In general you are correct -- there are a very limited number of areas where California will enforce a non-compete, see California Business and Professions code 16600. Interestingly, one of the area wherre a California non-compete CAN be enforced is deals with artists and writers who draw comic books...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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 the risk of asking a stupid question, is it not normal to have an employment contract? I've seen this "unless you have a contract" thing a few times in this discussion, and was surprised. I'm pretty sure that there is a law here in the UK that states you must have an employment contract within 13 weeks of beginning work, and if you don't have a contract I think you'd generally consider your job to be a bit on the dodgy side... is this not the case in the US?
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.
This seems a fairly good place to point out that the first amendment is an injunction against the government, not against private companies and individuals. Though there are laws that extend limited protections, such as whistle-blower laws.
So yes your employer can fire you for saying things he doesn't want to hear, but the government can't lock you up for your opinions (in theory, exceptions do exist).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
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:
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.
> that doesn't mean this poor guy's rights were somehow violated. People get fired from jobs for wrong reasons all the freakin time.
There's a term for that: wrongful dismissal, and yes, it's against the law.