Slashdot Mirror
How P2P Can Taint a Career
duncan writes "After appearing on the BBC news review program Newsnight to discuss the recent Grokster case, Alex Hanff returned to work the next day and was promptly sacked because 'his presence within the company could count against it when bidding for big government contracts.'
Read more at The Guardian"
haha, taint.
This really has nothing to do with P2P other than that was the subject on which the guy was speaking. What got him let go was his announcement (on national TV) that he is against copyright and intellectual property. From the Gruaniad article:
Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate.
I work for a telecoms company. If I went on national TV and decried telephony, saying that everyone should communicate face to face or by writing letters, I'd expect my company to start to wonder if I was entirely suitable as an employee, too.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If he's employed in a "right to work" state, then the employer can fire him for any reason or no reason. On the flip side the employee can leave the company anytime for any reason or no reason.
1. He's not in the US, he is in Britain, where if you had RTFAd, you would know that they do have such a law.
2. You are talking completely out of your ass. A "right to work" state has nothing to do with the ability of an employer to fire employees. It refers to the particular state's laws regulating collective bargaining agreements. If a state outlaws agreements that require workers to be members of a union, then it is a "right-to-work state". It simply means that you have a right to work regardless of your membership in a union.
Well, since "right to work state" is a US concept and Mr. Hanff is in the UK, this is a rather bogus argument.
For the sake of discussion though, you are in fact wrong. There's this little thing called Title VII that rather blows away your "any reason or no reason" argument.
The
And another dupe.l ?tid=149&tid=17
/. if you are not even willing to read your own website?
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/07/04/1115235.shtm
Why should your readers read
Yes, but the person in the article was fired for talking about something non-work-related because they didn't like his opinion.
You read the article? "Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/07/04/1115235.shtml ?tid=149&tid=17
At least the bloke has some legal redress to allow the courts to assess unfair dismissal claims. Here in AUstralia we have that right at the moment but our Federal gov't is about to try and take it away completely for anyone employed by a small business (defined as a business with 100 employees!!.
Of course they're not allowed to SAY they're sacking you because of your religion, race, etc...but then again they don't have to give ANY reason...
19th Century Free Market ideology is being re-adopted at the cost of our freedoms
From the Grauniad article:
"... claiming that he was sacked for a "philosophical belief" in contravention of employment law and the European Human Rights Act."
I think he's right. He may be at a serious disadvantage having been at his job for only a week, but if his employer explicitly said his opinions OUTSIDE WORK were the reason for firing him, they're in trouble.
The HRA does only bind the government, I'm told, but UK employment law is quite sensible about this sort of thing.
In the United Kingdom that probationary period is 12 months. Though for certain things it is instant. So if you hire a woman, who when she starts the job tells you she is pregant, if you then sack her, you will be in trouble. Also if the employer is letting people go after 11 months to avoid them getting their years service and protection, they will also get done. The employment tribunal take a dim view of anyone trying to dodge the legislation.
However as he as just one week into his employment he is out in the cold.
offering him a revised 3 month severance package when he had only been with the company a week kinda sounds like even they aren't sure whether what they've done is legal.
I think you're right. (Hence my advice to Hanff would be to take the money and run). However, as much lurking on Groklaw and IP-Wars has shown, the last place you want to end up in would be a courtroom (even an industrial tribunal style courtroom). Weird random crap happens there. So it may be that the company is simply saying "Look, we can either give this to him now, or pay possibly more to the lawyers tomorrow. Ah, screw it. Offer him the cash, and damn his eyes."
I'm no lawyer, so I can't say who is in the right legally, but I suspect that both parties have been a bit silly in this matter. Yeah, freedom of speech and all, but I don't think its unreasonable (especially as a new hire) to say to your employer that you're going to appear on Newsnight and speak on the following topics. And then they can't claim they were blindsided, or they can ask you not to appear. Similarly, I think that for an employer to be that paranoid about the political opinions of their employees and how they might play with potential customers is skirting the edge of reason.
I mean, I've appeared on TV, saying that the government's plans for key escrow sucked, but my employer (HP - but speaking in personal capacity here, etc, etc) was told beforehand. They might have thought that future government contracts were at risk, but they took the view that it was an acceptable risk for HP to employ people with more than one opinion. But the relative risks to HP versus a smaller operation are way different.
--Ng
In UK law he was dismissed, and has a very strong position.
The Company must have a justifiable reason to dismiss somebody, your political views are not a justifiable reason. if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must have a dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must follow that dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The dismissal procedure cannot be summary, if it is summary, (i.e. a director taking you into a meeting room to sack you on the spot) the company automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must have an appeals procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
This guy has got this company by the short and curlies, not only will he get basic damages (about 1 weeks pay per year of service) he will get compensatory damages, because the Company never had or didn't follow even the most basic dismissal procedures. He can expect to walk away from a early settlement with about 18 month pay.