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"
Whether you stand up to a bully and end up in a fist fight ... whether you challenge your employer's unethical practices ... whether you oppose your government's war mongering ... whatever you do to challenge the authority OF anyone higher up in the food chain- doesn't matter if it was legal , ethical or moral on your part.
You can get fired for anything that anybody can use to attack you and your companies' reputation. It's sad, but true - but at least I hope this guy will get a better job at a more appreciative employer.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
How many people hate one of the places they used to work for? Can you imagine how many unfounded accusations would be lobbed at past employers. You'd have to have anonymity when posting such things, for fear that your employer could get your information. This supposed site would have so many unfounded and just plain WRONG accusations you wouldn't know what was true and what wasn't anymore, making it useless.
And, even providing that a majority of the accusations are true, how much would it really hurt the employers? "Oh no, sir, I read that the company we use for all our advertising makes up statistics for their clients in order to make them look better. In fact, this ad firm actually hires people to do fake 'testimonials' to bolster the percieved quality of their clients' products. For shame! We shouldn't do business with these liars!"
No company will stop doing something that makes them money unless it starts costing them money. A subset of people on the internet casting about rumor about supposed unseemly behavior won't cost them a dime.
To what extent can an opinion about intellectual property (or any other law) form grounds for dismissal?
IMHO it is the right, indeed the obligation of anyone living in a democracy to question the laws that govern them. Intellectual property laws are increasingly valid targets for such scepticism.
There would be an uproar in most countries if someone was fired for expressing their opinion on abortion, or religion, why should someone's opinion on dupe law be any different?
It sucks, but it is within the rights of the employer, especially a small one. Take a look at the other side of the fence. I sure did after a scary experience not too long ago. The small company, I founded with a friend, was in need of a junior sysadm. A relatively new partner to the company found what appeared to be a good fit. We made and offer. and he accepted, but, THANK GOD!!!, decided to take a later counter-offer from his current employer. A few months later, he marched into the Illinois Capital building, and blew a security guard away.
Fortunately, I was spared the decision, but if I had to, I would have dropped him like a hot potato. The stigma it would have put upon my company would have been devastating.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
This is one of the very sad issues with today's corprate atmosphere. People have been laid off, fired, etc. just because they got bad press. The corprate string-pullers of the company echelon don't like the fact that an employee of theirs got some sort of bad attention from the newspapers, and so they lay them off as a "liability", even if they are in reality a model hard working, smart employee. This kind of "liability" crap is just sick.
I hope he wins a nice settlement once it go's through arbitration and he wins an unfair dismissal case. (If he does that is).
Shh.
people have the right to choose the products they buy based on any critiria they want. other wise YOUR fucking up the system. the only way to pressure companies is with our spending dollar. are you suggesting just because a company makes a great product it should be allowed to do anything it wants? as a side note, companies that do treat their employee's poorly always end up failing anyway, due to them not being able to keep any decent or well trained staff.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
> You're one of those hippies aint ya?
I'm no hippy buddy, but I certainly consider things like human rights and enviromental records when buying things. It's part of the total cost of producing an item and we all pay it one way or another.
>> Otherwise you're just fucking up the system
any business model that doesn't consider environmental sustainability or basic human rights is "fucking up the system". Sure you can cut corners to save money, but it's frequently at the cost of things you just can't buy back.
http://request-header.info
Are we really going to stand for a society where to express any kind of opinion that runs contrary to the norm (corporate line) results in rejection and sacking? The end result will be a society where people report each other for holding non-conformist opinions as a way of getting promotion.
I'm sure Britain doesn't have the concept of "at will" employment, or the concept that if the guy was self-employed, "freedom of contract" -- but it seems clear, they don't owe him a job.
The guy got fired because he's on record making hostile statements about intellectual property. A company that lives and dies by I.P. has a good reason to not want the potential troublemaker.
E.g. suppose I work for a AIDS activist organization, doing some programming. But I'm on record as saying, "AIDS is God's way of punishing sodomites." If that got around, I figure I'd be out of some work.
Put yourself in the shoes of management. Try to imagine having to keep on working with someone who says, "I hate you and all that you stand for." If you were a manager, you'd probably feel really frustrated if you couldn't fire him.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
So if you are a haliburton employee and you are against the war in iraq you should be fired? If you are a govt employee and you are against the war in iraq or you publicly state that you think George Bush is an idiot and a religious fundamendalist zealot you should be fired?
You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion. I hope to got this guy sues the hell of out them.
evil is as evil does
There are apparently laws against firing people for political and philosphoical beliefs, yes.
However, he's not been fired for something as trivial as saying "I'm a Tory" or "I think people should be free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as no-one is hurt (at least non-consentually)".
He's gone on national TV and said in effect "copyright and IPR are wrong and should be abolished", while working for a company that relies on those things to make money. That sets him as being opposed to the way in which his employer does business.
It may be a philosophical belief, but it does tend to suggest that he may not be suited to working with his current employer. It's not like his Labour boss has fired him for being a Tory, or prudish boss fired him for being permissive.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I'm not fucking up the system. The system works because people buy the best value product. How they value the product varies from person to person but it is not debatable that valuing the product is a different and seperate concern from valuing the process used to make the product. If two products are identical except one is cheaper than the other you should buy the one that is cheaper.
You sir (or madam) are extremely short sighted.
You ARE fucking up the system because of not considering the hidden cost of such cheaper products.
You do not seem to realize that the price for messing up environment and society will have to be payed anyway.
If a product is really cheaper while equal in all other aspects (that means INCLUDING the hidden cost of environmental and social damage) then you are right that you should take it.
You're one of those hippies aint ya? When someone says "why do you drink Pepsi when I know you prefer Coke?" you give an answer like "Coke was sued for underpaying blacks in the 1990's and I've never forgiven them!" Choose the best and most cost effective product. Don't judge the company that makes it. Otherwise you're just fucking up the system. Instead of the most superior products being on the shelves we'll have substandard products dominating the market share because the people who make them care about the environment or share some other wacky political ideal with the boycotting public.
I believe Einstein said it best, when he said:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
It's really easy not to believe in anything, as it makes fighting for what you believe in so much easier. The system (society) is far more fucked if you go around supporting abusive organisations because their unnecessary product is best, than if you make sacrifices and help to make society a better place.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
"But if the company that is making the cheaper product goes out of business as a result of you confusing valuing the product with valuing the producer then we're all fucked"
Yes.
And that's why there is no company in the whole world and never will be that bases its marketing campaigns on projecting an apropriate corporate image onto the prospective client, so he buys a brand instead of a product.
Hey, now that I think about it! How is it that there are marketing campaings at all? People just need to go to the shelves and see what's the cheapest product, that's all, no need for that pretty almost nude girl doing something not even remotely related with the product, nor no need to pay really big bucks so Real Famous Someone appears on TV saying how good my Whatever Product is and (in a subconstient level) implying You Little Nobody can be someone like him by consuming that same Wonderful Whatever!
Though even if he was, in a democratic society, should government contracts not be awarded to companies who have an employee who has a desire to change the law? Isn't wanting to change the law, well, politics? And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?
"It may be a philosophical belief, but it does tend to suggest that he may not be suited to working with his current employer."
What utter tripe...
Given your specious reasoning it would then mean that all developers who develop open source software in their spare time are then "not suited" to working for corporations who make money selling closed source software...
It would also mean that everyone who works for defense companies would happily "go postal" any time they felt like it...
His personal beliefs and morals are no business of his employers except where they interfere directly with him performing his paid duties.
When the market provides many workers and few employers (small-scale construction), then workers are granted the privilege of a job. When the market provides few workers and many employers (currently nursing), then the employers are granted the privilege of an employee. It's far from a slave mentality. It's simply knowing where you currently fall in a simple supply and demand curve instead of assuming you have something of value when you do not.
Maybe also we should refuse governments who don't give black people in California the vote :o
Oh that's right, cause I tried to use my dollars to force other people to believe my particular idiology over their own instead of just supporting the market system by evaluating the product not the producer.
Being a bit hypocriticle here aren't you? Your belief clearly being that products and their price are more important than the people living and breathing around you. That is a belief you know, that you are 'forcing' upon me, just as I am 'forcing' my belief (similar to Google's, i.e. Don't be evil) on you.
Does the sum of your compassion for society really come down to hoping that everyone can buy the best products at the cheapest financial cost, regardless of the social cost? Especially when it comes down to unnecessary luxuries choice of brand of cola?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion.
No, he stated that it's OK to fire people for publicly stating an opinion that is contrary to the business interests of the corporation.
Is that ridiculous? It may be, or it may not be. It depends on the nature of the statement, the nature of the business, and the relationship between the two.
Do you even know what a "religious fundamendalist zealot" is? I've yet to read about Bush hanging Laura in the name of God for some minor mistake she made.
You can be a "religious fundamentalist zealot" and be completely non-violent. Religious fundamentalism is about a hare-brained and intolerant interpretation of scriptures, not about homicidal tendencies (although one may lead to the other).
(Besides, has Laura even made any such "minor mistakes"?)
Not as bogus as your response. As far as I know, "filesharing supporters" are not a protected civil rights group.
At-will employee's can be fired for ANY reason besides Age, Race, Gender, Religion, or National Origin. Your interjection here was entirely irrelevant to the topic (and yet, +5 informative). Brilliant.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
Most comments (until now) focus on Guardian's article "File-share defender fired over TV show". However there is another issue here; Mr. Hanff was also funding a torrent site.
Therefore, is not only a matter of opinion but also a matter of action. Considering that Mr. Hanff declared himself to own nothing more than "a few guitars [...] and an old inkjet printer", one can conclude that part of his salary was going to the maintenance of the torrent site.
Take into account that his former employer is not dealing with end users but with companies (they are making database software solutions) -- they really don't want any cloud of unprofessionalism shade their contracts. It is extremely unfortunate for such a man to be fired (considering his statements, one can be pretty sure that he is a good person) -- but I really can't blame his company for firing him.
You can get (and people have been) fired for doing things on your own time that the company doesn't like.
You can get (and people, like this guy, have been) fired for saying things on your own time that your company doesn't like.
Notice a common theme here? The common theme is that if you work for a company, that company owns you. You are their slave. In exchange for an ever decreasing amount of money for your time, you have to do everything they tell you and demonstrate that you believe everything they want you to believe.
And the government that keeps telling you that it's there to protect your personal liberty? It's nowhere to be found, because it's controlled by the very same people who control the corporations that you are increasingly a slave to.
Welcome to the 21st century. Enjoy the ride to the bottom. Soon enough, you won't be allowed to enjoy anything else.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
fish and pipes
You may think this behaviour is in opposition to laissez-faire capitalism, but you have to understand that buying from companies that don't use sweatshop labour, for example, is just another form of differentiation, and value. Criticizing people for buying because of ideology is just as stupid as criticizing them for buying a more expensive item for quality, appearance or any other arbitrary reasons that you don't care about. This is the market system at work, even if you don't like the aspect it's targeting. Then again, you might feel somewhat differently if the company in question was poisoning the groundwater in your neighbourhood because of improper disposal of toxic byproducts, for example, even if they DID have cheaper prices than all their competitors. These "product not the producer" values tend to break down pretty quickly once someone is personally involved.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Quoth the single-paragraph troll ;).
Certainly. What you don't seem to understand is that the process used to make the product can increase the effective cost of the product much higher than the price tag claims. If the process results in environment getting poisoned, those poisons will deteriorate my health, shortening my lifespan and decreasing the quality of what time I have remaining; if it causes social unrest (by treating the employees like shit, for example), I run the risk of getting killed in the resulting riots. Either way, I might end up paying a much higher price than I paid in the store.
So I shouldn't care about the communist workers farm's employees treatment, but I should care about your ability to buy cheap apples ? Why should I ? After all, I'm already willing to pay the extra dollar per bushel, so why shouldn't I support the market force that makes the employers treat their employees well over the one that makes apples cost less ?
If I'm willing to support an ideology that I'm opposed to just to get a 1$ per bushel discount on apples, I am a traitor.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your position, however, I think is dead wrong. You seem to be saying that political or philosophical expression is limited to naming a political party, or possibly to identifying yourself with something that is a policy of a political party. I don't think that's supportable.
Up almost to the end of the article I was thinking that the employer was in the right, because I was taking it that they were firing him for either a history of, or a stated intent to, act in breach of copyright laws. A person who does that is a clear risk to their business.
However, the statement from Tribal Group, however (which may not completely reflect their views on this matter):
seems to suggest that he was fired for his expression of a political opinion. That would be unacceptable, and as far as I can see it would also be contrary to law.
I'd still need to have more information to decide who I think is right here. One quote form the employer isn't enough. But I'm sure your party-centric way of looking at it is wrong. I shouldn't need to have the agreement of a political party in order for my political views to be protected.
I disagree and I'm the biggest proponent of free speech I know.
Look, i can't expect a company to continue my employement in widgets if I work for the anti-widget consortium and actively try to destroy the widget industry.
It's called conflict of interest. I don't want to hire someone at my widget plant if I even suspect he might try to sabotoge my widget manufacturing.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences and free speech isn't absolute. Your right to free speech, at least in the US, is limited as it relates to public safety. The old "fire in a crowded theater" bit and what not.
In this case, the employer felt that his views on copyright and intellectual property DIRECTLY conflicted with its business. I can't to the interview from the office right now (not screwing with production and all that) but I would be interested to hear what he said during the interview.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Is that acceptable to fire someone that voices such an opinion? I don't think so.
Think about a corporation having 20 employees struggling to get a new product out and getting more money. Now, one of its employees gives an interview and says "our product sucks; it can't even do (fill in whatever), and it won't be out in time either". I think it's justified firing that employee (whether it's legal is another question).
If the company is Microsoft or IBM, then it's a different matter. A Microsoft employee should arguably be able to say "I think Word sucks" without getting fired if he says it in a clearly private capacity. But if he's the head of the Word development team giving an interview saying "Word sucks", that would be justification for firing him.
I believe this argument was used as the justification for the private corporation that fired an employee during the U.S. presidential election primaries because the person attended a Bush rally wearing anti-Bush shirts.
That behavior is unrelated to workplace conduct or company products, so I think that's a bad justification.
If the employee wore a "Bush sucks" T-shirt to work, then the company can fire him, provided they also fire any employee wearing a "Kerry sucks" T-shirt. The justification would be "political messages disrupt workplace harmony". But the company has no business selecting one or the other political message (unless it's, say, a company with an explicitly partisan purpose).
This implies that said companies cared about their reputation as an employer. They have the jobs; if you want to keep your house/car/life you have to work for them. Try and set up your own business and they'll crush you.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
And the threat of publicity should (in theory anyway) prevent employers from doing shitty things to their employees.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
If it were legal, would you buy the cheapest product knowing that the company making it provides funding for guerilla groups who kidnap children, fill them with drugs and turn them in to child-soldiers? It apparently is "legal"; the product is called "diamonds".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You've got the draw the line somewhere on employees being allowed to express personal opinions. I say the only criterion should be "Does this opinion adversely affect the employee's ability to do their job?" In this specific case, I see no evidence that being opposed to copyright affected his job performance in any way.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.