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"
Build a website that catalogues all the evil shit corporations do to employees, so that consumers get to know about the evil shit and take their business elsewhere.
Call it something like, whodotheyfuckoverwiththemoneyyougivethem.com, only shorter, while making sure the word stealth appears nowhere within.)
It it catches on, then corporations would be afraid of how their treatment towards employees could count against the way consumers look at them.
Fight fire with fire.
now before you go writing me off as a troll please hear me out. i have pleaded. god knows i have tried. its seeming really hopeless..i don't know if i can take it anymore and i am hyperventilating. the dupes on slashdot are way out of hand. something needs to be done (via slashcode, moderation, SOMETHING FFS) to stop the dupes. this is really affecting me. please stop duping.
He didn't get fired for sharing anything. He got fired because he earlier run what seems to have been a BitTorrent tracker in his spare time, was sued over it (in a civil case, not a criminal case), and didn't tell his employer when they interviewed him, so they only found out when he talked about it on a TV show.
He argues that he didn't have to mention it since it doesn't have anything to do with his employer, and I think depending on how the interview went exactly, he's probably right. If they actually asked him about whether there were any civil cases pending against him and he lied and said no, then it's understandable that he got fired (it's not like it's a personal question, after all); but if they didn't, then I really think it's their own fault, and he's right in any case when he says that the whole thing simply doesn't affect his employer in any way.
In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files. He got fired for going into dupe slashdot comments and stealing the +5 moderations.
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
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?
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.
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 an excellent point concerning non-contracted work. To often people overlook the fact that employers don't have to give particularly salient reasons to dismiss someone from their job. With contracted work, however, the lengths that an employer will go to in order to maintain their autonomy and sometimes whimsicle desires over their employees sometimes border on the unscrupulous. Closer to the topic, does anybody know what Alex Hanff actually said that pissed them off (did anyone actually watch the program)?
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.
And to a lesser (and former) extent, fatbabies.com. Not that anybody stops purchasing from them, but they might stop sending resumes. I don't think a site can attract consumers interested in the fair treatment of the people involved in making it; we just don't care. What would probably work better is consumer complaints, along the lines of resellerratings.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
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
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 not surprised. Companies these days want you to focus on the job to the point of excluding any kind of social life that might interfere with your commitment to work. If you put yourself in position where your views are publicly available, it will be used against you. It wouldn't surprised me if I get fired for my comments on /. one of these days.
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_
Not necessarily true. This is the sort of logic that in the 19th century was used to fire people after they were disabled, say working in a factory, or in mines and was used to create "yellow dog" contracts, or contracts that binded employees to not join unions. Thankfully the government has intervened and banned such unfair employment practices. Therefore, your statement is not completely acceptable even in a capitalist country like the USA.
In the UK any employee who has been in their role for less than 13 weeks has zero protection.
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
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.
When calling people moron you might want to not make up words like "noone". But I guess name calling and misspellings are easier than actually having a reasoned argument.
The Farewell Tour II
He is a fool and obviously thinks he can say what he wants and still rake in the cash from companies, you can't!. If you want the cash you gotta play the game.
can be downloaded here via bittorrent. I think the overall question is whether or not a person can be fired over a philosophical view.
He never said that he is going to pirate software or will help those who do (he removed the torrent tracker from his site in December). However he was served with lawsuit via the MPAA in March. He is going to fight the lawsuit in court. He is fighting the lawsuit on jurisdiction grounds, that the MPAA has no right to sue him. Even though the server was temporarily hosted in California.
Anyway I think his point is that the MPAA is using gestapo tactics in scaring people to settle and he is not going to settle. He'd rather fight this in court. Anyway he does have a case in light of the recent ruling since it only applies to those who promote the trading of illegal material. I think removing the tracker in December is the appropriate action.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
If Alex Hanff is anything like he was when I knew him, the company are probably looking for any excuse to fire him. Apparently he was only a week into this job, but that was probably enough for the company to realise what a mistake they'd made.
Yes, I suspect that there are other factors in play here that aren't being mentioned (disclaimer: I don't personally know this fellow at all).
Most professional IT people are aware that if they have a good relationship with their employer and co-workers, the company will generally bend over backwards to keep them employed. Why? Because, as anyone who has ever had the displeasure of being responsible for staffing knows, it's damn hard to find new employees who are both competent and a good "mesh" with a given corporate culture. When you find them, you really really don't want to lose them. (Even if it means "hiding" them for a bit until the media attention cools off)
Most likely, even after that first week (and before the interview), eyebrows had been raised by some behavior or other of Mr. Hanff's.
"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.
In other news...
...Oh no wait, the other news is actually the same.
Sigh.
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.
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
Nah, that one doesn't fly either. If an employee can convince a tribunal that there was an implicit reason (and that a reasonable person could determine that reason), then it's the same as saying "We don't want you socialist/feminist/black/gay/Jewish (take your pick) types here. You're fired". I do note that they offered him 3 months wages as a settlement. Frankly, I think he should take it. Even if he wins at a tribunal, the chances that he'd get more than that are very, very slim. I mean, how do you prove that you would have worked for them like a good slave for 20+ years?
You're 99.9% correct about the probationary period though. The only protection you have is not be be fired for discriminatory reasons. And, frankly, that's a bitch to prove. In effect, you're asking a court to accept that what you think someone else thought is illegal. Unsurprisingly, employment tribunals don't take that course lightly.
--Ng
Hanff wasn't fired for using peer-to-peer software, as that story states, but instead for voicing an opinion (on national television, natch) that wasn't quite in fitting with his employer's.
Perhaps you should 'read your own fucking links'? ;-)
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
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.
I have an idea - how about a post on how the horrific spelling on slashdot can harm a career?
Seriously, the spelling and grammar on this thread is either indicative of how riled up people are about this topic OR it is a sign of how slashdot use can seriously harm your brain...
It's IDEOLOGY, not 'idiology' people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
Perhaps they meant 'idiot-ology'...a common ailment of slashdot users...
Ugh...it's amazing how mad people can get while flaming others on a forum while making themselves look like complete idiots...
Gekido's Lair
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.
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
How about if i'm just buying a new TV and want to weight in my choice the environmental track record of the manufacturer?
Or am buying clothing and want to know if the manufacturer uses child labour?
Or am buying financial services and want to know how does that company treat it's employees?
When sitting on the store one rarelly has internet access or the time to trail through the information even if said access is available.
It's self-deception to expect most people to take notebooks with mobile internet access to the electronics shop in order to make an informed decision on which TV to buy.
My sugestion is as follows:
- Setup an "informed choices" service. This should serve as an intermediary between consumers and third party entities (consumer groups, NGOs, government, business groups, whatever) willing to provide information about products and companies
- The service is customiseable per-person. You can log in via de internet and choose what factors do you care about and how much do u trust the information coming from each of the third party entities
- The service should support a simple and easy way of letting consumers get the right info when they're out shopping. For example using a mobile phone with a bar code reader (or maybe using the phone camera for that) or an RFID reader and a mobile connection to said service allowing to simply: press a button; point mobile at product; get the info u care about; choose.
The point here is two-fold:
- Give enough information to the consumers to let them do informed decisions but not so much that they need to spend lots of time just getting informed. (otherwise ppl will simply not do/use it). Hence the whole user configured filtering and trust weighting.
- Give consumers access to the information when and where they need it. Consumers should not have to prepare themselfs before going out shopping by browsing some site(s) in the Net, figure out beforehand the list of brands of the things they want to buy and having to memorize the (environmental, work conditions, polution history, whatever) information for each brand just to make informed decisions. Simply put - if they have to jump through all those hoops people will just not do it.
Hence the sugestion of mobile access and bar code/rfid tag reading - fast, simple, no preparation required - you just scan the product and out comes an evaluation of the brand/maker according to your chosen criteria (for example, respect for the environment)
Maybe in the USA, buddy. In the rest of the civilised world, employees have rights.
As much as I think the company is actually in the right here in view of the circumstances, them 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.
They may have shot themselves in the foot legally with that offer.
I don't normally have a problem with other peoples' misspellings, however, I aways trip up on "noone" to the point where I'm also starting to get annoyed when I see it. What's worse is that it seems to be becoming more and more popular.
The problem with "noone" is that you get mentally half way into thinking "noon" and then realise that it's about to be "noon-e", a nonsense word because of the "e" on the end. Then you realise that the person is really trying to mean "no one".
If people insist on joining the two words together, at least a hyphen would be nice, as in "no-one". That also looks odd, and that should be a sign that the hypen should really be a space.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
The whole "your job is a privilege" mind-washing spiel is just that. A job is a contract entered into between an employer and an employee, whereby one person agrees to pay for the other one's work. If you didn't have skills they need, then why are they paying you? There should be a balance. If you let someone bully you with how "lucky" you are to let them treat you like crap, then you're probably likely to have a pretty miserable career.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
This is exactly the problem (out of many others) of the capitalist world. Whatever opinion one states has absolutely NOTHING to with his work. An Employee sells hist time and work power, not all of his existence.
Constitutions of countries all over the world grant "free speech".
So?
So it's the companies that need to learn to "play the game"!
IceRa
Sig? Where I go, I don't need
We need to see a statement by the employer in order to know which is true. The Guardian openly admits to being a little left of centre and may be biased against the employer in this story.
Also, I cannot believe the company would have employed him if they had known his position and involvement in anti-copyright activism. This is why employers apply probation (and UK law permits this): so that if you find out right after employing someone that they're not right for the job you can still get rid of them fairly easily (though many companies don't bother due to the astronomical cost of recruitment).
That work didn't include proof-reading anything did it?
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.
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.
He wasn't. All the posts about legal redress and the moral question about whether or not you can be fired for an opinion are completely moot.
Tribal Group, which owns Aldcliffe Computing, said in a statement: "Mr Hanff was employed on a probationary basis for one week in one of our software companies."
They didn't fire him. They just didn't renew his contract. Before you post your outrage, bear this fact firmly in mind: Hanff was not fired
So.. it has come to this
I can testify to that. I recently worked with a company to integrate with their Groove.net based solution, a peer to peer environment for document exchange and synchronization. However, when we prepared to present our work, I was told explicitly and repeatedly NEVER to use the phrase 'peer to peer'. Given that we were trying to use our resulting solution to sell the overall package, I found it quite disturbing that such steps were necessary.
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"
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.
This is actually one of the few solid reasons for firing someone in the UK. Almost all employment contracts I've seen state that the company may dismiss you if you're convicted of a crime (usually with an exemption for minor motoring offences, so they don't wind up firing 1/3 of the workforce for getting caught on speed camera).
That's always struck me as slightly at odds with all the prisoner-resettlement programmes, and the simple fact that a criminal who's done their time and been released is much less likely to reoffend if they find gainful employment. There's a fine line between someone's criminal past affecting their ability to do a job/the safety of their co-workers/etc. and the right (is it a right?) of employers and coworkers to know that they're dealing with a convicted criminal who did something they shouldn't have, but has now paid the price set by the court.
Of course, if you did a straw poll among non-criminal workers, I imagine it would be pretty clear which way most of them would come down.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Remember, any publicity is good publicity. And this company's going for double: They get publicity when he goes on TV, and they get more when they fire him for it.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
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
Dan Farmer was asked to leave (then) large computer manufacturer when he released Satan. Dan Geer was asked to leave a so-called security company when he and other security notables argued in favor of heterogeneity for purposes of resilience. In the end, it was the companies that looked like idiots and not the above individuals. Bonus for the person who can name the companies...
It's not your right to have a job no matter what. I apologize if this makes you feel badly. If you're a liability to the company, the company ought to fire you. They have no reason to keep you on. In fact, I'd say it's uncivilized for a company to behave otherwise (acting in the employee's interest and not its own).
So don't accept being a slave. Your time is your own, and you should insist on your contract acknowledging that.
At the risk of getting in trouble, since I'm posting this during my lunch hour at work, some of my colleagues and I did exactly this when our small company was bought out by a US megacorp. The original contract had clauses claiming all our IP outside of work, saying we had to get our manager's permission to take any other job, etc. We told them to stick it, pretty bluntly.
One guy doing that, admittedly, is going out on a limb. One guy leading it, with the vocal backing of several colleagues and the quiet backing of several more, is enough to make them notice.
This resulted in the (apparently unimpressed but not stupid) HR rep leading a round of Q&A to find out what it was that people really objected to, and getting the contract redrafted in a way that was acceptable to the staff. The entire "all your IP are belong to us" clause -- a whole page of legalese -- got scrapped, for example, in favour of the one we used to have that specifically excluded things that didn't use work time or resources, and weren't connected with work. The permission to get another job went, in favour of simply having to notify the employer of hours worked elsewhere so they could be sure they were complying with the European working time regulations.
We did this by being polite but honest, and standing our ground. If everyone in the industry did the same thing, it would be much better for everyone in the industry. It doesn't take rocket science, just a little integrity and a bit of backbone.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So if you are a haliburton employee and you are against the war in iraq you should be fired?
Yes, of course. Was that a trick question on what?
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
If you believe in the power of contract then you can understand that the company PROBABLY has a clause in the contract that says something along the lines of "conflict of interest".
Contracts are a powerful thing and require quite a bit of proof to get disolved. Shame on him for not reading his contract carefully enough.
This is, of course, only applicable if indeed the company has a conflict of interest clause.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Aw you didn't include an email!! Silly you.
My Portfolio
Well,
/.'d is a great honour (let alone being /.'d twice) my fight is one about the fact that my human rights were blatantly abused by firing me for my opinion.
Both threads about me were brought to my attention and I have to say (despite the minority difference of opinion) my faith in people has been even more re-inforced by these threads.
Aside from the fact that I am a geek and thus being
Article 9 and Article 10 of the European Human Rights Act state that all individuals are entitled to and opinion and they are also entitled to impart that opinion (which is exactly what I did with my interview with the BBC). Furthermore, the employment law of this country specifically states the same (in fact it is one of the very few scenarios where you do not have to have worked for a company for 12 months in order to protect your employment rights).
I am a socially concerned person and have fought against social issues all my life, from running a charity for abused children, doing research and working with law enforcement around the world tracking down pedophiles and child porn traffickers. I have also had to have corrective surgery to my face after being assaulted for spearheading a campaign against low pay and exploitation of students. I have also spend most of my adult life helping others with the computers (as well as teaching in a university). So this is just the latest in a long history of me fighting for what I believe to be right.
It means a great deal to me to see so many people on a site I thoroughly respect, trying to instill social morals into others (with excellent and valid examples of the dangers supporting bad companies).
For anyone who is interested, here is a brief overview of who I really am (not the thief, funder of terrorism etc etc etc the MPAA would make me out to be):
http://p2pnet.net/story/4528
Again, thankyou all for the tremendous support.
Alexander Hanff
Owner of DVDR-CORE.ORG / Future Father
Well, there is one thing you can do for sure.
Many of Slashdot readers are decision makers for their company and some run huge companies themselves.
Boycott Tribal group when you purchase a solution in their genre.
"firing" is a right given by current economical system and boycott is the right answer and perfectly legit,serious.
Michael Moore demonstrated this in "Bowling for Columbine". He manages to get a company to change it's behaviour without:
(i) Changing the law
(ii) Buying a chunk of the company
(iii) Witholding purchases.
There are other effective forms of protest.
Nope, he was right. If you have them your way round, it should be '...might not want to...'
The recent draconians laws aproved to 'protect' copyrighted content is showing its most terrible face, the terror caused by it.
Sonn, a simple mention in a lawsuit is about to become reason enough to avoid hiring someone, this is nothing but terror.
And some call this democracy.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I worked for a P2P firm for several years in a support role, and to be honest, I have never really even thought about problems like this before. The job sits proudly near the top of my resume, I even use the words "file sharing" somewhere within the job description (but I usually fall back and say "It's sorta like napster, but different" during an interview, just because then the suits get it). Even with that there I have landed jobs at a major multi-national, and for a small municipal utilities company.
I hope my luck continues and I manage to avoid people who would hold that sort of thing against me. That being said, working for the P2P company was a great experiance, I learned a lot, I managed to grow my responsibilities as I saw fit, .
paul reinheimer
As long as an employee is doing good work, the company should not care. For example, one can be in every Toyota fan club there is and still deliver very good work in a job at chrysler. Having a specific opinion does not conflict with an emploees work, actions do. If the Guy would sell warez himself, I would agree with your opinion. But he didn't do that, he even removed his (?) web site with references to bittorrent files months ago.
Comparig a private opinion - even when statet in public - with sabotage is a bit of a long shot.
In switzerland where I live, almost any employee would go to court with such a case and probably win.
Anyway, I'll read the interview tonight at home...
IceRa
Sig? Where I go, I don't need
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.
It sounds reasonable, but think about the consquences.
By that logic, for instance, ANYBODY who is working in a non-state job, and who criticises global capitalism, should be instantly fired. After all, all businesses operate based on capitalism.
Just because a business produces IP doesn't mean that anyone who criticises copyright is against their business model. If copyright was abolished, it might get replaced with something else that would let those businesses still make money. What would that be? We don't know, it's not invented yet, but there again, we aren't in any danger of actually abolishing copyright right now, are we?
Why would a corporation merely post a reply to a wiki, arguing their version, when they can merely post a reply ordering you to "stop libeling", accompanied by a lawsuit to shut you down and jail you? They don't want the wiki readership to decide the truth (that's never conclusive, anyway). They want a judge to require you to prove your assertion, or remedy your damages. Which seems more sensibile than people having to spend all our time hunting down wikis where we're mentioned, arguing to protect our reputation, never able to stop the false statements from continuing to damage as they're republished forever.
--
make install -not war
I didn't see any comments saying he wasn't doing his job. I didn't see any comments about him being a spokesman for his company.
I did see the statement: "The decision to terminate [Mr Hanff's] employment was made in order to defend our legitimate business interests. 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."
Regardless of his declaired beliefs he evidentally is a good employee or they wouldn't have hired him in the first place.
I suspect that the above statement will be prime evidence that he was in fact fired for his beliefs.
The offer to pay him for 3 months instead of the week he worked was also interesting. I wonder if there was anything he would have been required to sign in that deal/payoff...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
"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."
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 guess the question then comes down to this:
Should a company/organization be allowed to fire people who have views that can undermine (sorry, best word I can think of) the company/organization.
For example, would a logging company want to employ someone who actively campaigns against logging? (We can debate the environment impact of logging later, this is just from the employer/employee perspective.)
Would the Labor Party want a registered Conservative and Unionist Party member working for them? (Apologies if people can't register political affiliations like you can in the US).
Would the Church of England be forced to employ an atheist?
Should a police department be forced to employ someone who supports the actions of the (more radical wing of [the ones who blow stuff up]) the IRA (Irish Republican Army)?
I hope you get the idea here.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I go to /. every morning. I pop open all the new, interesting stories in tabs...
/. can waste your time in new and interesting ways"
At first, I think something is stale in my cache, because that stupid "Windows will break in 12 minutes" is the top story. Queue a few minutes of checking before "Oh, nope, exact dupe."
Then I think something is strange with my tabs, because this story is exactly the same as "Share FIles? Get Fired.". Oh, nope, wait a minute, another dupe....
THe headline should really be "How
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
The problem is, you went on TV and to all intents and purposes openly supported what is by current Law an illegal practice.
If I went on TV and proudly proclaimed that I stole from shops on a regular basis, or even that I sympathised with those that did I would expect my employer to have a very dim view of my ethics from thereon.
The difference in this case from what I can gather is that your views on copyright infringement are in DIRECT contrast with the business objectives of the company you work(ed) for. It's not like you went on TV and expressed a view on cannabis legalisation. Your views as shown on the programme go against the principal business model of the company.
There is no tenable position they could've maintained by letting you continue to work there.
Smith & Wesson should absolutely fire someone who chooses to use a gun (whether it be made by S&W, or anyone else) in their personal life to shoot people indiscriminately, and then go on TV to tell the World about it.
Are you incapable of seeing the conflict of interests between someone saying they don't agree with copyright/IPR, and a company whose business depends on copyright/IPR ?
I had a similar situation once. I was not fired, but I quit because I just could not fit in. Why? Because it was 95 and I told my employer that SCO (their mainstay platform) is trash and that Linux was going to take over the marketplace, becuase "intellectual property" as we know it is trash too. They simply cound not handle such "communist" blasphmey.
Well, I left, beefed up on Linux for the next several years/jobs, and I think it is safe to say now that they are hurting more than I am.
Copyrights are still trash, and P2P systems are shapeing up to be as big as Linux and are also poised to be the next generation of data managment and distribution. I guarantee you that any company that deosn't expolit that for all it's worth will be DOA 10 years from now.
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, not at all.
Holding an opinion is not the issue. Publicly voicing an opinion in a role where you are seen as a representative of the company is.
If Steve Ballmer went out in front of the media and told everyone that Microsoft products sucked walnuts and that people should switch to Mac OS X instead, you'd better believe he'd be reprimanded if not dismissed outright. Do you think Microsoft ought to be FORCED BY LAW to keep someone who harms their reputation on payroll?
Aldcliffe Computer Systems won't be getting any business from us.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Slashdot does need to get rid of the dupes. Hell at least check links against links in older stories or something. That would at the very least ferret out the worst, most obvious dupes.
Well, Slashcode is open source, and you've got an itch and a plan on how to scratch. We await the code.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I havnt seen p2p ruin the career of Shaun Fanning it has enhanced it .
.
Justin Frankel used peer to peer to leave AOL and recive an exorbitant amount of money from them for doing so
Wayne Russo is in bed witjh Andrew Lack from Sony Music these days
The same story is linked to in both posts on Slashdot. Somebody explain to me how that does *not* indicate a dupe?
The problem is, you went on TV and to all intents and purposes openly supported what is by current Law an illegal practice.
I'm sorry - was this a response to my post? I went on TV to offer my views on a (thankfully abandoned) government proposal to require all crypto keys to be surrendered to the UK government. I said it was a terrible idea, and many IT sector employers thought so too. (Note: I did not, and do not, speak for HP, my employer, in this instance). By the law then, and the law now there is no requirement to escrow cryptographic keys. Hence I was in no way advocating law breaking. However, it could be argued that HP employees expressing personal opinions on UK government IT policies could have harmed their chances of securing future contracts. HP's management took the opinion that my rights to free expression took precedence over any precautionary silence rule. If, on the other hand, they had asked me to withdraw from the programme, I would have done so, but it would have damaged my faith in HP. As it was, it reinforced my belief that HP was a good place to work.
The difference in this case from what I can gather is that your views on copyright infringement are in DIRECT contrast with the business objectives of the company you work(ed) for. It's not like you went on TV and expressed a view on cannabis legalisation. Your views as shown on the programme go against the principal business model of the company.
Honestly, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think that current IP laws are being misused by patent trolls, trademark vultures, copyright abusers, but I don't believe in copyright, patent or trademark abolition. I've never said that I do, nor have I ever advocated widespread breaking of copyright laws. I think that the pendulum of IP holders interests versus the popular need for artistic and scientific freedom to share has swung too far to the copyright holders, but you do me wrong to ascribe to me a belief in wholesale abolition and disobedience of the law.
Was there some anonymous post in the middle here to which you were responding?
--Ng
Was there some anonymous post in the middle here to which you were responding?
Deepest apologies - Just seen the Hanff post to which you were responding.
Mod the parent out of existence. It's a mistake.
Sorry, Durzel. My mistake.
--Ng
Whimsicle....is that like....frozen whim on a stick? :)
Whimsical, I do believe is the word you were looking for.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
1. To employers. If you abuse the human rights of your employees you will be held liable and will pay heavy consequences.
I'm not sure that it's wise to comment on a public forum about upcoming litigation.
However, since you started it, what human right do you feel to have been violated? The HRA has very little to say in terms of what private individuals or companies can do to one another. It's mostly about what a government can do (or not) to its population. No doubt your legal adviser will clarify such matters.
the revised severance was not an offer, I had no choice whether or not to accept it, I was told I WOULD be getting 3 month severance instead of the 1 week.
In that case, the Guardian article is wrong. It states that your erstwhile employers offered 1 week salary, then increased to 3 months. You might want to correct the misreport. The Guardian is pretty good about correcting mistakes.
Clearly, this is only a partially informed, non legal opinion, but the facts as presented so far look to me like you've got a legal mountain to climb. I'd have taken the money. But I'm not you.
--Ng
You UNIONISED COMMIE SCUMBAGS. It's people like YOU who are causing POORNESS and shortages of OIL.
You are probably all ATHIESTS and worship the DEVIL and quite possibly Allah.
Next thing we know, you'll all be strapping dynamite to your bellies and blowing up INNOCENT AMERICAN CHRISTIANS who are not UNIONISED.
Stick Men
slashdot isn't a religion, it's a news site. Go out side and get some fresh air.
Well, obviously if you redefine 'freedom of speech' to mean something else, the problem goes away.
By the way, do you know what happens to people when they are unable to eat for an extended period?
fish and pipes
However as he as just one week into his employment he is out in the cold.
Not necessarily. There are many things he isn't entitled to because of the length of time he has worked there. For instance, he isn't entitled to a written statement of the reason for his dismissal (however the employer has issued a statement to the press which would be admissable in a tribunal as evidence of why they dismissed him).
The Employment Right Acts 1996:
94. - (1) An employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer.
That says nothing about time restrictions. With regards to whether or not the dismissal is fair, the act says this:
it is for the employer to show-
(a) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and
(b) that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.
(2) A reason falls within this subsection if it-
(a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,
(b) relates to the conduct of the employee,
(c) is that the employee was redundant, or
(d) is that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.
Clearly they would be relying on case (2)(b) here. Also relevant is this:
(4) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer)-
(a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and
(b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
I'd say it isn't really clear from the legislation whether or not he has a case, and we'd have to look at case law to find out. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about such things to find the relevant cases.
The employer's statement for why he was fired is this:
The decision to terminate [Mr Hanff's] employment was made in order to defend our legitimate business interests. 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.
Interestingly, this isn't for any of the 4 reasons listed as falling under "subsection 2" above. It is for the reason that the employee has shown that he has opinions that suggest he would be opposed to the company performing one of the functions it does in order to make money (i.e. protect its IP rights). I'm not sure, but I think a tribunal will look at that and declare those as unfair grounds for dismissal.
He has a chance, at least.
Wow, you just repeated EXACTLY what I said (Title VII _is_ the Age, Race, etc).
Your interjection here was entirely irrelevant to the topic (and yet, +5 Insightful). Brilliant!
Gotta love hypocrites.
The
In a world of lots of little companies, competing for customers and competing for employees, we don't need job protection laws - just get a job with a rival, or start up on your own.
In that kind of 1776-world job protection laws can do more harm than good. They make it harder to get a new job, they make it harder to set up your own business.
In the real world, where job markets are dominated by a few large companies, we do need job protection laws to protect our freedom. Or maybe we need stronger competition laws to stop a small number of large companies dominating.
There is no need for the job protection laws to apply to small companies. Indeed, if job protection laws apply to big companies but not small one, that is in part a competition law, hindering the big companies in their competition with the small companies.