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"

Comments

How WWW Can Taint A Corporation

[nokilli]

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.

Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation

[iibagod]

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.

Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation

[Anonymous Luddite]

> 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.

Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation

[Trepalium]

It's called taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. Maybe you'd prefer people trying to get laws passed to change distasteful company behaviour? There are only two other ways to change a company's behaviour -- getting a big enough stake in the company to directly achieve the change, and withholding purchases from the company until their behaviour changes.

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.

Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation

[MysteriousPreacher]

Buying products from a company I know to be ethical adds value for me.

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?

if your answer is yes, then you've got a pretty interesting moral compass. If your answer is no, then you're making a decision based on idiological reasons.

Umm, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Nasty situation.

[salparadyse]

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.

Re:Misleading summary

[killjoe]

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.