Complain About Comcast, Get Fired From Your Job

ub3r n3u7r4l1st writes When you complain to your cable company, you certainly don't expect that the cable company will then contact your employer and discuss your complaint. But that's exactly what happened to one former Comcast customer who says he was fired after the cable company called a partner at his accounting firm. Be careful next time when you exercise your first amendment rights. From the article: At some point shortly after that call, someone from Comcast contacted a partner at the firm to discuss Conal. This led to an ethics investigation and Conal’s subsequent dismissal from his job; a job where he says he’d only received positive feedback and reviews for his work. Comcast maintained that Conal used the name of his employer in an attempt to get leverage. Conal insists that he never mentioned his employer by name, but believes that someone in the Comcast Controller’s office looked him up online and figured out where he worked. When he was fired, Conal’s employer explained that the reason for the dismissal was an e-mail from Comcast that summarized conversations between Conal and Comcast employees. But Conal has never seen this e-mail in order to say whether it’s accurate and Comcast has thus far refused to release any tapes of the phone calls related to this matter.

Comments

Comcast needs to go the route of AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Break them up, don't let them merge so that the abuses can continue.

So, it has come to this.

[hawkinspeter]

Can't he just sue his ex-employer for wrongful dismissal or does that not exist in the U.S.?

Re:So, it has come to this.

[chubs]

It depends on the state. In many states, an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (with exception of legally protected statuses that cannot be used in hiring/firing decisions such as race, age, gender, etc).

Re:So, it has come to this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right-to-work law

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers, or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

At-will employment

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning. In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

Re:So, it has come to this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there are only two options here.

Re:So, it has come to this.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice false dichotomy you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it... But seriously, there's a huge gulf between at-will and what you describe. I know of a small business where the receptionist is frequently rude to clients and spends more time on places like Facebook than actual work. So even if this small business had to show good cause for firing this receptionist, it wouldn't be that difficult a bar to meet. You just have to show some business related reason for firing the person, as opposed to "I don't like the color of your shoelaces. Get out, you're fired!"

What I don't get is that the US was founded upon the principles of everyone being equal and entitled to some kind of due process... Except when it comes to private business, when suddenly that whole idea goes out the window according to certain political philosophies. Ironically the same political philosophies often espouse ideals about freedom from oppression and decry dictators petty, tinpot, or otherwise. I've never been able to figure out how they reconcile such a disconnect where oppression from governments is the single greatest evil, but the same kind of oppression from private business is not only perfectly acceptable, it's a desirable outcome.

Not the first amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful next time when you exercise your first amendment rights.

As the government did not arrest this person for what they said, it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

And what's the problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the guy really did name-drop his employer in an attempt to intimidate/coerce Comcast, what's the problem?

If the company name was used it would be entirely fair to contact the company to make sure the policy stated by the employee was in fact the policy of the company. If not, if the employee did misrepresent the company, than getting fired may be appropriate.

Cable companies may be evil but not everything they do is necessarily wrong. Pushing back against a bully would not be wrong.

We don't know the details

[ShaunC]

I can't help but think that there's more to this story. I hate Comcast and it's fun to rail on them, but there's no proof yet that they've done anything horrible here. What appears to have happened is that a customer used his position (or knowledge he gained through his position) at work to escalate his own personal billing issue to someone at Comcast who had zero to do with the situation, and it backfired. Until or unless the recording of the phone call is made public, nobody really knows what went down and everything else is useless speculation.

There are plenty of 100% legitimate, proven reasons to hate Comcast. This might not be one of them.

Re:We don't know the details

[rahvin112]

I fully believe they Google'd the guy. He basically threatened them with reporting them to the IRS and SEC for violating accounting standards, and he didn't just threaten a nobody, he threatened another accountant. Very very serious allegations. They likely ran those accusations right to their legal department who did a full investigation and realized he worked for someone that worked for them. A quick call to a partner threatening to pull the account and the guy is fired.

I completely believe this happened even without knowing their side of the story. Even if he did mention who he worked for it would have been irrelevant and treated just the same way it would have been if he was talking to low level support. Without Comcast releasing the actual call recordings we shouldn't trust any spin they put on it, nor should we outright believe everything the guy says. But the fact is they called his employer and got him fired. There is almost nothing he could have said on the phone to them to justify that.

Re:We don't know the details

[AK Marc]

He basically threatened them with reporting them to the IRS and SEC for violating accounting standards, and he didn't just threaten a nobody, he threatened another accountant.

Then he's an idiot. When I had trouble with AT&T DSL back in the '90s, I couldn't ever get anyone to talk to me. I used my "work position" to try to escalate. "I work for a tech company doing tech, I understand these things."

Nothing worked.

I didn't push the issue after the 6th month or so of problems. I sent a letter to the FCC about the deceptive practices, copying the 12 divisions of SBC that were involved in delivering AT&T DSL at the time, and to AT&T's corporate council.

Within 48 hours of putting the letter in the mailbox, I had an AT&T tech at my house and the problem I was told for 6 months was "impossible" to fix, was fixed.

Don't ever threaten to go to a regulatory body. Just do it. Of course let them know, so that when the FCC got back to my complaint another 6 weeks later, I could tell them it was resolved.

Hanlon's razor wasn't meant for comcast

[i kan reed]

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by being evil incarnate, dripping with pure unfiltered malice for all your customers.

We are not hearing the full story.

[Frosty Piss]

Look, we all hate Comcast, but something is fishy here about this guy. I will go as far as saying that the write-up is one-sided, and if "true", the employer has opened themselves up to a lawsuit, and I really don't think HR and their lawyers would do this.

We are not hearing the full story.

Re: Time To Occupy Comcast HQ?

[roc97007]

I would say this is the opposite of capitalism. Lack of consumer choice, paying off politicians to achieve an unquestioned monopoly, no need to provide a decent service because there's no competition. That's more like a government sponsored monopoly.

Re: Time To Occupy Comcast HQ?

[The Technomancer]

Natural monopolies, which utility services belong to, absolutely are a product of capitalism, and they require regulation to prevent predatory practices due to their position in the market as a natural monopoly. One of the biggest issues with the Austrian school of economics is that they ignore the mathematical proof of certain monopolies being more efficient than a competitive market.

I'm a firm believer in the power of capitalism as the most efficient market-sorting mechanism out there, but in order for it to work correctly, one needs to recognize the areas where it breaks down, either due to unlimited demand as in a health care market, which is effectively buying life, on which there is no price too great to overcome the natural will to live, or natural monopolies where first to market/mass market is more efficient due to the significant infrastructure (and therefore capital costs) necessary to compete.

At will employment != Right to work

[sjbe]

In "right to work" states, you can fire someone for no reason at all, but even in these states, if you cite a reason, everything changes.

"Right to work" laws govern whether unions can force employees in an organized company to pay dues even if they do not want to be a member of the union. This has nothing directly to do with at will employment which applies to every worker not covered under a contractual agreement (including union contracts) stipulating conditions for termination. At will employment means you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all unless it impacts your status as a protected class.