As anyone who passes by here regularly will know, there is little that is guaranteed to get my hackles to rise more rapidly than the current 'trend' for employers to dismiss employees who apparently 'bringing the company into disrepute' by blogging on the subject of their work.
It is thus that I sit here now steaming, to coin a phrase.
Blackrat yesterday posted on the subject and via his comments I came upon this article in the Guardian today.
The blog, 'The Woolamaloo Gazette' and it's author can be found here
It is pointless my banging on about freedom of speech again, indeed freedom of speech is something I hold very strong views on but I have been there before. What amazes me most, aside from the obvious pomposity of companies who feel they have a right to control an employees life outside of work, is how the buffoons who attempt to hold that control persist in turning what where small blogs, read by only a few individuals into front page news for the broadsheets and thereby providing all the bad publicity they apparently seek to avoid!
Very astute move guys!
I for one will not be patronising Waterstones, Edinburgh again, or Waterstones anywhere for that matter. I doubt the loss of my meagre annual spend will give the C.E.O. nightmares but a few thousand 'me's' might give him or her a little discomfort and it will sure as hell make me feel better!
Wednesday, 12 January 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 Comments:
OMG....how dare they.Not only contolling your actions at work, but outside of it as well..ppeeeeesss me off.
Unbelievable! I wonder how many people have been fired because of a blog. I bet the numbers would surprise us.
Have to agree with Lisa there. Really, its just common sense.
TW: I don't know how many have lost their job TW but I think thus far it is only a small number....or maybe I hope it is only a small number!
Lisa/Michelle: I agree that this issue needs common sense to prevail. I accept wholly that if one blatantly libels an individual or company while blogging or in the pursuit of any other activity then they should be prepared to face the consequences.
The problem I have here with the specifics of the two most recent cases that have appeared in the press is what I see as the heavy handed and unrealistic attitude of the companies concerned. The 'crime' committed in the latest case and that of Ms Simonetti was small, by all means I understand the companies concerned perhaps taking the perpetrators aside, explaining their point and issuing some small discipline, it is the level of punishment that appalls me. The phrase 'using a mallett to crack a nut' comes to mind.
Certainly in the case of the 'Wanamaloo Gazette' the author offered to remove the offending part of his blog but Waterstones apparently wouldn't accept that and the item they felt was offending could hardly be compared to an act of treason or, in my opinion, compared with an individual causing a breach of security at a national airport for a prank, where recent history has proven hundereds of lives are at real risk!
This guy lost a job he had done well for over 10 years essentially for using one word, 'bastardstones'......how many of us would even have read that word had the company not reacted in such a heavy handed manner?
In my own blog where I have written about similar issues at work I have been very careful not to identify my employer, yes, I think it's common sense but none the less employers must be aware we are not all happy in our employ 100% of the time and it is maybe short sighted of them to object to a minor breaches of laoyalty in such a sever manner.
I have no idea how Waterstones came to be aware of their employees blog but from experience I know that despite taking steps to keep mine anonymous at work 'word got out'.
Yes, the issue here is common sense but that needs to be on both sides of the fence.
On the subject of the possibility that some of these people are endeavouring to get the sack purposely, it is of course a possibility, tho I fail to see any real gain.
It does of course offer an excellent way to get ones hit counter heading for the sky! :o)
Yep I agree, how dastardly employers can be and even more so in this case where the employer is a seller of books! Books which are the holy grail of the freedom of expression, they will sell without compunction and if there's a quick buck in it any vile ideology and claim freedom of the public to read what they like (Spycatcher Not vile but controversial comes to mind. Waterstones should be ashamed of themselves
some companies seem to have gotten a bit over-exuberant in their reaction to blogs, i agree.
but the key issues seem to me to be:
- blogs are a form of publishing, and as such subject to libel laws
- blogs are not private. by their very nature they are a public activity.
- your expressed opinions are your own private issue UNTIL you begin to mention others (eg, your employer) in a public and recognizable way.
- companies have a right to protect their brand. it doesn't matter if YOU think you haven't defamed their brand -- it's not YOUR brand, and you don't get to decide how it should be presented to the public. how they want to present themselves is up to them. they can fire you for being too NICE about their brand if that's not what they wanted you to do. it's THEIR brand.
- free speech is not the issue here. no one is saying you can't blog about your employer. what they're saying is "we do not wish to continue paying you to blog about us in a way we don't approve". there's a huge difference. i submit that anyone who thinks this is "censorship" lacks a clear idea of what censorship is and has never actually experienced the real thing.
The point about a mallet to crack a nut is well taken. Many of the companies in question have been hasty and humourless. And there mere act of blogging should not be cause for any discipline unless that's spelled out in the employee's contract beforehand. But overall, it seems to me that bloggers are being a bit unrealistic and defensive about the issue. There is not God-given right to blog what you want AND work wherever you like.
PS. gemmak, altho i guess i see this issue a lot differently than you do, i wish to say that i really like your blog. :)
Rob: Indeed they should be ashamed of themselves, their behaviour is astonishing!
Bryan: I think we do not see this quite as differently as you imagine. Your points are well made and I agree with many of them in principle. I would not expect to blog negatively about my employer without being taken to task and nor would I expect to commit libel without the powers of law being bought to bear unpon me.
I have blogged in the past on matters concering my employer and negatively, tho I was careful to not identify them, maybe more for my own self preservation than loyalty to the company but I protected there identity non the less. Had I not taken reasonable steps to do so I would have expected repercussions, indeed there were repercussions anyway but not serious thankfully. In fact my employer was remarkably understanding.
I object strongly to any company or individual restricting anothers right of free speech but I do accept that in the real world the situation is more complicated and not always as I would like it to be, my main objection in the current case is the 'mallet to crack a nut' aspect. This whole issue could have and should have been handled in a much more appropriate fashion and with minimal fuss.
Thank you for taking the time to comment and for your kind words......I am only too happy to have comments left reflecting the opinions of others,regardelss of wether that opinion is different to mine. Blogging for me is not just about the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' philosophy. I write in a public forum and welcome all input. :o)
Post a Comment