Comments on: Blogger sacked by Waterstones http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:53:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: snuh http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56845 snuh Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:51:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56845 <i>He wasn?t entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer.</i> by this logic, one could say that the bookstore was only entitled to the employee's labour on whatever terms the employee was prepared to offer, which presumably included the protections of unfair dismissal legislation. He wasn?t entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer. by this logic, one could say that the bookstore was only entitled to the employee’s labour on whatever terms the employee was prepared to offer, which presumably included the protections of unfair dismissal legislation.

]]> By: dave heasman http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56844 dave heasman Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:15:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56844 "He wasn’t entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer" says John T Kennedy. I've been appalled on reading about this case on US blogs. Lots of people take the Kennedy position and it's a shame. Even soi-disant left-wingers like Steve Gilliard. http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/01/blogging-lessons-1-protect-yourself.html They seem to identify with an incompetent giant corporation, thinking "that giant corporation could be *me* someday". Sure it could. Either that, or they're so ground down in their own jobs that sounding tough about someone else's travails somehow ameliorates. Management objecting to workers telling it like it is is not reality-based. The market, being reality-based, will crush their organisation, sooner or later. But since this sort of management is only involved in self-aggrandisement I guess they can bail out, leaving the workers. “He wasn’t entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer” says John T Kennedy. I’ve been appalled on reading about this case on US blogs. Lots of people take the Kennedy position and it’s a shame. Even soi-disant left-wingers like Steve Gilliard. http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/01/blogging-lessons-1-protect-yourself.html They seem to identify with an incompetent giant corporation, thinking “that giant corporation could be me someday”. Sure it could. Either that, or they’re so ground down in their own jobs that sounding tough about someone else’s travails somehow ameliorates. Management objecting to workers telling it like it is is not reality-based. The market, being reality-based, will crush their organisation, sooner or later. But since this sort of management is only involved in self-aggrandisement I guess they can bail out, leaving the workers.

]]> By: David Tiley http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56843 David Tiley Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:40:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56843 I presume you don't mean that employers can set any terms they like? I presume you don’t mean that employers can set any terms they like?

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56842 John T. Kennedy Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:02:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56842 <i>"Yes, he was and still is technically free to speak his mind, but he had to pay consequences for that."</i> <p>He remains literally free to speak his mind and he didn't have to pay anything. He wasn't entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer. </p> “Yes, he was and still is technically free to speak his mind, but he had to pay consequences for that.”

He remains literally free to speak his mind and he didn’t have to pay anything. He wasn’t entitled to the job except on whatever terms the company was prepared to offer.

]]> By: David Tiley http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56841 David Tiley Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:17:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56841 A sidepoint: consumer power to force an employer to behave reasonably sounds fine. But Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is in the process of being wrecked by fear of a Christian boycott, as <a href="http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002969.html">CT</a> has already canvassed. In this case consumer power is being used to attack the freedom of a production company to make the best film possible, to interpret the work of art. It is not technically an attack on free speech, but the effect is censorious. A sidepoint: consumer power to force an employer to behave reasonably sounds fine. But Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” is in the process of being wrecked by fear of a Christian boycott, as CT has already canvassed. In this case consumer power is being used to attack the freedom of a production company to make the best film possible, to interpret the work of art. It is not technically an attack on free speech, but the effect is censorious.

]]> By: Nicholas Weininger http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56840 Nicholas Weininger Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:36:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56840 This hardcore libertarian and SF fan is, for the record, with Jacob Levy and djw. I'd oppose any law making the guy's firing illegal, but it's a damned obnoxious thing to do, and if there were any Waterstone's around where I live to boycott, I'd boycott it. And Jacob is right on about the desirability of making a better culture come about through one's voluntary actions. Indeed I think a key libertarian point applying to many issues is that, given the ultimate dependence of firms on consumers' pleasure, such actions *can* be effective in restraining many types of obnoxiousness and promoting a more open and tolerant society. This hardcore libertarian and SF fan is, for the record, with Jacob Levy and djw. I’d oppose any law making the guy’s firing illegal, but it’s a damned obnoxious thing to do, and if there were any Waterstone’s around where I live to boycott, I’d boycott it. And Jacob is right on about the desirability of making a better culture come about through one’s voluntary actions. Indeed I think a key libertarian point applying to many issues is that, given the ultimate dependence of firms on consumers’ pleasure, such actions can be effective in restraining many types of obnoxiousness and promoting a more open and tolerant society.

]]> By: snuh http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56839 snuh Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:19:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56839 <i>At least here in the US, the right of free speech has to do with government restraint</i> even though i am not "here in the US", i don't think this is strictly true. the impact free speech has had on the common law of defamation, for example, would contradict this statement. see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Libel.2C_slander_and_private_action">here</a>. At least here in the US, the right of free speech has to do with government restraint even though i am not “here in the US”, i don’t think this is strictly true. the impact free speech has had on the common law of defamation, for example, would contradict this statement. see here.

]]> By: James C. Hess http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56838 James C. Hess Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:20:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56838 Now we get to the ugly part of Free Speech. First, did the blogger in question sign a pre-employment agreement that explicitly say he could not publically speak out against his employer? Second, what is his former employer's policy on extra curricular activities? Third, did he reference his employer in his blog? If so, how so? As far as I can tell this is not a black and white matter. Now we get to the ugly part of Free Speech. First, did the blogger in question sign a pre-employment agreement that explicitly say he could not publically speak out against his employer? Second, what is his former employer’s policy on extra curricular activities? Third, did he reference his employer in his blog? If so, how so? As far as I can tell this is not a black and white matter.

]]> By: neil http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56837 neil Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:12:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56837 Perhaps someone's already pointed this out somewhere, but I find it extremely likely that he was -not- sacked because Waterstones thought that it would free them from criticism. More likely, a hot-headed executive or a boss who hates Joe acted out of personal temper, and ended up proving who was -actually- bad for the company. Perhaps someone’s already pointed this out somewhere, but I find it extremely likely that he was not sacked because Waterstones thought that it would free them from criticism. More likely, a hot-headed executive or a boss who hates Joe acted out of personal temper, and ended up proving who was actually bad for the company.

]]> By: x http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56836 x Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:13:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56836 "There’s no restraint of speech here; Gordon is still free to blog anything he likes, isn’t he?" What part of "he lost his job for a couple of silly blog comments" isn't clear? Yes, he was and still is technically free to speak his mind, but he had to pay consequences for that. The point is not wether someone literally suppressed his right to speak, but whether those consequences in this case were right or wrong. Since it is a company initiative and not intervention by a government enforcing (or breaking) its own laws about freedom of speech, obviously it's the wider non-literal sense of that freedom that's an issue here. But yeah, like others have said, it's not even about that primarily, mostly it's about an example of corporate idiocy and arrogance. “There’s no restraint of speech here; Gordon is still free to blog anything he likes, isn’t he?” What part of “he lost his job for a couple of silly blog comments” isn’t clear? Yes, he was and still is technically free to speak his mind, but he had to pay consequences for that. The point is not wether someone literally suppressed his right to speak, but whether those consequences in this case were right or wrong. Since it is a company initiative and not intervention by a government enforcing (or breaking) its own laws about freedom of speech, obviously it’s the wider non-literal sense of that freedom that’s an issue here. But yeah, like others have said, it’s not even about that primarily, mostly it’s about an example of corporate idiocy and arrogance.

]]> By: Jasper Milvain http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56835 Jasper Milvain Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:06:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56835 Aside from the ethics, you might expect Waterstone's to have realised that 'Bookshop sacks blogger' was a highly saleable scandal. Newspapers are still in the child-with-new-toy phase about this stuff, and as for the <i>blogs</i>... On the 'Why work for Waterstone's if you like science fiction?' point, it's worth noting that, before it was bought out by HMV, this chain had a reputation for giving branches independence. When Joe was hired, he could reasonably have hoped to make his branch the best place in the city to buy SF. And there's something of a buyer's market for bookshop employees. There are more alternatives to Waterstone's in Edinburgh than in most UK cities, but it's not as if he can just cross the street. Aside from the ethics, you might expect Waterstone’s to have realised that ‘Bookshop sacks blogger’ was a highly saleable scandal. Newspapers are still in the child-with-new-toy phase about this stuff, and as for the blogs… On the ‘Why work for Waterstone’s if you like science fiction?’ point, it’s worth noting that, before it was bought out by HMV, this chain had a reputation for giving branches independence. When Joe was hired, he could reasonably have hoped to make his branch the best place in the city to buy SF. And there’s something of a buyer’s market for bookshop employees. There are more alternatives to Waterstone’s in Edinburgh than in most UK cities, but it’s not as if he can just cross the street.

]]> By: Backword Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56834 Backword Dave Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:54:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56834 Ah, Mrs Tilton is correct, 'rights' is probably not the right word. I was thinking of <a href="http://www.woolamaloo.org.uk/2005/01/those-who-profess-to-favor-freedom-and.htm">Joe's own thoughts on the matter</a>. I've read a couple of months of Joe's blog now; and he's mentioned the evil boss once; he'd didn't slander the boss, as what he said was clearly (even without the disclaimer) his opinion. Neither of his accounts of being denied a day off (which he asked for over a month in advance), nor his disciplinary hearing have been disputed by Waterstone's. Firing him for an old blog post without warning is unfair and heavy-handed. (It's not good management either.) I should say that I wrote to the manager in Waterstone's in Edinburgh, copying my email to my local branch and their flagship store in Piccadilly (which is the closest thing to a head office I could find) and received a reply from London within 10 minutes which was polite and said, "Unfortunately we cannot comment on this matter as it is confidential between the company and the employee." Well, it's nice to know that complaints get read. BTW, both Waterstone's in Cardiff (where I live) have good science fiction sections. They have little on the comics front which they've left to Forbidden Planet. Ah, Mrs Tilton is correct, ‘rights’ is probably not the right word. I was thinking of Joe’s own thoughts on the matter. I’ve read a couple of months of Joe’s blog now; and he’s mentioned the evil boss once; he’d didn’t slander the boss, as what he said was clearly (even without the disclaimer) his opinion. Neither of his accounts of being denied a day off (which he asked for over a month in advance), nor his disciplinary hearing have been disputed by Waterstone’s. Firing him for an old blog post without warning is unfair and heavy-handed. (It’s not good management either.) I should say that I wrote to the manager in Waterstone’s in Edinburgh, copying my email to my local branch and their flagship store in Piccadilly (which is the closest thing to a head office I could find) and received a reply from London within 10 minutes which was polite and said, “Unfortunately we cannot comment on this matter as it is confidential between the company and the employee.” Well, it’s nice to know that complaints get read. BTW, both Waterstone’s in Cardiff (where I live) have good science fiction sections. They have little on the comics front which they’ve left to Forbidden Planet.

]]> By: Andrew Boucher http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56833 Andrew Boucher Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:36:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56833 washerdryer: I'd agree. The company can (morally or legally) fire if it wants; and Chris can (morally or legally) boycott in response. On the other hand what the company did was unbelievably stupid, bringing itself into disrepute far beyond what the blogger would have ever managed to do on his own. That is, even if you *can* do something, you shouldn't always *do* it. washerdryer: I’d agree. The company can (morally or legally) fire if it wants; and Chris can (morally or legally) boycott in response. On the other hand what the company did was unbelievably stupid, bringing itself into disrepute far beyond what the blogger would have ever managed to do on his own. That is, even if you can do something, you shouldn’t always do it.

]]> By: washerdreyer http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56832 washerdreyer Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:15:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56832 It's already been said, but it is always amazing to see one person writing that they are going to boycott a store and then to watch others respond, "But the stores action is legally permissible." If you think the stores action is optimal, that is a different situation, but no one seems to be saying that. It’s already been said, but it is always amazing to see one person writing that they are going to boycott a store and then to watch others respond, “But the stores action is legally permissible.” If you think the stores action is optimal, that is a different situation, but no one seems to be saying that.

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/12/blogger-sacked-by-waterstones/comment-page-1/#comment-56831 John T. Kennedy Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:42:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2751#comment-56831 There's no restraint of speech here; Gordon is still free to blog anything he likes, isn't he? There’s no restraint of speech here; Gordon is still free to blog anything he likes, isn’t he?

]]>