Joe Gordon update

That’s a bit of an ethical dilemma, though, Dave, if we accept that this is a better job with nicer people (and it certainly seems to be the case). If Waterstone’s had taken him back, there’d be mistrust in the atmosphere, he’d certainly not be a favourite of upper management, etc.

In other words, he is better off having been fired and not re-hired by Waterstone’s. Ultimately, Waterstone’s did what was best for him — but for all the wrong reasons.

And so, given that, overall, he benefited, do Waterstone’s really deserve a boycott? What if the boycott makes them revise their practices so that future Joes aren’t fired — and, as a consequence, freed to find better work — but rather reshuffled to unpleasant, non-controversial positions, with very little hope of advancement — a non-optimal situation which your boycott and by extension you would be responsible for?

Since this blog actually has professional philosophers on staff, I’m genuinely curious about how they see this issue.

mill: Waterstone’s didn’t act with his best interests in mind. At the point where they fired him they could not have known that his situation would, ultimately, improve upon the situation where he was employed by them, nor was that ultimate improvement something they were aiming at. Given these qualifications it seems slightly absurd to absolve Waterstone’s of any wrongdoing.

Let’s take an example, in the hopes of clearing up my point somewhat. Say I were to drink and drive, and consequently crashed into another motor vehicle. The driver of the other car ended up in hospital, but she wasn’t badly hurt — and she met the love of her life in casualty. That fact doesn’t absolve me of wrongdoing: I shouldn’t have been drinking and driving in the first place, since I could have had no idea that such an outcome would occur.

I suppose this is a slightly more unlikely example than the actual case we’re discussing, since Joe Gordon getting a new, better job is a more likely outcome than the one I cited above. Even so, I think it would set a rather bad precedent if companies were allowed to fire employees on the grounds that they might get better jobs elsewhere! “It was for their own good — we’re helping them with their career by firing them.” When it’s framed in those terms, I think you’ll find the whole dilemma becomes much clearer.

If you accept that the boycott was an attempt to change Waterstone’s behavior, I guess it’s over, or at least no longer relevant. But if you’re boycotting Waterstone’s because they’re asshats, then feel free to continue.