Slashdot Log In
In France, Fired For Writing To MP Against 3 Strikes
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun May 10, 2009 07:03 AM
from the nous-sommes-desolees dept.
from the nous-sommes-desolees dept.
neurone333 sends along the cause célèbre of the moment in France: a Web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, sends an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's "three strikes and you're out" proposal, known as Hadopi. His MP forwards the email to the minister backing Hadopi, who forwards it to TF1. The author of the email, Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, is called into his boss's office and shown an exact copy of his email. Soon he receives a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the [company's] strategy" — in a private email sent from a private (gmail) address. French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar. Hit the link below for some background on the ties between TF1 and the Sarkozy government.
The Irish times has an explanation for the incestuous relationship between his government and TF1: "TF1's owner, the construction billionaire Martin Bouygues, is godfather to Mr Sarkozy's youngest son, Louis. Mr. Bouygues suggested to Mr. Sarkozy that he ought to ban advertising on TF1's rival stations in the public sector, which was done in January. Laurent Solly, who was deputy director of Mr. Sarkozy's presidential campaign, is now number two at TF1. Last year, TF1 sacked Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the station's star presenter for the previous 21 years. Poivre had angered Mr Sarkozy by saying he 'acted like a little boy' at a G8 summit. He was replaced by Laurence Ferrari. Mr. Sarkozy reportedly told Mr. Bouygues he wanted to see the young blond on the news."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's better off not working for them if:
A) They employ such tactics
B) His beliefs actually do strongly differ with the company's
Now the question is under French law can he sue? If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
Now the question is under French law can he sue? If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?
He absolutely can sue. There's a special court for employer/employee disagreements called the Prudhommes, and he will probably sue TF1 for wrongful termination.
I don't know much about law myself, but his lawyers should have a field day with this. He would have to screw up the case royally to lose it: It was a private email address and a private communication which his employer should never have heard about, and secondly, it is forbidden by law to fire someone on political grounds in France.
In theory this shouldn't affect his future professionally, however seeing how the world works, I'm not so sure.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Interesting)
He can and will. Here's a better source [ecrans.fr] (in french).
In a nutshell, his lawyer's case is as the parent said, and quoting her: "This is discrimination, a felony of opinion, it is just scandalous."
It will be intresting to follow this case. I'd be very happy if someone can do something against TF1.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which makes the whole thing so mind bogglingly stupid. Not only did that idiot executive fire them employee for the wrong reason but the executive in their own bloated self worth gave the unfairly dismissed employee all the evidence required to sue the company for unfair dismissal and of course the attempt by the company to strip away the rights of a citizen and to threaten all other employees of that company with similar action should they ever express an opinion that differs from the policies expressed b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was send from his private e-mail address, he used his name and explain why he was so concern by this law because of his job. Nothing wrong here.
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
It is not a UN document. The human rights are enforced by the human rights court in Haag. They are pretty well enforced in all countries that have signed them. It can even override the supreme court in the signing countries.
Note, the US have not signed the human rights declaration since the US disagrees with human right number 1: The right to live, AND with the concept of a foreign court that can override the government.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:4, Informative)
You are confusing the European Court of Human Rights (relevant to this case, irrelevant to the USA) with the International Criminal Court (which the US hasn't signed up to but which is irrelevant to this case)
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
Recent foreign policy notwithstanding, the problem the US has with the "right to live" is that it eliminates the death penalty, not that the government wants to reserve the right to kill, kill, kill.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
Except that ECHR, which ratifies the UN UDHC in 99% of areas, HAS been incorporated into all EU member states law. This does make it illegial to discriminate on basis of political expression.
They government also broke the french DPA (no doubt, it is again similar to UK law) by forwarding on the email, which was by default considered private.
Prediction: lawyers have complete field day suing the employer for large, large amounts of money.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why Thomas Jefferson thought corporations represented a danger to liberty. Corporations control the politicians, not us.
Also if this precedent is allowed to stand, what's next? "I heard from colleaques you voted Libertarian." "Um, yeah I didn't like either McCain or Obama." "Well I'm sorry but this company doesn't support third parties since Homeland Security has designated them as terrorist-friendly organizations, so I'm terminating your employment due to incompatible non-politically correct views."
Gee. It reminds me of being a serf, with the corporation as the lord. You depend upon the lord for your survival, so don't you dare express an opinion contrary to the lord's opinion, else you'll be removed. Classical liberalism ("the people are the ultimate authority") is dying a slow death in the face of more-and-more power grabs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why Thomas Jefferson thought corporations represented a danger to liberty. Corporations control the politicians, not us.
Also if this precedent is allowed to stand, what's next? "I heard from colleaques you voted Libertarian." "Um, yeah I didn't like either McCain or Obama." "
I suggest that that is not the correct answer, regardless of how you voted. The more appropriate answer would be "That's interesting. I did not tell anyone how I voted and we have a secret ballot in this country. Those 'colleagues' are either lying or they have violated electoral law. I expect you will take appropriate disciplinary measures on the those 'colleagues'."
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
The founding fathers were not atheists. They were nearly-all Protestant, with a few being Deist (believed in God but not church doctrine). Don't spread mythology about them being atheists.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back then, protestantism meant something quite different to what it means in the modern US.
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Informative)
The important point, which I don't think the GP illustrated clearly, was this:
The founding fathers had just left a country deeply steeped in religion. They specifically wanted a country where religion didn't affect the government at all. "Congress shall make no law..." is a direct response to the (iirc) Anglican church that was essentially controlled by the king. Anyone with any sense will not claim that the US was intended to be a christian nation, as that is an absolute falsehood.
And as for your actual post, here's this:
They absolutely were not nearly-all protestant. Most of them were, at the most, Deist, with a few being what would now be called Atheists. Please learn your own history.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic. Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for some more facts on the subject.
Er, no. There are plenty of books that will make the point that "Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic", and come to that there are plenty that make strong arguments for the non-existence of any god, but The God Delusion is neither of those, and not the place to look for facts on any subject. It's damn fine rhetoric, but if you dig then you find it rather light on substance.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your founding fathers abhored the idea of religion in charge, and I'm sure they would be completely aghast with the current state of the country they helped build.
That doesn't make them atheists, it only means they knew what would happen if a single organized religion took control of the secular government.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secular and atheist aren't what you think they are in this context.
The concept wasn't secular as much as government control and control of the government. This is why the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and not "no government entity can express anything religious".
The concept was that the government could express religious morals and values insomuch as it was a reflection of the people but no binding to those r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I started to pick apart your reply until I saw the last part of your statement. I think we are on the same page and personally, I understand that corporations are people and should have the power to lobby government.
But I think the difference that you are looking for is in the make up of the representation. A corporation represents the entirety of the corporation which includes the owners, employees, and customers to varying degrees. A church represents it's congregation which can be the same people. But th
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:4, Informative)
- Any public-school science teacher, atheist or not, who wants to tell his students that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs can expect to be "inhibited or dissuaded" from doing so, if he's teaching in the wrong part of the country.
- Yes, Richard Dawkins [scienceblogs.com]
- All atheists were "demonized" by no less a figure than President G. H. W. Bush. [positiveatheism.org]
- 53% of the American public would refuse to vote for an atheist [gallup.com] in a presidential election. That's not just "demonization," that's disenfranchisement. Unless you profess a belief in an invisible sky fairy, you have no representation in American government.
More examples here. [rationalresponders.com]
Any more questions?
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are all kinds of wrong on claiming the founding fathers of the United States were "a type of atheists". 1.9% were Catholic, 1.9% were unitarian, and the balance were Protestant Christians. (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)
Also, the United States is in no way a fundamentalist state. First, we have no state religion. Second, you are free to practice the faith of your choice or not, period.
Parent
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:5, Interesting)
The pledge of allegiance was written by a minister in 1892. He didn't put the words "under God" in it. They didn't get added until 1954, during the height of the battle against the godless Commies. And since then, the pledge has been under criticism for those words.
So we did in fact get the memo.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you sue a company that is basicly in control of the government?
Threaten to sue the law changes to say its impossible to sue that company!
Is the company in control of the government, or is the government in control of the company?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you sue a company that is basicly in control of the government?
Threaten to sue the law changes to say its impossible to sue that company!
Is the company in control of the government, or is the government in control of the company?
You imply a difference where one does not exist. The same people run both.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been done that way before.
Citation needed!
Re:Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (Score:5, Insightful)
French here
What's your friend describe is a "mise au placard". It's a specific way to fire somebody without really firring him.
It's extremely wrong in french for your managing staff motivations when you start to fire people without serious reasons and it's pretty hard to prove and convince every body that some body don't actually do as expected. So you don't fire him but progressively put him in a position where he don't have responsibility, interesting works, no computer, no phone, etc... and you simply wait that he resign by himself.
If he resign he isn't cover by the social protection law, so it's cheaper for you, better for you managing staff, etc...
The only problem is went you push it to far ( excessive work load, harassment, etc ) and the employ commit suicide ( Renaud technocenter serial suicide at work )
The "mise au placard" have nothing to do with this case where the employ was fired for "important fault". In this case the employer say "you committed an important fault in regard of the company, you are fired, you will not get the social protection".
Driving a truck drunk = important fault
sending a mail to his MP = ?
Parent
Re:Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (Score:4, Informative)
We have both of the same in America. In the US it's called constructive discharge and in some states, if it can be shown, the employee still gets the unemployment benefits and the employer's rates still go up. In all US states, if it can be linked to one of the discrimination bans provided by law, you can sue too.
Most of the states in the US are "at will" which means you can be fired for no good/any reason at all. If it's not a good reason or not the fault of the employee, then you get an unemployment compensation package that the state administers. Generally it's two thirds of your average salary over the last six month paid in bi-weekly payments until you find another job or a year or something which ever comes first.
In companies that have unions, it starts getting difficult to fire people because the union will back them and you end up with worthless people who know they won't lose their jobs if they do the bare minimum. I worked with such a person when I was 18 at a local factory for the summer. We got paid $12 an hour plus one half cent for every 100 sets of product put out (glassware) with no defects. On the days I had to work with the guy I mentioned, my line was lucky to put out 3500-4000 sets in an 8 hour shift with a half hour lunch. On the days without him, the line could produce 5000-7000 sets. That's a piece work difference of around $20 per day extra when he worked compared to $25-35 per day when he was off. I ended up getting fired because the slacker reported me for sweeping the cardboard scraps up around my work station and evidently, that "took a job from another union member" even though no one had come around all day long to do it. Well, I actually got fired for cussing out the Shop Steward as he was yelling at me and the shift foreman had to call security to pull me off him. But that's what started it.
Parent
Unfamiliar? (Score:5, Insightful)
"French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar."
It's not so unheard of outside of France either, believe it or not.
Re:Unfamiliar? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfamiliar to us because of our godawful press.
Parent
Re:Unfamiliar? (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, I would have thought that after the telco immunity vote, the bailouts, secret copyright treaties, and other such nonsense that the US would be familiar with corporations being entangled in govt.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks France! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we can show your newly unemployed web executive how to be a litigious bastard!
It's great to share cultural differences, I feel all warm and fuzzy now!
Re:Thanks France! (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Halliburton? I'm fairly sure only offering contracts to the company the VP used to be CEO of is much worse than the standard run of the mill corruption! At least the US is still #1 in some things!
Parent
In Soviet France... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Soviet France... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually quite telling that a country that took a stand so strongly against invading and imposing outside will on a country's freedom is entirely failing at understanding and dealing with the more subtle corruptions of big media and government.
Parent
Off with their heads! (Score:3, Insightful)
Time for the French to start sharpening the blades on all the old guillotines - the only suitable punishment for Mr Sarkozy and his cronies is a proper beheading.
Re:Off with their heads! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Off with their heads! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent is not flamebait. Parent is unfortunately spot on.
This president is a shame for France and an embarassment... FOR MANKIND... It's an half drunk idiot with the IQ of a toiletbowl broomstick.
He played the "small people" card during the campain and now play with all the vulgarity of a new rich the "people" card. The incarnation of the 3B Booze Babes Backchich. He's tightening the immigration law to a point where his parents (who are not French) would not have been allowed to stay. Promoting family value as much as family members. Have an ill informed opinion on everything. The posterchild of the "if i'm here that must be because I'm good for the job". Now ALL the previous governement are remember with nostalgia. This dwarf should not even be a janitor as he might find way to abuse the little power he got on the toilet paper stockpile.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Off with their heads! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sarkozy (noun):
Someone was telling me the other day about Sarkozy trying to speak in a working class accent. Similar I guess to Tony Blair favouring Estuary English over received pronunciation. I can't find any articles on it, although I have only searched English language.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
LOL! La balayette à chiottes!
Of course this is also illegal in France (Score:5, Informative)
Just like in any other european country, this lay-off is most certainly illegal and can be appealed by the email's author. That's what labor law is there for.
Of course people got sacked for expressing opposing opinions long before the internet existed. French roots of labor law and freedom of speech date back to the revolution in 1789, UK workers have already fought for those in the 16th century, in Germany those rights have existed before the third reich since the 1849 revolution.
This is not really a "your rights online" article, but should be tagged "your rights in capitalism" - you have them, so use them.
European Law (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
TF1 is going to regret that (Score:5, Insightful)
They fired him for "public statements;" but as far as I can tell, he never made any public statements, he only wrote, privately, to his MP.
This kind of incident is great for us fighting this law; it produced some more ammos for the opposition in parliament, and it made the gov't look like the assholes they are.
On top of that, it's proof positive -- if it was ever needed -- of the collusion between the gov't and the major media.
Re:TF1 is going to regret that (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I feel for the guy but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is it any different?
Because EU countries don't have "at-will" employment as you have described.
The facts are... so different (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not French but I live in France.
The e-mail author (and most comments here on Slashdot) assumed his e-mail was private correspondence (which is usually the case in French and EU law). However, the e-mail to the MPs is *not* private, since what MPs do, read, communicate is by default public (thus making bribery, unlawful conduct and other potential crimes and misdemeanors at least harder to hide).
Thus being said, it is clear the MP in cause was not guilty of anything when she redirected the e-mail message to the author of HADOPI law, i.e. the French Ministry of Culture.
The Ministry of Culture sough to find out why somebody from the TF1, on of the biggest pushers for HADOPI, would push his MP in a different direction than the company he's working for (it's a legitimate question; imagine if a GM welder *publicly* asks for the foreclosure of GM - in such situation there would be nothing wrong for the TARP guys to ask GM what's going on).
Until here I see no evil.
Now, TF1 is not selling bricks or clothes. It's selling cultural products and opinions (plus news). Therefore, having a dissenting opinion to the corporate one, in a business of selling opinions & cultural products, clearly incensed TF1 management. On this case, I say they were right.
BUT, based on their anger, TF1 decided to terminate the employment of this guy. That's something I can't agree, yet in my opinion they should be allowed to do it.
Now, before being chopped off by the liberal wing of /. (i.e., 99%), let me point it's all a non-issue. In France NOBODY can be fired (not until they do something so terrible it makes news in Afghanistan or Somalia, anyway). Therefore this guy will certainly keep his job at TF1.
One last thing: the original author mentioned in his "private" e-mail that he's working at TF1 (that's how they were able to finally trace him down). It seems to me he was ready to add his job as a weight to his e-mail, yet when the weight went against himself he was pissed. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Re:Let me be the first to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
So what? Don't work in France.
That's what the French do.
Parent
WRONG-O! (Score:5, Informative)
What he did was to make it plain that General Motors would not be considered for further TARP funding if they continued to utilize the services of the CEO who bankrupted the company in the first placed.
Perfectly acceptable here in the United States. Note that there has not been a popular revolt or backlash against this. Evidently, President Obama's action in causing GM to ditch their loser of a CEO was (apparently) neither illegal nor immoral in the opinion of the majority of United States citizens.
(Incidentally, until recently I was a Republican. I actively disapprove of many of the things our current President advocates. This particular example isn't one of them)
Parent