How P2P Can Taint a Career 385
duncan writes "After appearing on the BBC news review program Newsnight to discuss the recent Grokster case, Alex Hanff returned to work the next day and was promptly sacked because 'his presence within the company could count against it when bidding for big government contracts.'
Read more at The Guardian"
How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Funny)
Call it something like, whodotheyfuckoverwiththemoneyyougivethem.com [whodotheyf...vethem.com], only shorter, while making sure the word stealth [slashdot.org] appears nowhere within.)
It it catches on, then corporations would be afraid of how their treatment towards employees could count against the way consumers look at them.
Fight fire with fire.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
And, even providing that a majority of the accusations are true, how much would it really hurt the employers? "Oh no, sir, I read that the company we use for all our advertising makes up statistics for their clients in order to make them look better. In fact, this ad firm actually hires people to do fake 'testimonials' to bolster the percieved quality of their clients' products. For shame! We shouldn't do business with these liars!"
No company will stop doing something that makes them money unless it starts costing them money. A subset of people on the internet casting about rumor about supposed unseemly behavior won't cost them a dime.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Funny)
B.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:3, Funny)
It's called fuckedcompany.com (Score:2)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
Only a few people would really be able to participate in this though. You have to be able to leave your job, never come back to it, and be guaranteed that future employers won't hold this against you.
Informed choices (Score:5, Interesting)
Or am buying clothing and want to know if the manufacturer uses child labour?
Or am buying financial services and want to know how does that company treat it's employees?
When sitting on the store one rarelly has internet access or the time to trail through the information even if said access is available.
It's self-deception to expect most people to take notebooks with mobile internet access to the electronics shop in order to make an informed decision on which TV to buy.
My sugestion is as follows:
- Setup an "informed choices" service. This should serve as an intermediary between consumers and third party entities (consumer groups, NGOs, government, business groups, whatever) willing to provide information about products and companies
- The service is customiseable per-person. You can log in via de internet and choose what factors do you care about and how much do u trust the information coming from each of the third party entities
- The service should support a simple and easy way of letting consumers get the right info when they're out shopping. For example using a mobile phone with a bar code reader (or maybe using the phone camera for that) or an RFID reader and a mobile connection to said service allowing to simply: press a button; point mobile at product; get the info u care about; choose.
The point here is two-fold:
- Give enough information to the consumers to let them do informed decisions but not so much that they need to spend lots of time just getting informed. (otherwise ppl will simply not do/use it). Hence the whole user configured filtering and trust weighting.
- Give consumers access to the information when and where they need it. Consumers should not have to prepare themselfs before going out shopping by browsing some site(s) in the Net, figure out beforehand the list of brands of the things they want to buy and having to memorize the (environmental, work conditions, polution history, whatever) information for each brand just to make informed decisions. Simply put - if they have to jump through all those hoops people will just not do it.
Hence the sugestion of mobile access and bar code/rfid tag reading - fast, simple, no preparation required - you just scan the product and out comes an evaluation of the brand/maker according to your chosen criteria (for example, respect for the environment)
Re:Informed choices (Score:2)
-Rob
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2, Funny)
I guess what I was thinking of is something that consumers might want to use as a portal.
The ideal scenario is some kind of PDA-gadget they take with them to the market to compare the prices at that store with others in the same area, or for web purchases, something that interjects at the point-of-purchase.
That would be the perfect time to say, "Yes, Cocoa-Puffs ARE cheaper here, but did you know they anally rape their employees with weed whackers?", or something like that.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:4, Interesting)
That would be the perfect time to say, "Yes, Cocoa-Puffs ARE cheaper here, but did you know they anally rape their employees with weed whackers?", or something like that.
Like the Corporate Fallout Detector [jamespatten.com], you mean?
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
as a side note, companies that do treat their employee's poorly always end up failing anyway, due to them not being able to keep any decent or well trained staff.
Oh, well that explains why walmart is such a crashing failure.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir (or madam) are extremely short sighted.
You ARE fucking up the system because of not considering the hidden cost of such cheaper products.
You do not seem to realize that the price for messing up environment and society will have to be payed anyway.
If a product is really cheaper while equal in all other aspects (that means INCLUDING the hidden cost of environmental and social damage) then you are right that you should take it.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
And that's why there is no company in the whole world and never will be that bases its marketing campaigns on projecting an apropriate corporate image onto the prospective client, so he buys a brand instead of a product.
Hey, now that I think about it! How is it that there are marketing campaings at all? People just need to go to
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2, Interesting)
It is not me the one who has to judge it.
On the other hand free market (which you seem to be very fond of) is free market: consumers choose based on, well, whatever they feel; producers compete to offer the best to answer to that feeling. Producers sometimes go even further than that: in their race for being the best and first answering to those consumer's feelings,
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoth the single-paragraph troll ;).
Ce
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
Buying products made by companies that act in a responsible way is not exactly the same as only buying only from your favourite idiological organisation, stop confusing the 2.
A company that does not consider the social and/or environmental consequences of what they are doing is causing hidden cost for me (and everyone else).
That cost is hidden but is definitely there. Not considering that fact is extremely short sighted.
I prefer dealing with companies that confront me with the price for that upfront instead.
Worst of all are the people who buy a more expensive product because x% of the purchase price goes to charity. For fuck sake, just buy the cheaper product and donate the money to charity yourself if that's what you want to do.
Nice try, but that was not what was being argued here at all, stop confusing the issues. If I were to counter your argument with a similarely irrelevant hyperbole, I could say that we need to allow slavery again, the way in which something is produced is irrelevant, only value counts, and it is a much cheaper way to get such value.
The argument was to not buy from companies that do things that are not desirable to society (because of those things being destructive to society)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were legal, would you buy the cheapest product knowing that the company making it provides funding for guerilla groups who kidnap children, fill them with drugs and turn them in to child-soldiers?
if your answer is yes, then you've got a pretty interesting moral compass. If your answer is no, then you're making a decision based on idiological reasons.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no hippy buddy, but I certainly consider things like human rights and enviromental records when buying things. It's part of the total cost of producing an item and we all pay it one way or another.
>> Otherwise you're just fucking up the system
any business model that doesn't consider environmental sustainability or basic human rights is "fucking up the system". Sure you can cut corners to save money, but it's frequently at the cost of things you just can't buy back.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:4, Insightful)
You're one of those hippies aint ya? When someone says "why do you drink Pepsi when I know you prefer Coke?" you give an answer like "Coke was sued for underpaying blacks in the 1990's and I've never forgiven them!" Choose the best and most cost effective product. Don't judge the company that makes it. Otherwise you're just fucking up the system. Instead of the most superior products being on the shelves we'll have substandard products dominating the market share because the people who make them care about the environment or share some other wacky political ideal with the boycotting public.
I believe Einstein said it best, when he said:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
It's really easy not to believe in anything, as it makes fighting for what you believe in so much easier. The system (society) is far more fucked if you go around supporting abusive organisations because their unnecessary product is best, than if you make sacrifices and help to make society a better place.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
I sure hope you don't use windows.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe also we should refuse governments who don't give black people in California the vote :o
Oh that's right, cause I tried to use my dollars to force other people to believe my particular idiology over their own instead of just supporting the market system by evaluating the product not the producer.
Being a bit hypocriticle here aren't you? Your belief clearly being that products and their price are more important than the people living and breathing around you. That is a belief you know, that you are 'forcing' upon me, just as I am 'forcing' my belief (similar to Google's, i.e. Don't be evil) on you.
Does the sum of your compassion for society really come down to hoping that everyone can buy the best products at the cheapest financial cost, regardless of the social cost? Especially when it comes down to unnecessary luxuries choice of brand of cola?
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
You may think this behaviour is in opposition to laissez-faire capitalism, but you have to understand that buying from companies that don't use sweatshop labour, for example, is just another form of differentiation, and value. Criticizing people for buying because of ideology is just as stupid as criticizing them for buying a more expensive item for quality, appearance or any other arbitrary reasons that you don't care about. This is the market system at work, even if you don't like the aspect it's targeting. Then again, you might feel somewhat differently if the company in question was poisoning the groundwater in your neighbourhood because of improper disposal of toxic byproducts, for example, even if they DID have cheaper prices than all their competitors. These "product not the producer" values tend to break down pretty quickly once someone is personally involved.
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
Re:How WWW Can Taint A Corporation (Score:2)
The cost of living is generally lower in other countries. The level of living conditions is also lower. That's why the programmers can survive on less. Stuff isn't as expensive and they live in shit conditions.
Re:Probationary period in Europe (Score:3, Informative)
However as he as just one week into his employment he is out
please understand (Score:4, Funny)
He didn't get fired for sharing files... (Score:3, Funny)
He argues that he didn't have to mention it since it doesn't have anything to do with his employer, and I think depending on how the interview went exactly, he's probably right. If they actually asked him about whether there were any civil cases pending against him and he lied and said no, then it's understandable that he got fired (it's not like it's a personal question, after all); but if they didn't, then I really think it's their own fault, and he's right in any case when he says that the whole thing simply doesn't affect his employer in any way.
In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files. He got fired for going into dupe slashdot comments [slashdot.org] and stealing the +5 moderations.
Re:He didn't get fired for sharing files... (Score:2)
At the job interview:
"have you ever done anything that you think will not make us not employ you"
"No" (what, do you think I'm stupid? I'm gonna actually admit to anything here?)
later......
You did XYZ which you didn't disclose at the interview and which we claim would have stopped us from hiring you.
You're fired, not for doing XYZ but for lying at the interview.
Anything you do can taint your career... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you stand up to a bully and end up in a fist fight ... whether you challenge your employer's unethical practices ... whether you oppose your government's war mongering ... whatever you do to challenge the authority OF anyone higher up in the food chain- doesn't matter if it was legal , ethical or moral on your part.
You can get fired for anything that anybody can use to attack you and your companies' reputation. It's sad, but true - but at least I hope this guy will get a better job at a more appreciative employer.Later on. (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting Legal Question (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO it is the right, indeed the obligation of anyone living in a democracy to question the laws that govern them. Intellectual property laws are increasingly valid targets for such scepticism.
There would be an uproar in most countries if someone was fired for expressing their opinion on abortion, or religion, why should someone's opinion on dupe [slashdot.org] law be any different?
Re:Interesting Legal Question (Score:2)
This is iffy reasoning. Would a bank be justified in firing someone who admitted that they believed embezzlement was not a crime, or that banks were evil because they charged interest and therefore it is good to steal from banks?
You have this ba
Misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)
Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate.
I work for a telecoms company. If I went on national TV and decried telephony, saying that everyone should communicate face to face or by writing letters, I'd expect my company to start to wonder if I was entirely suitable as an employee, too.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you do for that telecom company? If you're Public Relations, I would agree. But what if you're a system administrator? Does a belief in alternative communications systems really affect your ability to maintain the systems under your charge?
Likewise, did Mr. Hanff's belief in reformation (or even removal) of Copyright and associated "intellectual property" laws really affect his duties within the company? Or is this simply a personal call by someone within Management with an axe to grind against the opinions expressed by Mr. Hanff?
Also, keep in mind that Mr. Hanff seems to believe it was about possible pending litigation. From the article:
And this may be a legitimate concern. If Mr. Hanff is required to get a security clearance to work on Government contracts, legal entanglements may become an issue. But even then, this particular case is questionable. And it certainly isn't in line with the other statements from higher company management.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
If I become sufficiently militant about it, yes, it might. Would you want to take that chance with your critical infrastructure?
If Mr. Hanff is required to get a security clearance to work on Government contracts, legal entanglements may become an issue.
I don't remember the exact details of the clearance process, but I would be amazed if any such things weren't looked at very hard i
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation". That is a ridiculus assertion. I hope to got this guy sues the hell of out them.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he stated that it's OK to fire people for publicly stating an opinion that is contrary to the business interests of the corporation.
Is that ridiculous? It may be, or it may not be. It depends on the nature of the statement, the nature of the business, and the relationship between the two.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
If you throw in speaking about it in public (and I think the grandparent post implied that), then you've got a situation where a person is "publicly stating an opinion that is contrary to the business interests of the corporation". Is that acceptable to fire someone that voices such an opinion? I don't think so. I think the grandparent was right on target with their statement.
However, if the person was working
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about a corporation having 20 employees struggling to get a new product out and getting more money. Now, one of its employees gives an interview and says "our product sucks; it can't even do (fill in whatever), and it won't be out in time either". I think it's justified firing that employee (whether it's legal is another question).
If the company is Microsoft or IBM, then it's a different matter. A Microsoft employee should arguably be able to say "I think Word sucks" without getting fired if he says it in a clearly private capacity. But if he's the head of the Word development team giving an interview saying "Word sucks", that would be justification for firing him.
I believe this argument was used as the justification for the private corporation that fired an employee during the U.S. presidential election primaries because the person attended a Bush rally wearing anti-Bush shirts.
That behavior is unrelated to workplace conduct or company products, so I think that's a bad justification.
If the employee wore a "Bush sucks" T-shirt to work, then the company can fire him, provided they also fire any employee wearing a "Kerry sucks" T-shirt. The justification would be "political messages disrupt workplace harmony". But the company has no business selecting one or the other political message (unless it's, say, a company with an explicitly partisan purpose).
Re:Misleading summary (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got the draw the line somewhere on employees being allowed to express personal opinions. I say the
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
You have just stated that it's OK for employees to fire people for holding an opinion contrary to the opinion of the "corporation".
No I didn't. I said that it's ok (at least in some circumstances) to fire people for making public statements that go against the company's business interests. If I bad mouthed my friends, I wo
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2, Insightful)
You can be a "religious fundamentalist zealot" and be completely non-violent. Religious fundamentalism is about a hare-brained and intolerant interpretation of scriptures, not about homicidal tendencies (although one may lead to the other).
(Besides, has Laura even made any such "minor mistakes"?)
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
She probably keeps telling him to look to the plank in his own eye.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Though even if he was, in a democratic society, should government contracts not be awarded to companies who have an employee who has a desire to change the law? Isn't wanting to change the law, well, politics? And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
Where does it say that the government has anything to do with this? The company is claiming that it's afraid that ahving this guy working for them after what he's said might harm their chances of getting government work, that's all.
Welcome to the harsh reality of the real world (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the harsh reality of the real world (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you're saying that just because an employee murdered someone you'd fire him? Just like that? Where's the loyalty these days?
Employing criminals (Score:3, Interesting)
This is actually one of the few solid reasons for firing someone in the UK. Almost all employment contracts I've seen state that the company may dismiss you if you're convicted of a crime (usually with an exemption for minor motoring offences, so they don't wind up firing 1/3 of the workforce for getting caught on speed camera).
That's always struck me as slightly at odds with all the prisoner-resettlement programmes, and the simple fact that a criminal who's done their time and been released is much less
Sad fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad fact. (Score:3, Informative)
You read the article? "Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
Nasty situation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nasty situation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like that doesn't happen already? Does the term "corporate politics" mean anything?
At one company I worked for, I kept detailed documentation of all decisions that affected my project and my boss thought I was trying to get him fired. It probably didn't help that I told him he deserved to be fired if he thought I was trying to get him fired even though I wasn't doing anything special to get him fired. Eventually, he got himself promoted out of the department. The next boss was determined to get me fired because he thought I would try to get him fired. It probably didn't help that I told him he deserved to be fired even though I wasn't doing anything special to get him fired. I ended up leaving because I got tired of that crap when I was only trying to do my job. Go figure.
Uh, Surprised...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy got fired because he's on record making hostile statements about intellectual property. A company that lives and dies by I.P. has a good reason to not want the potential troublemaker.
E.g. suppose I work for a AIDS activist organization, doing some programming. But I'm on record as saying, "AIDS is God's way of punishing sodomites." If that got around, I figure I'd be out of some work.
Put yourself in the shoes of management. Try to imagine having to keep on working with someone who says, "I hate you and all that you stand for." If you were a manager, you'd probably feel really frustrated if you couldn't fire him.
Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:2)
Employment protection, as I understand it, only really kicks in after the end of the 13 week period when the employer is obligated to provide the employee with a contract, terms and employment protection.
Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Interesting)
while the UK does not have the concept of "at will" employment any employer is able to release an employee for any reason during the first 13 weeks of employment without a need to state a reason.
Up to a point, this is correct. However, you cannot terminate a person's employment (even within the probationary period) for reasons contrary to discrimination laws. You couldn't, for instance, terminate the contract of a person of Asian extraction because "we don't hire Pakis here", nor could you fire a woman because the company has an all-male employment policy (such a policy would be almost certainly illegal, except for some very well defined exceptions).
Now, here's the interesting bit - and I really don't know how this will turn out - Hanff has made no secret of his views (which is why the Beeb interviewed him!); and it's reasonable to suspect that his employer was aware (or could reasonably be expected to be aware) of said views, and hired him anyway. He's claiming that his termination violates the Human Rights Act (though that tends to bind governments acts against the people, rather than between private entities), and he will sue accordingly.
We'll see how this turns out. Should be interesting. At stake is just how much control an employer can exercise over an employee speaking in his own time. It's not really about the "right to a job", it's to do with the extension of a contract beyond its terms. Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
--Ng
Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.
What is common in the UK is to have a clause in your employment contract that says the employer can change anything at any time. This is usually argued to be a CYA manoeuvre in case the government changes employment regs and the wording needs tweaking. I've never bought this argument myself -- nor ever seen such a change being required -- but I can at least understand the perspective.
However, you have to realise that this is only possible because the contract already includes a term providing for it, to which both parties agreed, and its scope is rather limited even if it's written in an open-ended way. Even without the fact that the major employment details can't be changed unilaterally under UK employment laws anyway, changing anything in an unreasonable way using that clause could lead to a finding that the fundamental trust relationship has broken down between employer and employee. That in turn can result in a finding of constructive dismissal, which can be very costly in both financial and PR terms for the company.
In summary, the idea that an employment contract can be changed at will by one party is rather misleading, at least in the UK.
Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL, and if you're dealing with this sort of stuff relating to your own career, you do want to speak to one.
Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:2)
Re:Hard to Argue that They Owe Him Work (Score:2)
If you were reasonably discrete about your opinions (ie; not actively spreading discord) I don't think you should be fired.
People should be judged by their actions; the rest is just crap.
People from poor neighbourhoods are more likely to be secret junkies.
Blacks are more likely to have a criminal ba
Too big for his boots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too big for his boots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, Not Too big for his boots (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, i can't expect a company to continue my employement in widgets if I work for the anti-widget consortium and actively try to destroy the widget industry.
It's called conflict of interest. I don't want to hire someone at my widget plant if I even suspect he might try to sabotoge my widget manufacturing.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences and free speech isn't absolute. Your right to free speech, at least in the US, is limited as it relates to public safety. The old "fire in a crowded theater" bit and what not.
In this case, the employer felt that his views on copyright and intellectual property DIRECTLY conflicted with its business. I can't to the interview from the office right now (not screwing with production and all that) but I would be interested to hear what he said during the interview.
The interview in question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
He never said that he is going to pirate software or will help those who do (he removed the torrent tracker from his site in December). However he was served with lawsuit via the MPAA in March. He is going to fight the lawsuit in court. He is fighting the lawsuit on jurisdiction grounds, that the MPAA has no right to sue him. Even though the server was temporarily hosted in California.
Anyway I think his point is that the MPAA is using gestapo tactics in scaring people to settle and he is not going to settle. He'd rather fight this in court. Anyway he does have a case in light of the recent ruling since it only applies to those who promote the trading of illegal material. I think removing the tracker in December is the appropriate action.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh.
He was also funding a torrent site (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore, is not only a matter of opinion but also a matter of action. Considering that Mr. Hanff declared himself to own nothing more than "a few guitars [...] and an old inkjet printer", one can conclude that part of his salary was going to the maintenance of the torrent site.
Take into account that his former employer is not deali
Notice a common theme here and elsewhere? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can get (and people have been) fired for doing things on your own time that the company doesn't like.
You can get (and people, like this guy, have been) fired for saying things on your own time that your company doesn't like.
Notice a common theme here? The common theme is that if you work for a company, that company owns you. You are their slave. In exchange for an ever decreasing amount of money for your time, you have to do everything they tell you and demonstrate that you believe everything they want you to believe.
And the government that keeps telling you that it's there to protect your personal liberty? It's nowhere to be found, because it's controlled by the very same people who control the corporations that you are increasingly a slave to.
Welcome to the 21st century. Enjoy the ride to the bottom. Soon enough, you won't be allowed to enjoy anything else.
Never be a wage slave: your time is your own (Score:3, Interesting)
So don't accept being a slave. Your time is your own, and you should insist on your contract acknowledging that.
At the risk of getting in trouble, since I'm posting this during my lunch hour at work, some of my colleagues and I did exactly this when our small company was bought out by a US megacorp. The original contract had clauses claiming all our IP outside of work, saying we had to get our manager's permission to take any other job, etc. We told them to stick it, pretty bluntly.
One guy doing that, a
He's lucky he's in Europe.... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course they're not allowed to SAY they're sacking you because of your religion, race, etc...but then again they don't have to give ANY reason...
19th Century Free Market ideology is being re-adopted at the cost of our freedoms
Peer to Peer a 'dirty' phrase (Score:4, Interesting)
we've seen this before (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are sad about this story (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of Slashdot readers are decision makers for their company and some run huge companies themselves.
Boycott Tribal group when you purchase a solution in their genre.
"firing" is a right given by current economical system and boycott is the right answer and perfectly legit,serious.
Re:Umm, no (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Umm, no (Score:2)
Re:Umm, no (Score:5, Insightful)
However, he's not been fired for something as trivial as saying "I'm a Tory" or "I think people should be free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as no-one is hurt (at least non-consentually)".
He's gone on national TV and said in effect "copyright and IPR are wrong and should be abolished", while working for a company that relies on those things to make money. That sets him as being opposed to the way in which his employer does business.
It may be a philosophical belief, but it does tend to suggest that he may not be suited to working with his current employer. It's not like his Labour boss has fired him for being a Tory, or prudish boss fired him for being permissive.
Re:Umm, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Your position, however, I think is dead wrong. You seem to be saying that political or philosophical expression is limited to naming a political party, or possibly to identifying yourself with something that is a policy of a political party. I don't think that's supportable.
Up almost to the end of the article I was thinking that the employer w
Umm, yes (Score:5, Informative)
1. He's not in the US, he is in Britain, where if you had RTFAd, you would know that they do have such a law.
2. You are talking completely out of your ass. A "right to work" state has nothing to do with the ability of an employer to fire employees. It refers to the particular state's laws regulating collective bargaining agreements. If a state outlaws agreements that require workers to be members of a union, then it is a "right-to-work state". It simply means that you have a right to work regardless of your membership in a union.
Re:Umm, no (Score:2, Informative)
For the sake of discussion though, you are in fact wrong. There's this little thing called Title VII [eeoc.gov] that rather blows away your "any reason or no reason" argument.
Re:Umm, no (Score:5, Insightful)
At-will employee's can be fired for ANY reason besides Age, Race, Gender, Religion, or National Origin. Your interjection here was entirely irrelevant to the topic (and yet, +5 informative). Brilliant.
Re:Two words (a series of) (Score:5, Interesting)
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
Re:Two words (a series of) (Score:2)
The mistake here, if there was one, was the employer giving a reason for dismissing the employee... they should have just thanked him for his time and sent him on his way.
Nah, that one doesn't fly either. If an employee can convince a tribunal that there was an implicit reason (and that a reasonable person could determine that reason), then it's the same as saying "We don't want you socialist/feminist/black/gay/Jewish (take your pick) types here. You're fired". I do note that they offered him 3 months w
Re:Two words (a series of) (Score:2)
They may have shot themselves in the foot legally with that offer.
Re:Two words (a series of) (Score:3, Informative)
offering him a revised 3 month severance package when he had only been with the company a week kinda sounds like even they aren't sure whether what they've done is legal.
I think you're right. (Hence my advice to Hanff would be to take the money and run). However, as much lurking on Groklaw and IP-Wars has shown, the last place you want to end up in would be a courtroom (even an industrial tribunal style courtroom). Weird random crap happens there. So it may be that the company is simply saying "Look, we
Re:18 hours, not bad ;) (Score:3, Funny)
I have an Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, the spelling and grammar on this thread is either indicative of how riled up people are about this topic OR it is a sign of how slashdot use can seriously harm your brain...
It's IDEOLOGY, not 'idiology' people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology [wikipedia.org]
Perhaps they meant 'idiot-ology'...a common ailment of slashdot users...
Ugh...it's amazing how mad people can get while flaming others on a forum while making themselves look like complete idiots...
Noone sounds like noon (Score:2)
I don't normally have a problem with other peoples' misspellings, however, I aways trip up on "noone" to the point where I'm also starting to get annoyed when I see it. What's worse is that it seems to be becoming more and more popular.
The problem with "noone" is that you get mentally half way into thinking "noon" and then realise that it's about to be "noon-e", a nonsense word because of the "e" on the end. Then you realise that the person is really trying to mean "no one".
If people insist on joining t
Re:not that Alex Hanff... (Score:2)
Yes, I suspect that there are other factors in play here that aren't being mentioned (disclaimer: I don't personally know this fellow at all).
Most professional IT people are aware that if they have a good relationship with their employer and co-workers, the comp
Not a dupe. (Score:2)
Hanff wasn't fired for using peer-to-peer software, as that story states, but instead for voicing an opinion (on national television, natch) that wasn't quite in fitting with his employer's.
Perhaps you should 'read your own fucking links'? ;-)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
In every employment contract I've seen in the UK, the probation clause was just written into the main contract. The contract normally carries on automatically if you don't terminate it, but can be terminated more easily than usual during the probationary period.
Do you have some reason to believe this wasn't the case here?
In UK law he was dismissed. (Score:3, Informative)
The Company must have a justifiable reason to dismiss somebody, your political views are not a justifiable reason. if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must have a dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must follow that dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The dismissal procedure cannot be summary, if it is s