In France, Fired For Writing To MP Against 3 Strikes 379
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:1, 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?
Yes, he can sue his employer. In France you need to have a real motive and some element to support your decision before firring an employer under CDI ( unlimited in time contract ).
TF1 will regret it, because they will probably lose and will be asked how they get this e-mail ( violation of correspondence privacy ) and some politician will probably be under the fan when the s... hit it.
In any case it's bad for the government and the three strike law project. They gave us a martyr even before the law actually passed.
P.S. Sorry for the poor English, i'm another French fagot on /.
Re:TF1 is going to regret that (Score:5, Informative)
European Law (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I feel for the guy but.... (Score:3, Informative)
How is it any different?
Because EU countries don't have "at-will" employment as you have described.
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.
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)
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)
Re:Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (Score:2, Informative)
"Constructive dismissal" in English, and it's also illegal. Employees have successfully proven they were essentially forced to quit because the company they worked for made things difficult for them.
It's also important to remember that "fired" has a specific meaning: if you are fired from your job, you are dismissed for breach of contract. This (usually) requires your employer to go through very specific steps before they can fire you, and you can only be fired for specific things. You do not get any severance pay or notice period if you are fired. Being "made redundant" is different: the company you work for is reducing it's workforce and your position it no longer required. You are entitled to a notice period, or payment in lieu or notice, and severance pay.
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:1, Informative)
Just a minor...quibble:
I realize a lot of people--including the government would like to make the claim that if the US signed the relevant treaties, they would be valid--and the constitution does grant the executive branch the power to make binding treaties. But joining the human rights declaration would be in direct violation of the supremacy clause--stating that the constitution is the supreme law of the land--and probably a few others that instantiate the supreme court.
It wouldn't take a treaty to go by the human rights declaration--it would take the ratification of a constitutional amendment (and one in which the states lose rights at that). Good luck getting the US to ratify anything giving any foreign court power over them...
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.
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.
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.
Re:Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (Score:3, Informative)
Well, no. I wasn't doing work for free. I was getting paid by the hour the entire time I stood there. The only difference would be if I was stepping on scraps of cardboard from the boxes and sliding around or not. I felt the area was creating a hazard which is why I grabbed the broom when someone else backed the line up.
If that means I'm evil and incapable of appreciating unions, then I guess I'm guilty. However, I think it makes more of a statement about the union then it does me. I don't think anyone in any job should be reprimanded for taking the time to clear hazards away from the work area and attempt to maintain a safe working environment. It wasn't like I was spring cleaning the entire plant on my day off or anything.
The unions force them to keep them by specifying certain provisions in the contracts. A contract with supersede "at will" in the same way that you not obligated to pay me anything unless we have a contract defining terms in which you will pay me. Obviously your not familiar with how unions work. The unions seem to fight to keep the slackers because it requires more people to do the same amount of work which in turn get more union dues for the union. The more union dues paid, the higher the salaries can be and the more political power they can amass due to supporting politicians and so on. Anyways, it's all about power and exerting it. Power over the company, power over the employees, power over the politicians, there is a reason the mob was highly involved with unions throughout their history.
Dude, don't take what I said as an insult over all union workers. I said there was one guy, the entire plant was union if you were there longer then 90 days. The problem is that one guy should have been fired or moved to another position but he wasn't and the union stuck up for him. As I noted with the piece work, I lost 5-15 dollars a day with him being on the line. And yes, that probably lead to all the animosity I had towards the shop steward when he attempted to reprimand me for cleaning my area of tripping hazards.
All the Union shops I have worked in, high supervisor level management directly from the floor. There no real demonization there outside of unrealistic demands being placed on the employer. Take GM for instance, by the time you add up all the befits and pay packages of the union employees, GM was paying roughly two third more per employee then any of their competitors and almost twice as much as Toyota and other foreign manufacturers who set up shop in the US. Then you had the temp labor which the union refused to allow so GM had to pay people to come in and sit in a break room for 8 hours a day instead of hiring temporary labor and laying them off after the work was caught up. And what do we see from all this? We saw people complaining that GM was making SUVs instead of something that people previously didn't want from GM as the reason they are in so much trouble when the economy finally tanked
Re:Better off not working for them... (Score:3, Informative)
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: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?