Hey I found your topic while surfing the web, just figured to say nice discussion! Webmaster of protonix 40 mg webpage devoted to protonix 40 mg. diovan 160 mg webpage devoted to diovan 160 mg.

Kathryn wrote:

> Not that most WorldCon book buying doesn't happen
> in the dealers' room, but its usually quite hard
> to just walk by a bookstore (even a chain) while
> touristing. But because its a chain the behavior
> of management in one store gets associated with
> the name, not just the specific branch.

I would imagine that the end result of this incident will be that Waterstones cannot economically stock ANY science fiction.

I spend upwards of UK£500 each year on books. None of that will be spent at Waterstones. I'll actively discourage my friends from shopping there.

I pass a Waterstones at lunchtime each day. I'll let their shoppers know about this incident. In the queues for the tills.

In fact I'd have to say this is a warning to anybody who's not self-employed, period. Subject yourself to a feudal authority, and you get what they paid for: your fealty.

Not that, as a sole proprietor, I am biased. Or anything.

Defense against England's libel law is a different question entirely. I usually just go la-la-la and hope the world will resolve such insanity on its own without my help.

This is all starting to boil down to the subject of the topic - pure corporate stupidity. It's almost a repeat of the 70's - the sector and the tools have changed; the miners went on strike and the whole country shut down.

What happens when say, the IT sector go on strike for unfair corporate policing of information?

how public a forum is a blog?

Another datum point. I heard yesterday from the guy who hosts Joe's blog. (Full disclosure: I know him, but as he's only tangentially involved I'm not going to drag him into this.) Until this affair blew up, Joe's journal was getting roughly 20 distinct visitors per day (presumably the same small circle of friends). Which his dismissal this shot up to 400-500 a day. By Tuesday, when the shit had hit the fan and the newspapers were beginning to notice, he was up to 5000 visitors/day.

I'd therefore suggest that prior to his sacking, his blog was a non-problem for Waterstones (in terms of adverse publicity), but the way they've handled it has boosted his readership by two or more orders of magnitude. That's not insignificant, and it holds lessons for anyone who wants to play whack-a-mole with publicly expressed opinion on the internet.

I agree that the defamation laws in the UK are dangerous and chilling. I believe Sottish law is rather different (no libel or slander, but a separate civil offense of defamation, which is defined rather more narrowly), but as the English courts lately ruled that something on the internet is automatically subject to the English libel law if it is possible that someone in England might be able to read it that's not much help.

The only workable defensive response to Big Brother Google is to not say anything, in any electronic medium (even private files on your hard disk!) that you would mind having dragged up in front of a judge by a hostile barrister. But it's already too late for most of us to do that -- and, I submit, it is not desirable.

Charlie: "Bluntly, Joe's blog provided an excuse to sack him", I agree with this. From the quoted comments in the Guardian article, it looks to me like a boss with a grudge, and the skipping of at least two disciplinary steps is out of order, whether or not Waterstones have a case for any action (which they might). I think that Joe has a case for unfair dismissal on those grounds (IANAL; see how we are all being more careful of what we say online already?).

"... write something outside of work without their explicit permission and your employers may use it against you if they want to fire you."

Here's where it gets interesting, in two ways. The first is that some companies, especially US ones, have always taken an industrial-feudal outlook on the actions of their employees. The cliche of a '50s company man was that he at all times fit the company image, and so did his wife and kids. In return for this loyalty, he and his family would be taken care of from cradle to grave. In recent years, the attitude seems to have become that the company demands total loyalty from the employee but feels no obligation in return, as in the cases where employees have been fired for making moves to find a new job. I myself have been shaft^w downsized in the past, and the hypocrisy of the company, in particular the HR staff, stung severely. Maybe a response in the future will be for workers to form support groups to help themselves, not just as trade unions, but in a form such as labour companies. A return to guilds would serve corporations right.

The other thing is - how public a forum is a blog? the defamation laws are very wide-ranging, and this article holds that they act to limit free speech. Even an overheard conversation in the pub might be cause for action (slander in this case). Newspapers have to be careful about libel, as do authors, but the letter columns of newspapers are held to be the opinions of the writers, not the editors, so maybe weblogs should have the same automatic status? Or comments online should have some other kind of relevance limitation, so that less regard may be paid to them in law. Maybe there should also be another form of defamation; "malicious (mis)quoting", a sub-category of libel, to protect bloggers and usenetters from having their opinions used against them.

As it stands, Big Brother Google makes just about everything online into a public forum with a historical record so that ill-considered, wrathful or even just drunken words years afterwards can come back and haunt you. How do we respond to that, then? Maybe changes in manners so that one doesn't make a statement unless one really means it? Doesn't work on Usenet, I know that. Doesn't Speakers' Corner have some kind of customary protection?

Stephen: the legal side of things is less than relevant. Bluntly, Joe's blog provided an excuse to sack him: I strongly suspect that it was discovered via Google search. This is a blog that, prior to the whole affair blowing up, had roughly twenty regular readers (according to the guy who hosts it). Bear in mind that HMV and the current manager of Waterstones' Edinburgh east-end branch have been running the shop for less than a year. Bear in mind also that a lot of the stuff they dredged up is more than two years old, and therefore cannot possibly be construed as referring to current management.

By saying "If Waterstones win such proceedings, they'll have effectively established that employers can exercise prior restraint on anything their employees care to publish outside of their job" I was not talking about matters of legal precedent in this specific case, but the practical effect on employee behaviour, which is: write something outside of work without their explicit permission and your employers may use it against you if they want to fire you.

I'm not a lawyer; I'm a writer, with writerly concerns. This particular one -- how to square being a writer with having a day job -- used to be a major one for me. Many managers see having any outside interests at all (hobbies, even) as a kind of threat: that is, they view them as a drain on the employees' enthusiasm for their job. This has implications far beyond "blogger fired for being rude about employers".

Won't Waterstone's HQ be pleased when come this August a few thousand SF fans show up in Glasgow but cause no appreciable change in sales for those days? As the fen fan out from the SECC into the neighborhood (1)- including Sauchiehall St- and walk right by the Waterstones?

Not that most WorldCon book buying doesn't happen in the dealers' room, but its usually quite hard to just walk by a bookstore (even a chain) while touristing. But because its a chain the behavior of management in one store gets associated with the name, not just the specific branch.

(1)http://www.interaction.worldcon.org.uk/images/birdseye.gif

"I'd be totally in support of Waterstones and wouldn't shed a single tear for this guy - if they'd had a blog policy in the employment contract"

They might introduce one under media pressure- but to do so would contradict the staff handbook which is defined as non-contractual (ie most terms are implicit- o, if you prefer, vague...)

"Proceedings before an industrial tribunal are likely to commence once the official letter of dismissal arrives"

This company's policy allows two stages of appeal (basically to your boss's boss and then his/her boss). I imagine most unions would advise ad least the first of these before taking formal legal action.

"If Waterstones win such proceedings, they'll have effectively established that employers can exercise prior restraint on anything their employees care to publish outside of their job"

No, they'll have established that they have a defence (gross misconduct and thus dismissal) against their employees bringing them into disrepute.

This is less than a free speech issue than one of unreasonable (probably careless as much as malicious) employment practice.

"they'll have established that some of their management is willing enough to contrive baseless allegations in order to sack employees"

No- the allegations are exaggerated and the punishment unreasonable, but the former isn't baseless as JG accepts.

"However,from a legal perspective what you have posted is utter rubbish"

Do explain why?

QuoteThirdly, I am led to believe that proceedings before an industrial tribunal are likely to commence once the official letter of dismissal arrives. If Waterstones win such proceedings, they'll have effectively established that employers can exercise prior restraint on anything their employees care to publish outside of their job. I don't suppose I need to explain why I think this would be a Bad Thing. On the other hand, if Waterstones lose, they'll have established that some of their management is willing enough to contrive baseless allegations in order to sack employees. (I have difficulty imagining a more efficient impediment to recruiting quality staff in future ...)

From what I have read I have considerable sympathy for this fellow, and it may well be that he has a reasonable chance of establishing unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal. However,from a legal perspective what you have posted is utter rubbish.

I'd be totally in support of Waterstones and wouldn't shed a single tear for this guy - if they'd had a blog policy in the employment contract. As it is they've quite possibly broken the law and have certainly taken the PR disaster trophy off McDonald's.

Good for Joe that the Guardian picked it up, hopefully a bit of media pressure ought to make a certain amount of differnece, but to be quite honest I don't know how these things work.

Seem's completly absurd situation. I don't know this guy (I don't get to Edinburgh as often as I'd like and usually my budget limits me to the second hand stores) and to be quite frankly I don't agree with a lot of opinions but this seems totally unfair.

Sounds like usual retail bollocks though. I used to work for a certain well know entertainment retailer and lets just say that retail managers don't tend to be the most competent managers around. Our guy was new and hadn't even worked in a music shop for 5 years, his last job had been managing a cinema and he didn't really seem to have much of a clue. He decided to mix up everyone's rotas so we knew more about different departments, but that doesn't really work if you put a 17 temp who knows about Indie and Rock music in to the classical and jazz department and the only person who knows anything about classic music is working in the stock room.

I know I am coming late to this but was Joe issued with a verbal and or written warning about his activities?
If he was not then Waterstones are in a very dubious position.
Jim Braiden

Ex Libris - you're right, I'm wrong. I was extrapolating from anecdote, which is never the best way to find out what's really going on. Either way, good on you.

The Guardian has now taken this up. I wonder if we're not witnessing the kind of moment that ends up being written up in marketing textbooks in the 'Great fuck-ups' chapter. Hoover's flights, Consignia, Ratner's crap . . . Waterstone's sack the blogger?

And riffing on the "libel" question, as I understand it, opinions aren't libelous: assertions of fact may be libelous if untrue and made with malice aforethought, but if I say "I think Waterstones are shits" then that is a factual description of something inside my head, and I can only provide grounds for an accusation of libel by later saying "I was lying".

Edited by author 01-12-2005 07:38 AM
Query - on Tribeless' point of libel.

Isn't it only libelous if it isn't true?

Fair enough Charlie ... this board is your property, so quite rightly what you say goes. I'll respect that.

Best of luck to Joe ... some of life's lessons can be a pain in the arse, and despite my principles, which don't change, it looks like the level of libel or whatever was very low, so Waterstone's are being shits. Moreover, as I get older I come to think the biggest of sins is not to have a sense of humour, so if I lived in Edinburgh I'd boycott them (at least until they had a book I wanted I couldn't get elsewhere).

Tribeless: we just fell down the gap between "how things are" and "how things should be". More to the point, you're beginning to turn this topic into a soapbox for libertarianism rather than a discussion of (a) Joe's situation or (b) the broader waters of corporate stupidity.

If you want a topic called "Libertarianism", feel free to create one (or ask me to do so). In the meantime, consider this a polite warning. (As the topic owner, I can delete postings -- and if the topic drift continues much longer, I'll start to do so.)

Edited by author 01-11-2005 06:04 PM
The armies, criminal and civl legal systems (and police force, incidentally) are simply to ensure no individual or group initiates force against another, plus allow for a capitalist system (which cannot operate if contracts can't be enforced).

Ie, the army and police are in a sense reactionary: they would need exemplary reasons to initiate force (only on grounds of defence by offence).

The aim of progressive tax systems is to allow all to be productive in the broadest sense

How on earth do you define productive??? A progressive tax system is anything but what its name implies: it taxes risk taking and initiative and is thus anti-progress. Further, Socialist govt's have have completely hijacked this system to finance their own whims and build up welfare sectors which are their voting blocks. As welfare creates welfare, the evil being perpetrated is horrific.

I don't accept a free system would lead to destitution - the left seems to be very cynical, believing people/families will not look after that small part of the population that cannot look after themselves, of their own volition. (Bill Gates give more to charitable causes than most governments).

Finally, let me extend what I said previously: no government has the right to tell me how to lead my life while I am not infringing on the rights of others.

"No govt. has the right to tell me how to live my life or to tax the productive sector to grow the unproductive"

1. The existence of armies, criminal and civil legal systems does rather imply that they'll tell you what or not to do, presumably?

2. The aim of progressive tax systems is to allow all to be productive in the broadest sense. Your alternative would leave many destitute.

Edited by author 01-11-2005 05:25 PM
Charlie ... agreed about the differing directions, but yes, we would have handled it the same. I guess that's because the answer really was common sense.

In summary, Joe didn't put his thinking cap on (in the molly coddled West notions of individual responsiblity are sadly being lost), plus the management of Waterstone's were obviosuly jerks - result, a great shame for Joe, whose probably a nice bloke by the sound of it, and for the SF world (and to that both of us surely belong :)

Trey, the short answer is I'm a Kiwi Libertarian (there, I'm out of the closet). Note a Kiwi Lib is nothing like a US Lib, who tends to be a crank in my understanding :)

So, in a completely unrealistic nutshell: Govt. should be very small, and founded on a constitution enshrining the non initiation of force - ie, no individual or group can initiate force on another, vis a vis, encroach on property rights. The only functions of govt. are to run an army (to protect from outside aggressors), a criminal law system (to protect from internal aggressors), and a contract law system so that a capitalist system can operate. And that is it. No govt. has the right to tell me how to live my life or to tax the productive sector to grow the unproductive.

Note the above position is quite different to an anarchist (who tends to be a pacafist, and believe in no governance at all - many seem to confuse this).

"The muscle is all on the side of the large organization"

That certainly applies to Waterstone's in its dealings with many publishers, authors and other smaller fish in the book trade.

But it's not quite the same in their behavior as an employer. Briefly- if they're accused of dismissing unfairly or wrongfully, and it goes to law, they may be facing a trade union with as much or more specialist muscle.

Tribeless,
Quick question - do you believe in human rights or not? And if you do, who defends and maintains those rights?

Just curious, because as a Mississippian, some bad shit happened here in the 60's to folks who rocked the boat and said things that were uncomfortable to those in power.

Trey

Smoke in pubs is a sore point for me: I like pubs, I hate smoke. And my crack about pissing in the swimming pool was a direct analogy: smoking in a confined space without good ventilation is an assault on the lungs of everyone else in that space. You might want to be free to smoke in your pub, but I want to be able to be in the pub too, without inhaling your smoke.

(The reasonable solution isn't a ban on smoking but a requirement for pubs to supply non-smoking areas or adequate ventilation; the reason why a more absolutist approach has been taken is ... interesting, and veering way off topic.)

Tribeless, while talk of rights and responsibilities is all very well, there's a big power imbalance between a large corporation and an individual -- any individual. (Especially if we're talking a bookstore chain that sells probably 30% of the books in the UK, and an individual bookseller.) The muscle is all on the side of the large organization. Given the increasing tendency towards concentration of markets into the hands of a few very large players, if you allow this trend to run to its logical conclusion you end up with a situation where a handful of big players can dictate terms to everyone else. This is one outcome of free market capitalism -- it's called oligopoly, or (less politely) industrial feudalism, and it's inimical to individual freedom.

Actually, your comment about how you'd have managed the situation is identical to how I think I'd have done it, had I been the manager of that shop. But we seem to be coming at it from radically different positions on what constitutes an appropriate balance of power between the employee and the employer.

Fair points Tribeless (though I think weblogs etc. are covered by libel rather than slander). Free speech can cut both ways. That's a main reason why it's regulated.

Edited by author 01-11-2005 02:53 PM
I let myself get carried away again. Despite everything I said being the Truth (yes, ol'anti postmodern me, I believe in Objective Truth), just a copy and paste from my very first post: this is my position on Joe's plight. Its simply about taking individual responsibility for your actions. (And to whomever mentioned it, on freedom issues I don't agree with middle ground arguments; you've either got freedom, or you are in a system devolving away from it, as any amount of government interference will always lead to greater government interference (normally to try and fix stuff ups from earlier rounds of government interference ... and yes, not being able to smoke at the pub is a freedom issue, as I'm sure you'll all realise when they start taxing fatty food because its bad for you, etc etc).

Shit, did it again. My position.

Slandering your employer in public is not a freedom of speech issue. Or, if it is, then an employer is just as entitled to sack an employee who is slandering them, as that employee is entitled to slander them in the first place. Freedom of speech does not take away an employer's right to retaliate in kind. That is how a free system should operate.

I admit, though, that the bookstore in this case managed the situation badly. I would have talked to Joe, told him I was not happy with what he was doing, and if necessary have given an initial written warning, which if breached I would have then fired him upon.

But never take free speech as the ability to gripe without an equal force hitting you in the opposing direction. To be in a position of being able to slander with impunity would be to be in a position of tyranny.

Hello, mind if I wade in? I'm a Waterstone's staffer and union rep for the TGWU (most members working in the company are at the Gower Street/ UCL store in London.

Chris #20- booksellers actually had rather more buying discretion than now under the old Dillon's regime. You can hardly blame it for admittedly increased centralisation.

If Joe needs any advice he can contact me at w_mccomish@yahoo.com

Re: "Blogging is great, but bloggers must remember that in a free country they are responsible for themselves, and what they say, and thus they must take the sometimes bad medicine arising from their actions. Nothing wrong with that. Joe exercised 'choice' in choosing what to write in his blog: his employer then responded via choices they were entitled to exercise in turn."

I don't think Waterstone's right to admonish their employee for doing something that they'd rather he didn't is the main issue here. It's more a case of the bitterness of the medicine being so wildly disproportionate to the scale of the original offence that's caused the uproar.

Yes, Joe was a bit daft - he's not denying that - but there was surely no need for Waterstone's to do anything more than politely ask him to 'cease and desist' on pain of further action - which he would have done - and the whole thing would have been quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten about; the offending material removed from the public forum.

[Aside: And it was, as Joe has pointed out, a limited circle-of-friends forum, at least to begin with. I host Joe's Woolamaloo site and have the traffic logs on file - before this blew up he was averaging around 20 or so visitors a day. When the story first broke, that increased to 200 or so. Yesterday, following the exposure on Boing Boing and other sites, it shot up to 4,600+ and today (with a story on The Register and a mention on The Times Online) judging by the size of the log file so far, he might be looking at double or treble that number. I'll send Joe the figures once I've had chance to process them and I'm sure he'll post them on Woolamaloo.]

So why did they take such extreme action unless, as Charlie suggests, Joe was the victim of a corporate witch-hunt to remove him from a branch where his old-school notions of bookselling (get to know your customers, understand their preferences and peccadilloes, sell them books they never knew existed as a result) were clearly no longer required?

And as for the whole sorry chain of events as a demonstration of corporate stupidity, coupled with an extreme ignorance of the very nature of the online media medium, what can you say? Waterstone's must be hopelessly out of touch.

It will be very interesting indeed to see what their Head Office eventually has to say about all this, or whether they just stick their heads in the sand and hope it will all blow over...

Vodkapundit has a link to a related piece:
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007242.php

I'm lucky - I've got a free speech clause written into my contract. Ain't trade unionism grand?

Waterstones, on the other hand, are are not lucky - they've just lost all my custom, which was worth about two hundred quid a year gross to them. Multiply that out by a thousand sf fans, and their payout for this will be twice what the tribunal will cost them.

Waterstones always threatened to go this way: the old Waterstones had a very devolved management structure, and the booksellers had a lot of power in buying decisions. Then it merged with Dillons, which was corporate cockdom writ large. Looks like the Dillons meme has triumphed, alas.

Having read the entry on your friend Joe, and having been a blogger in the clear for nearly two years now that regularly grouses about my current job (not at a bookstore, thank God, I'm not personable at all), I've got only one thing to say.

I'm fucked.

Oh well. I knew that when I started the blog.

My employer, along with the last semester's batch of creative writing students (I was a fellow student, the local colleges do not let conservatives teach) have been through my blog so I should not be surprised if I get bent over the same rail someday.

The difference, in my case, is that when it happens, I intend to write a version of Nickel and Dimed covering the U.S. post 09-11-01 private security industry.

Might take me a few years (breaking into SF is a priority still) but I will write that book.

You think the stereotypes about security are bad? Whew, folks, you've got no idea.

Respects,
Steve
Riding High in the Saddle in Flyover Country, U.S.A.

So perhaps Tribeless feels that we should never moan that we've had a hard day at work? In case the company appears to the outside world to be a group of slave driving facists? Or we should never complain that our local council doesn't do enough - as they might 'rightly' choose to ask us to leave their constituency.

If I were to type a message, giving out company confidential info and directly slagging off the work and/or actions of my company - I'd expect a kick in the arse. But to satirically mock my employers? Or to laughingly refer to the "Escape group" (several of my colleagues jokingly refer to an 'escape plan') and then find myself up on disciplinary charges is a joke.

Perhaps your neighbourhood group (or whatever it is) could ask you to leave Tribeless, for moaning over the pre-destined house colours <g>.

This man did not sit in the middle of the store throwing a spat. Indeed - from all understanding he helped the company make a few thou' by promoting authors and lesser known imprints! Gosh...he almost sounds like a Knight of Capitalism.

Edited by author 01-11-2005 07:01 AM
Tribeless seems to be confusing free-lunch freedom with free-speech freedom. And his freedom to smoke at his local pub is about as useful to me as my freedom to piss in his swimming pool is to him.

Next thing, I expect him to start quoting Margaret Thatcher ("there's no such thing as society" and all).

I would advise Edinburgh natives that, in addition to there being numerous branches of Waterstones and a Borders out at Kinnaird Park, there's also a very good specialist SF bookshop (Transreal, on the Grass Market), and another book chain: Ottakars bought out most of the former James Thin stores when Thin's went bankrupt a couple of years ago, and they seem to be doing well by them.

Tribeless seems to be arguing that capitalism can never be regulated. He looks to be excluding the vast reaches of the middle ground.

Pretty much, it sounds, like the current Waterstones management.

There is a Borders in Edinburgh at the Kinnaird Retail Park. I wouldn't shop at Borders if they were the last bookstore on Earth though. Their policies towards their staff make Waterstones look like paragons of enlightenment.

Tribeless, I don't think this is the place to get into the old arguments, but I think you'll find that many people will disagree wildly that laissez faire capitalism produces freedom. And that Charlie is most definitely among them, as are many in Scotland (which is more left-wing than the rest of the UK, which is more left-wing than the US).

Charlie,

Is there a Borders in Edinburgh? As I tend to avoid the place like the plague (I far prefer Glasgow or Newcastle) its over two years since I last walked up Princes Street.

Either way at least I now have an excuse not to spend money in HMV or Waterstones. Looks like my Amazon bill will be rising a bit tho.

Charlie,

We could consider whether capitalism is required for "freedom" but I think you'd agree that free speech is.

And in a truly free society the evil companies (which are really just groups of people) would have free speech rights too. The rest of us (the good and the bad) would have the right to boycott the companies we don't agree with -- for whatever their beliefs may be.

But I think Joe would have avenues to pursue in the US as well. We're not really the free society we'd like to think we are. (Less, in fact.)

Some principles are "to die for" but they, of course, have to take a back seat to commercial law and economic interests. Contract law is the ultimate defence, only by upholding the corporation's right to make money above all else can we be truly free.

If only George Orwell had lived to see the other Big Brother in action.

Charlie! It is indisputable that laissez faire capitalism is the bedrock of a free society: there is simply no alternative. Every communist economy has failed, or is failing. China's only path for survival is to 'free up' (note the importance of that word) their controlled economy and move toward a bastardised capitalism.

Indeed, I thought that at least the Left had figured that out, and realising the economic battle has been lost are now moving the battle for freedom onto other fronts ... which is why I can no longer smoke at my local pub, and why every year I have an exorbitant of money stolen from me by New Zealands corrupt government to basically to bring up everybody else's children, and pay for every politician's whim - all at the expense of individual choice and individual freedom.

Indeed, I feel like weeping (except I'm a rugged individualist bloke, so I won't) when I see my country turned into a socialist slum. Where I've just built everything is controlled about my house by local government commissars right down to its very colour. Appalling.

I think that even if you are self-employeed you have to "be careful what you say" these days. There are a bunch of views on my web log that might not go down well with companies that might hire me. For example I think that torture is bad, killing others is not justified in most cases and that George W. Bush is a bad president who is using people who are CINOs (Christians in Name Only)to enact a government that enriches the rich and punishes the poor. Those wild views are why I publish under a pseudonym. Those views are dangerous in America today. On the other hand a friend brought up the point that some companies might actually hire me BECAUSE of my views. Unfortunately I can't be sure who those companies are.

Did you know that there is a practice in PR firms where they go around and look for people who say or write bad things about a company? When they find them I'm not sure of what they do (sue? kill?) but they know that any form of speech that doesn't support the company must be addressed and probably suppressed.

Maybe that PR company was hired by HMV and found Joe's blog. Google is very powerful, if I wrote something 2 years ago in a fit of anger, it can hang around for the rest of time to haunt me. It is your new "permanent Record" and is available to anyone, not just teachers and the police.

if it is considered that capitalism is the economic system of freedom ...

(FX: Charlie coughing tea all over his laptop.)

Going off on a tangent here, freedom (at least, some degree of economic freedom) is a necessary precondition for capitalism. Capitalism, however, is not a necessary or sufficient precondition for freedom. Some relationships are not commutative.

Charlie, Tribeless is a Kiwi :)

Other than that though, the fact this occurred in the UK doesn't change any of the principles espoused in my initial email. The fact you may not be operating in a competitive environment is a different issue, although I would say that if it is considered that capitalism is the economic system of freedom, then that would be further evidence to be railing against the government, not private enterprise. The employer in this scenario had every right to retaliate against Joe; as much right, indeed, as Joe had to slander them in a public forum (if that is what happened). I agree though, their response has been unfortunate, and I feel sorry for Joe, but they had every right to sack him.

Blogging is great, but bloggers must remember that in a free country they are responsible for themselves, and what they say, and thus they must take the sometimes bad medicine arising from their actions. Nothing wrong with that. Joe exercised 'choice' in choosing what to write in his blog: his employer then responded via choices they were entitled to exercise in turn.

Point to note: Joe's zine/blog dates to 1992, while he's only worked for the bookstore since 1994. So it predates his employment. As far as I am aware it was known of and tolerated while Waterstones was owned by Tim Waterstone. But a few years ago the chain was sold, first to W. H. Smiths', and then to HMV.

Second point to note: the specific items that were used to justify firing him were over two years old at the time. Someone went searching for evidence to use against him. That suggests to me that the weblog may not have been the cause of the firing, but was a useful pretext for someone who wanted rid of Joe.

Third point: some of the items brought up in the hearing predated the ownership of Waterstones' by HMV. A case can therefore be argued that Joe wasn't bad mouthing his current employers.

Now, I don't want to go on further along this road, because there are clearly two sides to this mess: it's not an unequivocal story (be the story either "evil employer whomps up excuse to fire saintly employee" or "idiot spouts off in public, gets come-uppance"). But, as I think I observed, it does not look good for a bookstore to start firing its employees for writing in public on their own time.

Tribeless: what you say may be ideologically correct in the USA, but this country is not the USA. The UK is not the kind of "free market" you describe (for which some of us are extremely thankful). Joe has legal avenues to pursue, and over the next weeks or months we should hear more on the subject.

There's something about the HMV retail stores that I don;t much like. There's a feel to them which is a bit spiv-like, with their two-for-one deals on stuff they price at twice what other shops sell at. I can easily imagine a corporate culture clash.

I'm surprised that you made reference to someone needing to be self-employed to feel safe in keeping a blog, as I thought you had previously discussed the dangers of a writer upsetting ultra-sensitive readers with political talk.

None of this is very different from groups like BuyBlue.org. That particular bunch of nitwits wants to harm companies who've supported Bush.

I have to come at this from two directions. This guy was probably a great asset to the company, although less of one after being moved to the back. This sounds like a case of insufficient greed.

As for the free speech issue, I feel that companies should have the right to guard their image even if it means an occasional stupid move will be made. Imagine if some KKK member worked quietly at a bookstore, and yet kept a blog at night. That would be a more obvious risk to the company's image, but the idea is still the same -- even if they wind up presenting the wrong image.

Edited by author 01-10-2005 04:00 PM
Being a liberty lover, freedom of speech is obviously a 'to die for' principle. But I think the issue of Joe's firing more complicated than this, and demonstrates how loose some thinking is on this issue.

Contracting to a private enterprise firm is different to contracting to a government. Governments have a monopoly over their functions, thus have the abilty to override individual freedoms and freedom of speech, and this must always be fought against tooth and nail. Private enterprise, conversly, operates in a state of competition. In line with this, the bookstore does not 'owe' Joe a job, and Joe does not have to work for this bookstore: there are plenty of others, or he can set up his own.

Slandering your employer in public is not a freedom of speech issue. Or, if it is, then an employer is just as entitled to sack an employee who is slandering them, as that employee is entitled to slander them in the first place. Freedom of speech does not take away an employer's right to retaliate in kind. That is how a free system should operate.

I admit, though, that the bookstore in this case managed the situation badly. I would have talked to Joe, told him I was not happy with what he was doing, and if necessary have given an initial written warning, which if breached I would have then fired him upon.

But never take free speech as the ability to gripe without an equal force hitting you in the opposing direction. To be in a position of being able to slander with impunity would be to be in a position of tyranny.

How can we, the reading public, support Joe? In particular, could an American SF fan send Joe a share of her monthly book purchases?

While I'm in favour of free speech and all that, publishing negative things about your employer (whether on paper, in a weblog, or written on the toilet walls) is _never_ a good idea.

He effectively stood in a large open space and was rude about the people that pay him money. This would be bad enough if he was getting on with them, but when he knew that there were personality clashes, he was effectively painting a big sign on his chest.