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.