Susan ([info]cristobel) wrote in [info]edinburgers,
2005-01-06 19:16:00
Hi,

I wanted to let everyone in Edinburgh know, what was going on with Waterstones, and that they've sacked someone for what he wrote on a personal blog. I think this is pretty relevant to the LJ community. This summary of the situatino is from lili at http://fofaoa.blogspot.com/

"Some sad news today from Joe at Woolamaoo Gazette and the permission from him to talk about what happened. He was laid off today (seems such a nice way to put it) because of comments made on his personal blog, on his own computer, in the comfort of his own home, on his own time. A blog that clearly states that it "is a satirical newspaper I first started on email way back in 1992. It allows me to vent steam on stories which are bugging me or amusing me and hopefully make people think at the same time. Satire is the best defence in any democracy. Items in the old Woolamaloo Gazette style newpaper articles will be obvious from the bold-face banner headline. Anything else is just my ramblings, mumblings or rants."

He made reference to Waterstones as Bastardstones, gave his boss the nick "Evilboss" and generally complained a bit about his job. In reality though that is such a minimal part of what his blog was about, and let me point out again that it is his personal blog.

Joe was called before a disciplinary hearing and instead of being asked to refrain from posting about his job, boss or any other such issues he felt like discussing on his blog he was let go. The charges were "gross misconduct" and "bringing the company into disrepute".

This is such a disgusting and actually frightening situation, knowing that they can fire someone over comments made on a blog. Are they not familiar with Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Expression? Satire? Comedy? Waterstones can dictate to their employees what they can say and write on their own personal time. If they got away with this disgusting and infringing action, I ask who is next? One of you out there in blogger, or any other posted journal sites? Me? Where exactly will this line be drawn?

I know he has friends who are supporting him and I am proud to call myself one of those people. Many are boycotting Waterstones (not sure if there is one in your area or not), posting about it on their own blogs (see The Alien Online) and there are discussions to contact the media (the BBC)"

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 78 comments

[info]yesarchimedes

January 6 2005, 19:28:13 UTC 7 years ago

that is pretty appalling,ridiculous if you will.
but susie derkins =)

[info]cristobel

January 6 2005, 19:33:58 UTC 7 years ago

and my name's Susan, and I actually used to look like that!!!!

but yeah, totally crap about Joe....

[info]two_truths

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

January 6 2005, 19:33:12 UTC 7 years ago

I remember hearing about this before - didn't this actually happen some time ago?

Unless the guy's from Edinburgh, though, I don't think it's really appropriate for here.

[info]cristobel

January 6 2005, 19:34:34 UTC 7 years ago

he is from Edinburgh, and the shop in question is the East end branch.

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nickys

January 6 2005, 19:33:49 UTC 7 years ago

There is a Waterstones on Princes St.

[info]wibbble

January 6 2005, 19:40:11 UTC 7 years ago

There's two of them, even.

[info]ex_gigahertz567

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ex_gigahertz567

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jinxremoving

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jinxremoving

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jinxremoving

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jinxremoving

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]andypop

7 years ago

  • Loading...

Anonymous

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]andypop

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]sazzlesrox

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]akicif

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]_clensation_

January 6 2005, 19:44:57 UTC 7 years ago

I would get him to check his contract as most employers will have clauses about bringing the company into disrepute. Theres a difference between free speach and slander and if he puts his name to something then he has to accept the consequences.

Anonymous

January 12 2005, 10:55:48 UTC 7 years ago

What's "free speach" you fanny?

[info]_clensation_

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]occular

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]_clensation_

7 years ago

  • Loading...

Screened comment

[info]pisica

January 6 2005, 20:44:13 UTC 7 years ago

Waterstones haven't censored him - only a government can do that.

Hooray, someone else who understands the distinction! *shakes your hand*

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]pisica

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]kadaria

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]markadm

7 years ago

  • Loading...
...and 8 more comments... from Anonymous, [info]andys, [info]littlemsmortis… Expand

[info]octopoid_horror

January 6 2005, 20:12:35 UTC 7 years ago

It is, among people I know at least, fairly common knowledge, that you're running a dangerous game if you talk about your work much on lj, especially if it is not in a very good light, as wibbble and _clensation_ have already said.

I'm fairly sure there's at least two articles on the BBC website about people who work for large companies being dismissed for this sort of thing.

If other people can see a blog, then in my opinion, it's not personal.

If it isn't even friends-only, it's public. and akin to shouting in the street. -Anyone- can hear.

[info]stealthdj

January 6 2005, 20:25:35 UTC 7 years ago

Have to agree with the above two posts, unfortunately. While instant dismissal may have been a tad harsh, there's not a court in the land would find in favour of him at an industrial tribunal.

If he'd been quoted in a newspaper as a Waterstones employee referring to his employers as 'bastardstones', would you have the same opinion? What if you were a company boss and one of *your* employees was quoted as saying that about you?

While the medium here may be different, the coverage is potentially thousands of times greater - something people often seem to forget. The rules of thumb are obvious and easy to follow - if you're going to talk about your work in *anything* other than a completely factual manner, restrict the readership.

My sympathies to the guy - he's lost his job. In this world, that's no fun. Sadly, he's got noone to blame but himself. It was an easy error to make, but an error all the same.

[info]djw

January 6 2005, 20:36:11 UTC 7 years ago

This is terrible to hear, but I've boycotted Waterstones for a long time anyway. Along with Blackwells, the large 'academic' bookselling chains in this country are just not up to the job of selling good, interesting books at fair prices.

I don't visit bookshops to see the giant plush green carpet they have, or to buy a coffee I could get in a coffee shop. I except to see bookshelves, lots and lots of bookshelves filling the place. I expect the shop to sell stock that not only moves in volume, but that also gives customers a wide breadth of choice. I expect friendly staff who aren't obviously been messed about by unpleasant working practices and management stupidity. I'd rather like this ideal bookshop to be open late into the evening, 10pm say, at the possible expense of a late start in the mornings. A stationery department would be nice, too...

... actually, can we just have James Thin on High School Yards back the way it was c1999?

[info]markadm

January 6 2005, 22:52:36 UTC 7 years ago

Evil Ottakars... Grrr...

I miss James Thin.

[info]andypop

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]djw

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]andypop

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]djw

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]andypop

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]newartriot

January 6 2005, 20:51:58 UTC 7 years ago

if this guy was slagging off his job so much then he obv didnt like it very much anyways...

[info]littlemsmortis

January 11 2005, 20:39:47 UTC 7 years ago

Actually, it seems he loved his job, was there for 11 years and there were only a few brief mentions so he wasn't "slagging his job off* all the time or anything. We all have bad days. It's just unfortunate that somebody took the time to search out incriminating stuff and it had this result.

[info]iamthecheekyboy

January 6 2005, 23:30:47 UTC 7 years ago

the course of action waterstones took was completely ridiculous - it sounds more like it was about a power trip, like the bosses getting revenge on the employee, like "you can't get away with talking about us like that", rather than an actual logical action. i mean they would have to be seriously lacking in intelligence if they thought that a significant number of their customers would read the blog and turn round and say "Bastardstones? Well I certainly amnt shopping there any longer!"

[info]randomchris

January 6 2005, 23:47:40 UTC 7 years ago

If he'd called them that in a paper publication, or on a radio show, then I think they'd be well within their rights to take serious disciplinary action which could include firing him. A blog is no different. And if he didn't have the sense to make his posts private, then I don't want him selling me books anyway...

[info]late_but_alive

January 7 2005, 01:42:35 UTC 7 years ago

If you say something to your mates about how crap the company you work for is, then fair enough they'll never hear about it and if they do how can they prove it? Whereas if you write it down on a website for all to see then they have all the evidence they need to discipline you ( or sack you). Still a downer that the guy got sacked though.

Tip for the day: don't talk about work or if you do be extremely vague and use code.

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

Anonymous

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wibbble

January 7 2005, 02:59:45 UTC 7 years ago

Further to all this, the person involved has made a post in their own blog outlining the situation:

http://www.woolamaloo.org.uk/2005/01/those-who-profess-to-favor-freedom-and.htm

I've left a comment directing them here, as a courtesy.

As I've said above, I pretty much disagree with what they're saying regarding 'freedom' issues - no one is stopping them from saying anything they like about anything they like. They're free to do whatever they want - but Waterstones are also free to dislike it and cease his employment. I think it's probably overly harsh, and I hope that he gets somewhere in terms of appeals and industrial tribunals, but I worry that if he presents it as a freedom of expression issue it'll all fall flat.

[info]cairmen

January 7 2005, 13:55:55 UTC 7 years ago

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's reasonable.

In this case, speaking as someone who does run a company - no, this isn't reasonable. And it's a dumb-ass move to make, too, given that Waterstones are getting a great deal more bad press from their actions now than they would ever have from Joe's blog.

Anonymous

January 10 2005, 01:26:09 UTC 7 years ago

Wibbles post [ http://www.livejournal.com/community/edinburgers/516623.html?thread=3560719#t3560719 ] is pretty much on the money (IMHO).

Anyway,

What measures could/should others take, now and in the future, to keep themselves out of the line of fire(d).

Would starting such entries with "Once upon a time... " be sufficient?

Or maybe just sign off everything with "Allegedly" :-)

Andy

[info]wibbble

January 10 2005, 03:24:43 UTC 7 years ago

Restricted access is probably the only safe way to handle it, IMO.

[info]ulaidhan

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]sparrie2k

January 11 2005, 13:01:07 UTC 7 years ago

For those that haven't already seen it, the story made The Register

[info]steve_vernon

January 11 2005, 14:15:56 UTC 7 years ago

This is truly outragous. I wish I lived nearby to a Waterstone's store. The time is not to anonymously boycot, but to march enmasse, with every protester armed with a small pocket journal, (a blank scribbler, whatever), in which there words of protest against this abuse of power is recorded and dump them all on the manager's desk, the floor, the customer service desk. Television coverage would be a must, of course. Bring your books to Waterstones.

But, being unable to organize such a mighty protest, let me just pass on my words of commiseration, and a cynical observation that shit falls, far too often, from the rumps of those above us.

Look out below.

Anonymous

January 11 2005, 14:27:39 UTC 7 years ago

BOYCOTT

How dare they treat people like indentured serfs grateful for scraps falling from their master's table? This is not the middle ages and we are not peasants! Boycott all Waterstone's until they change their outdated policies.

Anonymous

January 11 2005, 14:30:37 UTC 7 years ago

Contact email

Perhaps you may like to make your feelings on this matter known to Waterstone's. Their email address is: onlineenquiries@waterstones.co.uk

Anonymous

January 11 2005, 21:46:41 UTC 7 years ago

Re: Contact email

This is another good reason to keep your shopping to indie book stores. Just like indie food shops and not supermarkets.

What does anyone expect from the bookshop starting to saturate the high street like Starbucks, and wahey, contains a Starbucks usually!

I'm sure that Waterstones have the right to be pissed off about the guy's comments, but they should have warned him to stop. Not giving him the chance to do that is particularly draconian, and fits nicely into the New Labour britain we've come to know and erm...love?

Anonymous

7 years ago

  • Loading...

Anonymous

7 years ago

  • Loading...

Anonymous

January 11 2005, 22:39:56 UTC 7 years ago

Joe from Waterstones

The treatment of the guy from the Waterstones Edingurgh East End branch(yes I work for these shafters..) is diabolical.
I hope the manager of the Branch ,Ian Webster, sleeps well.

What goes around comes around mate,

Disgusted W bookseller.

[info]byny

January 12 2005, 11:50:39 UTC 7 years ago

Re: Joe from Waterstones

Well......As far as i can see, and knowing what I do about employment law (In Wales at least) they should have made him aware of the problems they were having with his blog at the begining, thus giving him a chance to modify his comments, to check the terms of his contract and to reasonably discuss the situation. What seems to have happened is that they were aware of the blog, pissed off, but did nothing - instead they waited and then fired him suddenly without warning. He definately has a case.

As an ex Waterstone's employee I am not exactly shocked that the company would behave like this. they seem to have a preference these days for mere drones who come in, sort books, take money and then go home. I left because I could see that the atmosphere in Waterstone's was changing (I guess I can say all this without fear of recrimination!?). Rather than have interested, qualified Booksellers they prefer to have cheap disposable labour. The fact that this bookseller was a 'senior bookseller' raises my suspicion further. When i was there you had a choice on becoming a senior Bookseller...be a 'specialist' senior or a 'managment career' senior. Most of us chose to be 'specialists' which led to a shop full of senior booksellers with better pay than 'normal' booksellers who didn't wish to move on to management, prefering to take the (Terrible but better than usual) wage. The result - larger wage bills for each shop and noone who knows anything moving into management.

Basically Waterstone's made the bed and now they have to lie in it. If they can get rid of senior booksellers they will any way they can!

[info]sitrep

January 16 2005, 11:20:17 UTC 7 years ago

Joe's within his rights to post stuff that he hasn't signed a non-disclosure agreement thingie in his contract about. Waterstones are almost certainly within their rights to do something about it, although people have pointed out that not giving a warning first may leave them open to a unfair dismissal claim.

The real issue here is that Waterstones were quite impressively nieve in the action they took - someone posting in Joe's comments indicates that they don't take much notice of email: that they either didn't expect such large amounts of negative publicity or thought the damage control of firing Joe would outweigh it point to a company stuck in the early 90's. The 1890's, that is. Companies will have to wake up to the power of the internets as a tool for consumers, not just as a vehicle for them to sell us stuff.

[info]tommorris

January 17 2005, 11:30:10 UTC 7 years ago

Yes, everybody is within their rights. And I'm especially within my rights to consider not shopping at Waterstones any more.

[info]sitrep

7 years ago

  • Loading...
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…