« Blog roll | Main | DITA in public review »
February 15, 2005
Freedom to complain?
Another C|Net article hints you too could lose your job blogging. One legal expert observes that:
Employers have considerable leeway to discipline employees over any public expression touching on the company's business or reputation.
Lucky for people where I work, Sun tends to have people good at defining public interfaces, such as the one you need to respect when blogging. Of course everyone has been warned multiple times that it's dangerous to be caught criticizing the company in public, but the rules are easily stated. I only noted 4 don'ts.
What's interesting is less any particular company's reaction to a particular blog and more the general legal situation, how employers can discipline employees but employees cannot even make notes in their public diary (i.e. blog) about stupid things happening at work. Is that because in the aggregate companies never do anything stupid? Is it because bad news travels faster than good? Is it because our legal system is designed from the ground up to protect the powerful from the weak?
Since most of these stories are coming from the US, what about the first amendment to the US Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech is of course open to interpretation, since my freedom to mention something stupid happening at work may impinge upon the freedom of sales folk to book orders without having to handle embarrassing questions their mark turned up while Googling, or the freedom of upper management to decide to lay people off before they read about it in The Register.
On the other hand, it's a shame we cannot build up the trust needed to relax and let it all hang out. How much success have you had solving problems you refused to identify or discuss?
Posted by Mark at February 15, 2005 08:50 PM
Comments
The constitution says the government will not limit your speech, but it does not say it will prevent large corporations from using their market clout to hire people by making them sign contracts that limit their speech.
In the end, you did sign a contract where you agreed to limit your own speech.
After reading how Benjamin Franklin lauded the self-employed and belittle manufacturing jobs--sorry, no quote handy--I understand why employees are so disregarded in this country. I suggest that every American citizen incorporate and possibly lease back his/her own assets to a wholly-owned subsidiary, thereby avoiding responsibility and liability and gaining potential tax benefits.
Posted by: andy at February 15, 2005 11:29 PM
The constitution does not say much about corporations, I agree.
I signed a contract in which I agreed to lots of silly things, like any ideas I might have while employed belonging to my employer. Had you looked in as an outside observer, you would've noticed me trying hard to get into a situation that's perhaps not commensurate with my theoretical market value. Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that?
It must be because we have a completely level playing field, one in which all individual players are on equal footing with employers and corporations who pay lawyers to handle their contracts. In the free market, we all interact completely voluntarily in the marketplace, where the balance is such that the powerful never have unfair advantage. Individuals like me who don't take full advantage of such freedom are simply stupid.
So maybe I'll incorporate next time I make a trip back home. Mark Craig, Inc. The hard part is going to be figuring out who to lay off so my stock price will go up.
Posted by: Mark at February 16, 2005 08:17 AM