By Jo Best, 10 January 2005 16:35
NEWS An employee of book chain Waterstone's has been fired for material he included in his blog.
Joe Gordon, who has been running his Woolamaloo Gazette satirical newsletter since 1992, was dismissed last week after working for the bookseller for 11 years, following a disciplinary hearing.
Gordon's blog, which covers everything from the city of Edinburgh to UN scientists in Iraq, also mentions his work in one of the chain's Edinburgh branches. As well as discussing visits from authors to the store and which cartoon characters his work colleagues would be, Gordon occasionally used his online diary to vent steam about his working life.
And it's terms like Bastardstone's and Evil Boss which have drawn Waterstone's ire.
Although Waterstone's has no employee policy that deals with blogging, according to Gordon, the chain said that Gordon's blog had brought it into disrepute.
Gordon, however, maintains that such descriptions were intended light-heartedly and were meant to reminiscent of a Dilbert cartoon. "I didn't set out with intent to harm," he said.
"I was gobsmacked," Gordon said of his sacking. The ex-bookseller, who ran a book group for the shop and has appeared on TV and radio as a Waterstone's employee, continued: "I've done so much promotion for this company, it's not true."
If his manager had asked him to stop talking about his job at Waterstone's in his blog, Gordon said he would have done so. "I could live with not talking about that... they've been so heavy-handed," he said.
Gordon is currently talking to his union about his dismissal and may take further action. Waterstone's did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Gordon is not the first blogger to have found himself on the wrong end of a P45 after writing about an employer.
Ellen Simonetti, formerly an air hostess for Delta Airlines, was fired after management saw pictures of her posing in her uniform on her website. Jessica Cutler - the now infamous Washingtonienne - was also sacked from her job in a Senator's office for the content of her blog.
The blogging phenomenon is growing rapidly. A report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found readership of blogs increased by 58 per cent last year and seven per cent of adults have their own blog.
Plus: read silicon.com's leader on how businesses should deal with employee blogs.
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. Roger Huffadine
A bit of a cleft stick for the directors of Waterstones eh?
Using a gross misconduct rule like this to dismiss an employee only works if you can show that you are even handed.
Clearly they have demonstrated that they are Bastardstones because they have used a gross misconduct rule to dismiss an employee when a simple "please stop it" would have saved huge amounts of time and money.
That being so the company (by the action) brings itself into disrepute.
Five years ago the cost of defending a claim of unfair dismissal stood at £30,000.
A dismal decision by someone in the company.
2. Mike Hingley
I am outraged at this - if my employer want to control my life, determine what i write in my own free time, then i suggest that they make with the reddies - cos the only way that ANY company will ever tell me what to say and what not to say is if I become a spokesperson of that company. How much do celebs get to 'endorse' products and companies. Yeah.. Bring on a slice of that action.
In protest i have ceased all trading with Waterstones until they respond with some form of statement justifying their position.
I urge all lovers of freedom to do the same. We need to send a message quickly to companies that freedom is important - the best way we can all do that is to refuse to buy products that are sold or produced in an environment of fear.
Mike Hingley
Software Developer
3. Ben McCrory
Waterstone's "heavy-handed"? I was sacked in June 2002 for supposedly stealing five pounds, and won hands down at my employment tribunal eleven months later. I was treated appallingly by Waterstone's throughout, and no attempt was made to establish the truth of the matter. God knows what they spent on legal representation etc, but all the people involved are still working there whereas I couldn't get my job back. Still, I kept a daily diary of my eleven years there, and maybe I will publish it as a blog. They like blogs.
4. Anthony Henderson
This looks like Waterstone's are censoring a writer - surely a terrible irony for a bookseller.
5. Bill McComish
Hmm.
Declaring an interest- I'm a Waterstone's bookseller and union rep for the TGWU.
Dismissal is an over-reaction and unwise. The comments were long ago, on limited circulation, not commercially malignant and the company ignored his offer to retract them. Unwise because for any large company- let alone a bookseller- to censor an individual, invites bad PR. Not good for the divvy, that.
On the other. Waterstone's should be able to defend itself against defamation in principle. It's only equitable, surely?
6. anonymous
I have been wanting to quit my ridiculously low payed job at Waterstones for some time. This has given me the impetus I need!
7. Bill Zucker
Employers are worried their reputation?
Well over here in the USA, we have a diffrent problem. The employers are saying screw you to the American worker and giving our jobs away to foriegn workers a dime a dozen.
So as far as I am concern to the Employers- clean up your act before claiming self rightousness...
8. greta smalley
I won't shop at Waterstones now, after this appalling behaviour by it's repressive management.
9. Paul Snowdon
Much fuss over very little. This is a classic case of the medium swamping the message. If Joe Gordon had hand-written his comments and stuck them on a fence near his Waterstone's store would anyone have shown any interest in this insignificant little story?
The problem is all these blogs range from the mediocre to the dire. The only way to get people to read these things (unless you have the misfortune to be in a disaster zone) is to be rude about your employeee. And that's become a fashion that a lot of people who have very little else to say are following.
Stupid of Waterstone's to sack this guy, but equally stupid of everyone to start ranting on about freedom of speech.
If Joe Gordon had been fired for sticking out his tongue at his line manager in a staff meeting would anyone be interested? Well that's what he did. But because he did it in binary form it has become an international incident.
10. James Glen
If the sole reason given for Mr Gordon's sacking was indeed his web log then Waterstones deserve all the bad publicity they get. If this is the case, I wish Mr Gordon well if he should decide to take them to court.
I'll await an official reaction from Waterstones before deciding whether to shop with them again. I will encourage others to do likewise.
11. tim
In slagging Waterstones off in his blog, Joe was a bit silly to have identified himself and his employer. Accusing him of gross misconduct and instantly dismissing him is a hugely ill-advised over-reaction, however, that will be hugely costly to Waterstones reputation.
Crucially, he didn't blog on company time or computers, and offered to retract the remarks.
Any reader of the Guardian knows that inaccuracies and poor judgement creep into any broadcast medium, but there is a convention - at least in newspaper publishers' self-policing in the UK - to offer to retract and correct mistakes and offensive remarks. This is often a way to avoid more costly libel proceedings in the UK's courts.
The analogy - comparing complaining about the boss in the pub with keeping a blog - only works so far, as does the analogy with publishing a newspaper.
A blog is a bit like talking on a bus or in the pub: it's off the cuff, and usually with a small intended audience. It's also a bit like a newspaper: it leaves a permanent record and is widely accessible and archived.
Blogs are a bit like things that have gone before them, and simultaneously totally unlike them... it's because blogigng is a relatively new phenomena. New approaches are needed to negotiate freedom of speech on blogs on the one hand, and equity and redress for people who might be slandered or lied about on the other. All these analogies - and the implications of Joe's dismissal on freedom of speech in the UK if it is allowed to stand - need careful thought and dissection.
The crucial point is Joe :did: offer to remove the remarks - as is the convention in newspaper publishing in this country - and this wasn't good enough. It is very hard to argue that calling your boss an evil sandal-wearer could be construed in law as a libel, and therefore warrants a higher standard of redress than an retraction and apology. (At worst, it's a slander, and that's really stretching it).
Waterstones deserve all the bad publicity they get. A sensible company would work out that grumbles - and calling your boss rude names without doing it to his or her face – are perfectly normal and probably a healthy way for people to let off steam. People will do it on blogs just as they will in the pub. Revealing company secrets or the ins and outs of office politics is pushing it… but Joe didn’t do that, he was just a bit daft and didn’t think.
The attendant publicity - and messages of support from other downtrodden Waterstone's employees - has certainly added to the impression I had anyway that, far from caring about their goods, the company is yet another soulless capitalist enterprise run by sad control freaks, that just happens to sell books rather than dog whistles or missile parts.
If I want to give my money to faceless capitalists, I'll buy my books from Amazon. It's cheaper and I don't have to leave my house. If I want to support living, breathing booksellers who know about and care about the books, I'll to support the few independent book shops left in my area, and wait for stuff to come in on order…
12. Anonymous
Nobody knows the back story. How can we all be so judgemental of the company based on a single side of the story - which is coming from the morale high ground.
Waterstone's took a tough stance against an individual who expressed his opinions in an open forum.
Ask yourself how you would feel if one of your colleagues or workers or bosses slagged you off in public?
If you ask me, he was looking to be inflammatory and got what he was after - some publicity.
13. Nigel Brown
Oh dear, Oh dear, did no one at Waterstone's think about the PR consequences of firing this guy? Waterstonse need to come out with the full story if they want to limit further public ridicule.
14. jon fern
As an ex-employee of waterstones i can safely say that the company is indeed run by sad control freaks. more than this however, is the total lack of soul, originality, creativity and character inherent in every facet of the company. there are far better bookselling companies, displaying all of these qualities. in fact, even smiths are better than waterstones because at least they don't pretend to be intelligent.