the "unwritten rule" of pulling his cracker before the senior partner and his wife have pulled theirs.

That's funny. Do Americans even understand it?

Hi Amy !


On Amerloque's seeing such unfairness, he was immediately reminded of a verse in an unforgettable song by Bob Dylan:


Come writers and critics

Who prophesize with your pen

And keep your eyes wide

The chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon

For the wheel's still in spin

And there's no tellin' who

That it's namin'.

For the loser now

Will be later to win

For the times they are a-changin'.

Tenez bon, Petite Anglaise. La roue tourne.


Best,
L'Amerloque

Gold old stuffy British firm and the world of blogging. Talk about a culture shock! One of them is going to have to adapt -- painfully. Guess which one...

Le Dooce!

Le Dooce!

Hi Amy!

Thanks for calling our attention to this story.

Perhaps we bloggers and fans of bloggers need to let firms know how much we dislike this sort of behavior.

In hopes it will inspire some others to write to the firm, I am posting an edited copy of email I sent under my real name to Dixon Wilson.

By the way, here is contact information for the Paris office:

Dixon Wilson
19 avenue de l’Opéra
75001 Paris, France

Telephone: +33 (0)1 47 03 12 90
Facsimile: +33 (0)1 47 03 12 85
E-mail: dw@dixonwilson.fr

>To: dw@dixonwilson.fr
>Subject: Bad Publicity Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006
>08:09:20 EDT

>Dear Sirs:
>
>I am writing to inform you that whatever
>potential bad publicity you feared
>would accrue to your firm due to its
>employment of la petite anglaise (who
>blogs anonymously) is now far exceeded by the
>actual bad publicity your firm has
>earned by firing her with what appears to be no >reason. And this regardless of the outcome of >the lawsuit against you.
>
>Before your (somewhat hasty?) action against >her, I had no idea Dixon Wilson
>used to employ the blogger Catherine; of >course, now I and some tens of thousands, >hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of >others do. (Isn't the Internet wonderful?)
>And, unfortunately, we internautes think quite >badly of you now. I hope that not too many of
>your clients feel the same.
>
>Wishing you well (but still desirous that you
>lose the lawsuit against you, for the >clarification of your thinking and your own
>future good), I remain yours sincerely, ...

>
>
>PS Since your firm is a partnership, you at
>least do not have to worry about having offended
>any stockholders. That must be some relief at
>this time.

I'm guessing the firm's decision had much more to do with enforcing company policy and much less to do with any potential "embarrassment."

What's not mentioned in Amy's snippet is that the author twice blogged about lying to her bosses about her wherebouts so as to sneak out for some personal time. She also openly admitted to using the company's system (which is really just plain old stealing) to add to her blog while on the job.

Even if you don't agree that these are grounds for termination, you have to understand that establishing a history of leniancy sets a poor precedent for the firm's other employees. What if the next employee began a hate-speech blog and was terminated? You can bet he'd claim discrimination and point to the previously retained blogger as someone who had blogged her private thoughts and was not as harshly disciplined.

Also, its very likely that her use of the company's equipment is a violation of the employee handbook. Again, any liberality in construing the handbook could come up and bite the company in the ass down the road - regardless of whether or not this particular employee's blog was gentile and benign.

I'm going with the firm on this one.

Hi, Snakeman99!

Your speculation regarding "policy and precedent" might be correct, I admit. I still believe, however, that the firm's position in this case is counterproductive. Say, perhaps, the policy itself is squarely mistaken.

If Catherine is an otherwise good employee, with adequate performance reviews, and a supervisor half-way competent to set performance objectives for her, the firm would be insane to get rid of her for the (dare I say universal?) peccadillos you mention. In such a case, the actions you describe would clearly not have interfered with her completing her work satisfactorily. Furthermore, there would also be absolutely no guarantee that anyone they might hire as her replacement would be free of worse, or more harmful, or even criminal, habits. And inevitably, there are costs associated with firing her and hiring her replacement and then training said replacement. (Rinse and repeat if the new hire turns out badly...)

And as for bad press, well...it is hard to imagine how they could have obtained more had they tried. Reasonable persons will tend not to be on their side---a policy of no blogs for employees, period, forsooth!

I hate to bring up the Categorical Imperative, but if all companies followed such a policy, no personal websites could exist except those of retirees, flacks, professional journalists, the self-employed, and persons with large trust funds. None of us desires that kind of straight-jacketed internet, surely. Wherever else would we post loopy pictures of our children and our pets?!?

No, the standard for dismissal must be demonstrable or strongly probable damage to the firm's reputation, I believe. That allows the firm to distinguish between the employee with the hate blog and charming persons such as Catherine. (At least if they stop and think before they act, the idiots---sorry Dixon Wilson, I'm quite vexed with you.)

Yours for satisfying Internet exchanges,

Cellequilit

Hate to say it, but I think snakeman's right here. Having worked for big corporations, it's more about the issues he's described and "uniform enforcement of company policies" than being upset because an employee has a blog.

Having said she's going to the court for redress, I'd say it's time to put informal action on hold.

Hi Snakeman99 and deja pseu and opit !

Amerloque hastens to remind you that the company, Petite Anglaise and the upcoming lawsuit are all in France, where laws governing employer/employee relations are quite different than those in Anglo-Saxon countries. (Actually, quite a few things things in France are different, but this is neither the time nor the place to go into all of that in detail, Amerloque feels.)

For example, the whole issue of what is done by employees on company time and with use of company resources is not the same: making a personal phone call, for example, is not "theft", nor is, as far as Amerloque is aware, surfing on the internet in a "reasonble" manner. Moreover, in France, if the personal phone calls and/or internet and/or blogging is/are not specifically mentioned in the company guidelines that the employee has demonstrably received and acknowledged, the law is on the side of the employee. Period. (smile)

The time allegedly taken off work might not even be taken into consideration by the court, since the original excuse given was "nanny problems", apparently, and French society puts children's welfare right at the top of the "necessities"" list. It can even be argued that the time off was taken "in the interests of the family", which, again, will give PA the advantage.

The Employment Tribunal will now be called upon to rule on this, apparently. Usually the "prud'hommes" (that is the name of the court) side with the employee. In this case it appears to be a British citizen up against a British company, on French soil, under French law. Should be interesting. (grin) unfortunately for PA, it could take years. The court docket is crowded.

What is puzzling toAmerloque is the fact that this is a British company operating in France and that they seem not to be aware of how things are done here. Standards for both corporate and employee conduct are simply not the same. Fortunately. (sigh)

Best,
L'Amerloque

Hi Stu !

/*/
the "unwritten rule" of pulling his cracker before the senior partner and his wife have pulled theirs.
That's funny. Do Americans even understand it?/*/

Now, now … Americans who have spent at least one Christmas in Britain certainly do (smile).

Of course, Wikipedia has a nice entry for those who haven't …

"The Christmas cracker is an integral part of British Christmas celebrations. It consists of a cardboard tube wrapped in a brightly decorated twist of paper (making it resemble an oversized sweet-wrapper). The cracker is pulled by two people, and, much in the manner of a wishbone, the cracker splits unevenly. The split is accompanied by a small bang (produced by the effect of friction on a chemically impregnated card strip). …/…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_cracker

Best,
L'Amerloque

Moreover, in France, if the personal phone calls and/or internet and/or blogging is/are not specifically mentioned in the company guidelines that the employee has demonstrably received and acknowledged, the law is on the side of the employee. Period.

I don't know about UK companies, but every company in the US that I've worked at had all of this mentioned in employee handbooks. Also, one had to sign a statement that they read the employee handbook and understood it (I never read it, but I always signed). If this is the case for her firm and she claims ignorance, she will have a problem having signed a statement saying that she read and understood the rules.

Well, I know less than nothing about French law. However, I don't understand how lying to about "nanny problems" makes the lie somehow less objectionable. I'm pretty sure that lying to your boss to take some personal time is a big universal no-no, regardless of jurisdiction or subject matter.

"Amerloque hastens to remind you"

Amerloque is obviously a total fag.

Hi Snakeman99 !

/*/However, I don't understand how lying to about "nanny problems" makes the lie somehow less objectionable. /*/

Of course it's objectionable, but, with all due respect, that's not the issue. (smile)

In no paticular order …

The issue might be whether the lying is grounds for dismissal in France, in this particular case. One doubts it, given the jurisprudence. (smile); At best, it would be grounds for a written warning with certified receipt (what is called "le premier avis" in the parlance here) It might even be argued that she was seeking "a new father" for her child and that's why she was absent from work …

There might also be a question of representation: in large companies, one can request the presence of a union rep or a staff rep at a "firing interview". If the company were large enough, and if PA hasdn't been not offered the option of being "assisted", it's back to square one, procedurally speaking.

Finally, there might also be the issue of "intent": by keeping a blog, did PA intend to defraud/denigrate the firm. Given the fact that she did it anonymously, intent will be quite difficult to prove.

Amerloque is betting that at the end of the day PA will be awarded damages and – perhaps – be rehired (at least, the company will be forced to rehire her, if she chooses). This is because the employment courts have tended to favor the employee, rather than the employer. Recent cases which made the news, to illustrate:

Three cashiers at the hypermarket use unused discount coupons abandoned by a customer on the counter (total purchaes for all three were less than US$1000). All three sacked by employer. Employment tribunal reinstated them at full salary, with damages. Decision confirmed on appeal.

A MacDonald's employee gives a free hamburger to a homeless person who asked for it. Employee sacked. Tribunal reinstated employee. Confirmed on appeal: "state of necessity".

One should never underestimate the French: as Amerloque said earlier:

In this case it appears to be a British citizen up against a British company, on French soil, under French law. Should be interesting. (grin) unfortunately for PA, it could take years. The court docket is crowded.

This offers the French authorities the ideal, much-needed opportunity to reaffirm that "when in France, do as French law says", at a time when the European Union and"immigration forces" might appear to be "tearing the country apart". In that event, if the political decision is intimated, the company doesn't have a chance. Hopefully its antennae will be out far enough and long enough to detect what is going on so that it can sit down and make a deal with PA before the case is heard.

Best,
L'Amerloque

PS: Why … Hello, Lena ! How're things ? (wide grin)

Hey there, L'Amerloque! Choke on any nice bones lately?

Thanks, L'Amerloque, for posting all of that.

Good site. Thanks:-)
Sooper