Never the twain shall meet

January 12, 2005 1:31 AM

Another working blogger bites the dust - "This was moaning about not getting your birthday off or not getting on with your boss. I wasn't libelling anyone or giving away trade secrets."

The company he worked for, Waterstones, saw differently. More on the subject here.
posted by triv (56 comments total)

Dooced!
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:45 AM on January 12, 2005

On the stupid scale of 1 to 10, Waterstones ranks fairly high, if for no other reason than the "disrepute" they will ironically suffer under for firing someone for what could only be marginal disrepute. You have to wonder if it wasn't his Evil Boss taking personal offense and breaking his sandaled foot off in the guy's ass. Maybe he'll end up getting fired for all the bad pub they're sure to get.

I think if I worked there, I'd start blogging all sorts of shit about the company just so I could get in the paper with this guy. Soon only the criminals will have blogs!
posted by The God Complex at 2:17 AM on January 12, 2005

This is absolutely outrageous, I urge everyone, and their mates, to boycott Waterstones.
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:26 AM on January 12, 2005

It did seem marginal, yes. At first I was of the opinion that it was a no brainer - blog about work and accept the repercussions. Then, after reading the details, it seemed a little harsh.

I'd still stand by the blog at work, prepare for the axe - part of the reason I stopped blogging.
posted by triv at 2:30 AM on January 12, 2005

I wonder if there have been any blogs in an attempt of faking the whole wonder and warm fuzziness of good-things-said-about-you-when-they-don't-think-you-are-listening... I'm sure there is a term for it.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:32 AM on January 12, 2005

From TheRegister article about it...

While most of the material he covers does not involve his work, he does occasionally mention his time at Waterstone's. As he puts it: "Like many folk I am not always happy at work...and coin terms such as 'Bastardstone's' and have a character called 'Evil Boss' (my equivalent to Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss - in fact I compared head office directives to being in a Dilbert cartoon)."

"Bastardstones"? "Evil Boss"? Not the most intelligent thing to do. It might not be libelling anyone, but it's certainly showing your employer in an ill light. I thought people were brighter than that now...

Sympathy = 0.
posted by twine42 at 3:49 AM on January 12, 2005

Whilst Gordon was undoubtably naive about blogging about his job my sympathy = 6 (at least). This could have been solved in a much more sensible way. I think Waterstone's have really shot themselves in the foot with this.

I also think it's worth noting that many of the authors who produce the books Waterstone's sells and who have done events in that store are backing Gordon: Richard Morgan, Neil Gaimen, Charlie Stross, Ken MacLeod.
posted by ninebelow at 4:27 AM on January 12, 2005

Sympathy = 10.

Bleedinell, if you can't even express an honest opinion about your place of work, the world really is a much more frightening place than I had previously thought.

I wonder how many people read this blog beforehand, very few probably, so I don't see how it can have had an adverse affect on Waterstones.

Now, however......
posted by Fat Buddha at 4:38 AM on January 12, 2005

Dissent will not be tolerated! Happy workers are productive workers!

(How about we don't spend any money at Waterstones for a day? Not one dime.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:18 AM on January 12, 2005

I know Joe.

Joe's 'blog' dates back to 1993 as an email digest for his mates -- it only went on the web some time later. It predates his employment at Waterstones' by a couple of years.

Joe was an employee of 11 years' good standing. To say he was an enthusiastic and effective bookseller is an understatement; last time I had lunch with Tim Holman (senior editor at Orbit in London), we were discussing things I could do to promote my books effectively, and he brought Joe up by name as one of the most influential people in the book trade -- not because he was a marketing executive, but because if he got enthusiastic about a title he'd write about it in Waterstones' in-house magazine and get other people interested. As word of mouth is about the most important marketing tool to a midlist author with a publicity budget approximating zero, the importance of people like Joe to keeping the whole field going cannot be over-emphasized.

Waterstones' was acquired by another company (HMV) relatively recently and has been undergoing management changes. Many of the blog entries that were dredged up at his hearing predate the current management and therefore cannot reasonably be construed as speaking ill of them.

HMV is a very centralized, arguably over-controlled retail chain. They don't like unpredictable enthusiasts. The new manager at Joe's branch decided Joe was a liability. I suspect the weblog was discovered on a fishing expedition and used as an excuse to sack him.

And if you can't imagine the significance of managers going fishing in google for excuses to sack experienced staff, you shouldn't be posting on metafilter.
posted by cstross at 5:23 AM on January 12, 2005

I think cstross has it.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:20 AM on January 12, 2005

Waterstone shut down a branch I worked for in Kingston. I was only temping so I didn't really mind. But they did treat some employees who had been there for years in a very shabby manner.

This doesn't suprise me.They have a history of this kind of this. I'm boycotting them!
posted by laukf at 6:27 AM on January 12, 2005

Ridiculous, and a dangerous trend.
posted by xammerboy at 6:41 AM on January 12, 2005

He even offered to stop talking about work life completely, but they regected his offer. If he's unionised (he was) and there wasn't anything in the policy rearding offtime use of the internet... I don't see how they can just can him without a warning or something. (But then, I'm often astounded at what employers can do.)
posted by raedyn at 6:42 AM on January 12, 2005

If indeed the store has been acquired by the commergarchy HMV, then the potential exists to make an even bigger "righteous indignation" splash by letting them know how you feel.

To me the issue is cut-and-dried -- it's freedom of speech. The irony of a store, which ran a "power of books" campaign featuring Adolf Hitler, sacking a blogger for satirically characterizing a manager and using a perjorative nickname for the store would be laughable if if didn't speak to the larger concern about shotgunning the free speakers simply because you don't like what they say. (Out of curiosity, can one purchase the most recent edition / translation of "Mein Kampf" at Blackstone's? If so, it seems to me there's greater offence in continuing to circulate those words than in anything this blogger had to say.)
posted by Mike D at 6:55 AM on January 12, 2005

Waterstone, not Blackstone. Sorry.
posted by Mike D at 6:56 AM on January 12, 2005

As he worked there for more than 2 years, I'm certain that UK law doesn't allow them to sack him straight off (they could issue written warnings and the like, but not "you're fired, get out") - I expect they just hope he's not willing to take them to a tribunal.
posted by flameproof at 7:12 AM on January 12, 2005

Having been fired for essentially the same thing, I've got total sympathy for the guy. Hell, I knew that just mentioning the name of the place would put me in hot water so all my readers knew was that I worked at a bank, and I was still fired for ranting about the customer stupidity I dealt with. Apparently, giant evil empire banks consider making fun of someone who sent a $15,000 payment to their electric company on the same level as posting names, birthdays, and debit card numbers.
posted by chickygrrl at 7:19 AM on January 12, 2005

I believe under UK law permanent employees with more than 2 years' standing can be sacked straight off -- but to make it stick requires "gross misconduct", which IIRC usually involves the commission of a criminal act against the employer (e.g. the summary firing of airline pilots who're arrested for being drunk in the cockpit, or shop managers who're found lifting stock or embezzling). Otherwise they can sue for wrongful dismissal.

Firing someone for perfectly legal actions outside the workplace on the grounds that they might bring the employer into disrepute probably won't, in my opinion, strike an industrial tribunal as being an appropriate response.
posted by cstross at 7:19 AM on January 12, 2005

Mike D: To me the issue is cut-and-dried -- it's freedom of speech.

No, it isn't.

Maybe the company is stupid for firing him. Maybe they just fired a capable employee and will lose real money for firing him and alienating a few people, so that from an economic perspective it was perhaps wrong to fire him.

... but they do have the right to fire him, just like he has the right to express his opinions.

Nobody has tried to shut him up. He sure has the right to talk about his job. It's not like there's someone about to lock him up or call the police because of what he said.

So when you say "freedom of speech issue", I think what you are really trying to say is that the company doesn't have the right to fire him (with which I disagree). Care to back that position up? Why *don't* they have the right to fire him?

I guess there might be an issue whether he can be fired right away, or whether the company needs to send out warning letters, has to give a month notice or something like that. But that doesn't change the fact that they are allowed to fire him, and I didn't see any of this addressed on the site, so this doesn't appear to be the issue.
posted by sour cream at 7:26 AM on January 12, 2005

sour cream, any employer has the right to sack a person, but there has to be a good and legitimate reason. Surely you don't think that expressing an honestly felt opinion is reason enough for a person to lose his livelihood?
posted by Fat Buddha at 7:38 AM on January 12, 2005

The whole British book industry is thrashing around in a hopeless drowning state. Its antics would embarrass even the RIAA.

Waterstones' dumping of Joe is fairly typical of what's going on. HarperCollins UK has recently got rid of their most experienced and similarly publishing-savvy non-fiction editor, Eddie Moore. I suspect his crime was actually knowing what he was talking about. Bring back the Net Book Agreement, I say!

I see the story has made the BBC and The Guardian. Way to go, Waterstones!
posted by scruss at 7:41 AM on January 12, 2005

Fat Buddha: ...there has to be a good and legitimate reason.

Ah yes, a reason.

How about firing him for characterizing (in public and in writing, no less) the company as a generally unpleasant place to work? Or calling his boss "evil"?

Surely, this must be against one or two company rules (I think most companies have one regarding not besmirching the name of the company or upkeeping the company's honor, only phrased in a less ridiculous way).

And before someone likens this to pub talk: Yes, I do think it would have been OK (i.e. not have given a good reason to fire him) if he had made those statements in a pub or in private. But writing them down and publishing them on his blog is the equivalent of putting an ad in a regional newspaper or printing flyers and stuffing them in all mailboxes in the neighborhood. The main difference here is that pub talk addresses only a limited number of people (say, up to 5 or 7), whereas publishing the material in a blog reaches a potentially unlimited number of people. Including the pointy-haired boss. And his mother. And her friends.

So to all those who think that this is a free speech issue: Would you also think it's OK (i.e. no reason for dismissal), if he had published the same material in a printed newspaper or magazine instead of his blog?
posted by sour cream at 8:02 AM on January 12, 2005

sour cream and Fat Buddha are wrong. This case is being conducted under British employment law, not US law. There are legally mandated procedures to go through before you fire someone, and if you don't go through them correctly the employee can sue you and pick up fairly substantial damages. (Note that this only applies to employees of more than two years full time standing and with a previously good track record. But Joe is in that category.)

In this case, I think the fact that Joe offered to remove the offending items and his offer was ignored will weigh against the employers quite significantly.

scruss is pretty much on-target. British book publishing is bleeding right now from the final collapse of the NBA, which has stampeded a bunch of booksellers into cut-throat competition -- lots of "three for the price of two" sales going on all year round -- while screwing both the retail and publisher's profit margins (the retailers are losing money out of fear of losing market share and the publishers are losing money because this stupid price war has devastated the midlist). This is substantially the reason why only half my books have been sold in the UK, where I live ...
posted by cstross at 8:03 AM on January 12, 2005

Sandal wearing boss:1 Nerd:0... Thanks for playing
posted by TetrisKid at 8:05 AM on January 12, 2005

My initial reaction is to say that it's BS and they "have no right" to fire him.

But then I put myself in the boss's shoes. Even if he/she IS "evil"...

Would you keep an employee on your team once you started reading / hearing about how much that employee despises you? It's not pleasant, productive or valuable to have employees who hate you, no matter how good they are it's just not good for the office environment, morale, etc...

I think that personal conflict and "things just do not work between us" is a perfectly valid reason to remove someone from your team.

I talk about work online to an extent, but I make a point to be vague and to make note that I respect my bosses (which I honestly do, but I do get annoyed with them on occasion - who doesn't get annoyed with EVERYONE on occasion though?)...

Do I think it's the best option to fire him? No. Talking to him, maybe moving him to a new team under a new manager, etc, would be a better move.. and it's certainly going to get this company bad press... but really, I don't see why people say they have no right to fire him. You can fire someone for basically any reason you want aside from gender/race/sexual orientation, and I don't think there's a law against it... well, at least not in the US.. he's in the UK .. I don't know about the laws there...
posted by twiggy at 8:29 AM on January 12, 2005

It's highly unreasonable to expect that no matter how well intentioned your snarks, they will be taken in jest by the thousands/millions of readers who visit your blog.

It's easy to rant & rave about celebs, bad music groups., etc.. because the chance of your crossing paths with them is nil but writing about people you know and interact with every day?
Pretty damn slippery slope there. Personally, I have not one bit of empathy for someone who risks their livelyhood by pissing where they eat.

When Dooce was canned, she called her former employer "Pussy-Assed-Cocksmacks". That was the only good that came out of the situation; a new catch phrase.

/Captain Obvious
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:06 AM on January 12, 2005

I'm definitely boycotting.

Also, don't know if it's the right address, but:

[e-mail]
posted by eatcherry at 9:14 AM on January 12, 2005

Erm.. this is the United Kingdom. We have no right to Free Speech other than at Speakers' Corner.
posted by twine42 at 9:19 AM on January 12, 2005

Metafilter: Kiss My Magnificent Celtic Ass.
posted by stonerose at 9:48 AM on January 12, 2005

Law and ethics aside, sometimes our words have consequences. I think my recommended guidelines concerning email apply to blogs:

Don't hit send/publish if you wouldn't want to read it aloud to your mom, your boss, and a judge.

Oh, and don't blog/email while drunk.
posted by ilsa at 10:07 AM on January 12, 2005

Metafilter: you wouldn't want to read it aloud to your mom, your boss, and a judge.
posted by bitmage at 11:09 AM on January 12, 2005

twine42: wrong, we have an explicit right to free speech under the Human Rights Act (1998), which basically implemented the European Declaration of Human Rights (in turn, a variation on the UN Declaration of HR) in English and Scottish law.
posted by cstross at 11:15 AM on January 12, 2005

To sourcream:

Re: "Mike D: To me the issue is cut-and-dried -- it's freedom of speech.

No, it isn't."

Note: "To me..."

Yes it is.
posted by Mike D at 11:36 AM on January 12, 2005

Don't hit send/publish if you wouldn't want to read it aloud to your mom, your boss, and a judge.

Oh, and don't blog/email while drunk.

That nailed it. Sorry, no sympathy here. This is no different than standing by the watercooler and saying exactly the same thing. Some of us have had to find out the hard way (me included, though it didn't cost me my job) that if you're going to talk about your work, unless in the most praising light, then don't do so in a forum that can be traced back to who you are.

Calling this a freedom of speech issue is about as disengenuous as possible. If I were to go up to my boss and say anything along those lines, I'd be canned. Sure, I'm free to say it, and I'm free to be fired.

And believe me: I'm usually pretty damned disgruntled myself, and will bitch from time to time, but there's a time, a place, and a forum for everything.
posted by adampsyche at 12:21 PM on January 12, 2005

there's a time, a place, and a forum for everything.

Where is this mythical place where freedom of expression is allowed?
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:50 PM on January 12, 2005

The “free speech” argument I’m trying to make is not an all-or-nothing point.

To me, the punishment far outweighs the crime. Here in the Great White North, we have a rather notorious Member of Parliament, Carolyn Parrish, who was finally tossed from the Liberal caucus after saying in public she didn’t support the government. Along the way, she publicly called Americans “bastards” and appeared in a national satirical TV show crushing a George Bush action figure under her boot heel. In both those cases, the Government of Canada argued she was expressing personal opinion, and emphasized it wasn’t Government of Canada policy. But they didn’t sack her. She was only shit-canned when she publicly severed herself in toto from the policies of the party under whose banner she was elected.

Makes sense to me.

This guy has only been blogging personal opinions about what he thinks of certain aspects of his job – tasks and interpersonal relationships, not corporate policy. He’s not leaking damaging information to competitors; neither is he trying to persuade the public not to shop there; neither is he saying their product is crap. I don’t see “damage to the corporation” in any of his commentary. In fact, I get the impression that, aside from the occasional rump about having to work longer than desired hours (in retail before Christmas, imagine that), he pretty much enjoys his job.

His blog was sought out by his employer for reasons only his employer knows. His firing, based on what I’ve read about his case so far, does not appear to have been in response to any wave of public complaints.

(*Rewind rewind rewind* *PLAY*) I still think it’s a freedom of speech issue.
posted by Mike D at 12:53 PM on January 12, 2005

The state isn't persecuting him, is it? Do companies have to have a freedom of expression policy? I'll check my corporate handbook. Whether it was above and beyond is another story.

He expressed a shitty attitude. Whether it was spoken or written, he did so, and they decided to fire him. Do I think it a little heavy handed? Sure, but it's well within that company's rights to fire him and claim insubordination. Do I think that this is the way it should be? Absolutely not, but this is the world that we live in. And if they wanted to fire him for expressing his shitty attitude, they can do so.

That is why it's not a freedom of speech issue, and that's why I lack sympathy. This has been discussed before, so take your rewinding to those threads.
posted by adampsyche at 1:08 PM on January 12, 2005

What you do is you wait until you're no longer there, and then stab them in the back with exquisite detail.

The larger point is better put in comments here, but basically, freedom of speech isn't just a constitutional amendment, but a larger social issue, and how much of that are you going to cede to your mom, boss, and judge? It is entirely possible to have a society where the government cannot impose on a citizen's speech but all sorts of other entities the citizen interacts with more regularly impinge upon her such that, in any functional sense, she is not free to speak much.

The problem really is that speech on the internet is public to wildly varying degrees. Publishing derogatory comments on your blog is not automatically equivalent to posting flyers all over the neighborhood - but it can be, real quick. It's not as though floods of people were checking on ea_spouse's livejournal until the famous post exploded all over the internet.

I am sympathetic, but if the blogger's complaints had blown up all over the internet beforehand maybe I wouldn't be. I am not sympathetic to employers ferreting out negative comments about them on the internet preemptively. But I don't think it's wise to slag your boss in your blog either, because it could always blow up, and I'm aware that "blowing up" is really a fuzzy concept when it comes to the internet.
posted by furiousthought at 1:18 PM on January 12, 2005

"...it's well within that company's rights to fire him and claim insubordination."

No. Not in the UK.

"...this is the world that we live in."

The world != the USA.

"...if they wanted to fire him for expressing his shitty attitude, they can do so."

No. They can't. Not in the UK..
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:19 PM on January 12, 2005

He expressed a shitty attitude. Whether it was spoken or written, he did so, and they decided to fire him. Do I think it a little heavy handed? Sure, but it's well within that company's rights to fire him and claim insubordination. Do I think that this is the way it should be? Absolutely not, but this is the world that we live in. And if they wanted to fire him for expressing his shitty attitude, they can do so.

As has been mentioned, the laws are different in areas of the world that aren't completely ruled by corporate interests. This may in fact be a violation of labour laws in England. We'll have to see if it comes to that.
posted by The God Complex at 1:19 PM on January 12, 2005

not on preview: that which thatwhichfalls said.
posted by The God Complex at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2005

Ok. Fine. They can do what they can do within the law. I know that this was in the UK, and I wasn't familiar with their laws. If it was an illegal firing, then that's one thing.
posted by adampsyche at 1:25 PM on January 12, 2005

Just a question.

Amazon run Waterstones' online selling activities.

How far should a boycott go?
posted by feelinglistless at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2005

I'm a big fat Tory type. I'm no great fan of trade unions nor of half the employment law employers are burdened with in the UK. However, even I think this is utterly ridiculous.

When I first read the story in The Register, I thought, fair enough, bad luck but that's what you get for slagging of your employer. However, when I read the comments in question, which are hardly even offensive and I strongly doubt read by more than a couple of hundred people, and when I read about what an obviously competent and enthusiastic member of staff this guy was, I really got pissed off.

This isn't really a freedom of speech issue - its an issue of not treating your employees in a pointlessly vindictive manner. If this had been a flagrant abuse I could perhaps be persuaded of the rationale for terminating, however it was clearly so minor in nature that any sane employer would have resolved the issue informally, with a quiet word, not by a sacking.

You can disagree about whether Waterstones was legally right to sack the chap in question, or whether it is a freedom of speech issue, or whatever. But I can't see how anyone can dispute that sacking was a disproportionate, unjustified and irrational response to the perceived wrongdoing.

Will be joining boycott of Waterstones and HMV, even though I hate that sort of thing...
posted by prentiz at 3:58 PM on January 12, 2005

prentiz: But I can't see how anyone can dispute that sacking was a disproportionate, unjustified and irrational response to the perceived wrongdoing.

But nobody is disputing that the sacking was disproportionate, unjustified and irrational (maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; I don't think we have enough information to make that call, since we don't know what else was going on there).
But here's the rub, you see: The company has the right to this disproportionate, unjustified and irrational (from Joe's persective) response, just like Joe has the right to write disproportionate, unjustified and irrational things (from the company's perspective) on his blog.
posted by sour cream at 4:38 PM on January 12, 2005

But here's the rub, you see: The company has the right to this disproportionate, unjustified and irrational (from Joe's persective) response, just like Joe has the right to write disproportionate, unjustified and irrational things (from the company's perspective) on his blog.

No, they likely don't, not in most western nations outside the United States. What are you missing here?
posted by The God Complex at 5:51 PM on January 12, 2005

No, they likely don't, not in most western nations outside the United States. What are you missing here?

You tell me -- what am I missing?
Sure they can sack him. And it will in all likelihood even be possible to back that up by justifying it as a violation of some company rule, which I'm sure they have, being the big company that they are. He takes them to court -- they cite the company rules he violated -- case dismissed.

As I said before, there might be an issue regarding the manner in which they sacked him, e.g. the fact that they didn't give sufficient notice. But that is a minor detail, since all the outrage is directed at the fact that he was canned, and not at the fact that they didn't give him sufficient notice.


One more thing: Sure he comes across as a model employee if you read his blog and the reactions he posted there. But that's just one side of the story, so we don't really know who he was and what his attitude towards his job are. Maybe he really was a model employee. Or maybe he was a cynical bastard who was rude to the customers and that was the real reason why he was sacked. In other words, maybe the blog thing was just a pretext because that gave them a reason strong enough to stand up in court. There's really no way of knowing what was going on there without being closer to the whole thing.
posted by sour cream at 6:22 PM on January 12, 2005

sour cream, in the UK there is such a thing as employment law, which is designed to prevent unjustified sackings. Employers do not have the right to just sack somebody, as is illustrated by the case of the monks.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:27 AM on January 13, 2005

sour cream, as I said earlier, I know Joe personally -- as a customer.

Far from being a cynical bastard who was rude to customers, he was a paragon of enthusiasm, who would go out of his way to find out what customers were interested in and recommend new books that they'd enjoy. Enthusiasm is infectious, in retail: he made going into that shop a particularly hazardous experience for my wallet. If I owned a bookshop in Edinburgh with an SF/fantasy section, I'd be going out of my way to offer him a job, despite knowing that he sometimes vents about his employer in his blog.

(And I speak as someone who managed shops -- albeit not bookshops -- for a couple of years, at one point.)
posted by cstross at 5:49 AM on January 13, 2005

Ok, riddle me this: the weblog part of this is pretty inconsequential, it's just a form of communication. If he had communicated these things in any other way, would it still be an unjustified firing? As in, say, an email that was forwarded, or to a cow orker who repeated it? Why is it being on a weblog such a big deal?
posted by adampsyche at 5:58 AM on January 13, 2005

an email from his work account would certainly have been justified, but on his own time on his own blog isn't. He didn't hurt the company at all--i think divulging co. secrets or damaging the company's profit-making ability would have made for a better case for firing, but even then they'd have to show proof i think. It depends on what kind of thing he signed when he started working for them.
posted by amberglow at 6:05 AM on January 13, 2005

adampsyche: Being on a weblog makes it a big deal, because this way the information is potentially available to an unlimited number of people. Emailing it to a couple of friends is akin to a private conversation, but a weblog is more like a newspaper or broadcasting it by radio.

The fact that his weblog is (or, rather, was) read only by a comparatively small number of people is immaterial. Arguing that the damage was limited due to the limited number of people that read it is a bit like arguing "Oh, he stole only 10 quid from the cash register -- that's not a big deal; the company can take that."
He could try to argue that calling his superiors "evil" or calling his employers "bastards" was no breach of trust and completely congruous with company policy and therefore no reason for dismissal, but he should probably get a good lawyer for that.

amberglow: He didn't hurt the company at all.

I wonder if the evil boss would agree with that. I also think that it doesn't matter either way, because damage to the company is not necessarily the issue.

cstross: It's good to hear that he's a decent guy and capable to boot. I hope he finds a new job soon.
posted by sour cream at 7:45 AM on January 13, 2005

Emailing it to a couple of friends is akin to a private conversation,

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahhhhaaa!

...seriously...stop...can't take it...
posted by adampsyche at 8:00 AM on January 13, 2005

If it's potentially available to millions of people, then maybe he should have done what I and others have learned to do, keep the blog anonymous and don't tell your cow orkers or boss about it. Unless you want them potentially reading it.

Blogging is just communication. With a different scope, but communication nonetheless.
posted by adampsyche at 8:07 AM on January 13, 2005

follow up (and if that's deleted as being too boring - he got a new job).
posted by andrew cooke at 5:14 PM on February 6, 2005