An interesting post regarding the attitude of a company called Cardone towards privacy is here. If you have time, why not take a look and make up your own mind?
Legally, they *might* have had a case against an employee with full employment rights, unlike the poster.
I disagree with your view of a reasonable employer though. It is clear from the tone of the OP that no malice is intended. Reading it alone, I form no negative opinion of Cardone. Indeed, I am much more likely to object to the poster's characterisation of religious people. All they had to do was have a word and give him the opportunity to alter the post. He had not stolen from them, assaulted anyone, been incompetent in his job, been insubordinate, abusive or dishonest, or revealed commercially sensitive information. There was, IMHO, no fundamental breach of trust.
Commercially, it is a different matter. It is entirely fair to publicise the degree of searching that the poster has been informed occurs via the internet. We, potential customers of this company, can then make our minds up whether we believe the poster, and how we feel about what has been said. Yes, employment is a power relationship. Customers have power too, though, and a wise employer remembers that. If any major companies are still in doubt that sometimes the smartest thing to do is nothing at all, I refer them to McDonald's prosecution of the London Friends of the Earth.
I don't argue that there's no breach of trust, but he has stated, crudely and in public, that he is in fundamental opposition to one of the principles that the company operates by - indeed the one that they list first and seem to hold most dear - and holds in open contempt the belief system that gave rise to that principle.
The fact that that principle refers to someone who doesn't exist and is couched in terms of one particular monotheistic belief system is neither here nor there.
As an aside, I'm highly amused at the Guardian-reader reaction to this. Had it been an company run on Islamic lines, and had a blogger working there had said in public "Hey, that Allah! My employers tell me to honour him but stuff 'em, they're just Mohammed-freaks!" the blogger would no doubt still be reeling from the condemnation. ;)
The original post did not state fundamental opposition. That would have been along the lines of "what a shame that I now work for a company that values the very faith that I seek to destroy and undermine at every opportunity with a range of destructive acts". Simple disagreement, even if not particularly politely stated, does not qualify, and neither do I consider it contempt.
In what way does what he said in the original post impair the company's ability to do business or negatively influence their customers in any way? Plenty of people who do not believe that performance-related pay works and said so have played a perfectly diligent part in implementing them, for better or worse. Had he said to customers "this company is Christian and I think that is rubbish but hey, it's a job", again that would be different. Yes, blogs are public. Blogs are also actively looked for, or not. No-one is forcing anyone to search for his blog, or to read it.
I disagree with your view of a reasonable employer though. It is clear from the tone of the OP that no malice is intended. Reading it alone, I form no negative opinion of Cardone. Indeed, I am much more likely to object to the poster's characterisation of religious people. All they had to do was have a word and give him the opportunity to alter the post. He had not stolen from them, assaulted anyone, been incompetent in his job, been insubordinate, abusive or dishonest, or revealed commercially sensitive information. There was, IMHO, no fundamental breach of trust.
Commercially, it is a different matter. It is entirely fair to publicise the degree of searching that the poster has been informed occurs via the internet. We, potential customers of this company, can then make our minds up whether we believe the poster, and how we feel about what has been said. Yes, employment is a power relationship. Customers have power too, though, and a wise employer remembers that. If any major companies are still in doubt that sometimes the smartest thing to do is nothing at all, I refer them to McDonald's prosecution of the London Friends of the Earth.
Reply
The fact that that principle refers to someone who doesn't exist and is couched in terms of one particular monotheistic belief system is neither here nor there.
As an aside, I'm highly amused at the Guardian-reader reaction to this. Had it been an company run on Islamic lines, and had a blogger working there had said in public "Hey, that Allah! My employers tell me to honour him but stuff 'em, they're just Mohammed-freaks!" the blogger would no doubt still be reeling from the condemnation. ;)
Reply
The original post did not state fundamental opposition. That would have been along the lines of "what a shame that I now work for a company that values the very faith that I seek to destroy and undermine at every opportunity with a range of destructive acts". Simple disagreement, even if not particularly politely stated, does not qualify, and neither do I consider it contempt.
In what way does what he said in the original post impair the company's ability to do business or negatively influence their customers in any way? Plenty of people who do not believe that performance-related pay works and said so have played a perfectly diligent part in implementing them, for better or worse. Had he said to customers "this company is Christian and I think that is rubbish but hey, it's a job", again that would be different. Yes, blogs are public. Blogs are also actively looked for, or not. No-one is forcing anyone to search for his blog, or to read it.
Reply
Leave a comment