January 04, 2005

The "Blogger's Bill of Rights" sounds great, but I will tell you as an employment attorney that it is a load of bullshit that will never fly.

Blog at your own risk or cover your tracks. Those are the only options.

May all attorneys burn in hell. Sorry Steve but in my humble opnion Attorneys, pond scum and whale shit all have the same value.

We should be afraid. Very afraid. The PC police are everywhere and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

On another note, I'd sure like to see some inappropriate photos of Flight attendants in uniform. Anbody got any?

Steve, isn't this a slippery slope? In Rob's case, they found his blog which had NO MENTION of his employer. Rather, it had more to do with what they viewed as "inappropriate" behavior/writing for a supervisor.

So, in that same vein, what happens if a supervisor gets "caught" in a titty bar? It's a public domain, afterall...right? What if he gets a DWI? That's public record too.

Where does one draw the line?

Better idea: If you work for a small company and you like your boss, ask him before you start.

If you work for a small company and hate your boss, or work for a large company which denotes automatic PC bullshit, blog anonymously.

It's worked well enough for me.

the idea of a blogger's "bill of rights" is silly. i'd heard of that delta woman's firing and, while i dont know her well enough to call her a twit, i will say what she did was stupid.

there isnt a blogger alive who needs a blogger's bill of rights. that lady's blog wasnt shut down because of what she wrote....she simply lost her job because of what she wrote. her first amendment rights were protected because she could, and still can, write about anything she wants. she just wont work for delta while she does so.

in your case rob, you're leaving out one very important part of the equation....your ex-wife. chances are you'd still be working at your former company and blogging about whatever you wished including the company itself . chances are noone in your former company woulda even had a clue you were blogging about them. but throwing an ex-wife who is a fellow employee into the mix and then writing a LOT of posts about her, none of them flattering, and what she did at work was bound to attract attention...mainly hers. you were already in the midst of a fire and you GLADLY threw gallons of gasoline on it....

i remember reading some of your posts at the time and thinking "jesus, man, get a clue, you're gonna get fired for this shit, especially if your ex sees it". and guess what, you did get fired. and you brought it down upon yourself. are you going to take a "blogger's bill of rights" into the courtroom and say, "but judge, ive got this blogger's bill of rights that says i can blog all i want about sex, drugs, bloodless cunts and the like and, according to this "bill of rights", there should be no consequences so start letting me see my son PRONTO or...uh...or....uh...or I'm gonna...uh....I'M GONNA CITE THE BLOGGER'S BILL OF RIGHTS!! Take THAT you bastard!!" i'll tell you this much, that would get a laugh, that's for sure....

surfie...to answer your question....the line is drawn by the company in question. they are entitled to determine what is acceptable behavior and what is not. every company is different in what they will accept and i would suggest these kinds of things are taken on a case by case basis. there are basic employment laws governing some of the gray areas however every company in our country can determine acceptable standards of behavior and there isnt much anyone can do about it. rob is, and has been, free to blog about anything he wants...he just wont do so as an employee of kerr-mcgee.

i work for a living and i blog in my spare time. i can tell you this....i never have and will never have a sleepless night worrying about losing my job because of my blog. blogger's bill of rights? i dont need no stinkin blogger's bill of rights....

There are really two issues here. Blogging from work, and blogging about work. As far as blogging from work goes, most employers have some sort of electronic/PC use provision in an employee handbook. Most are broad enough that one could be terminated (or disciplined) for using employer owned PCs - or internet connections - for blogging.

As far as blogging about work. That is another matter. As long as you aren't using their equipment or infrastructure, it would seem to be hard to discipline you for speaking your mind. Especially hard if you don't specifically mention your employer.

Okay, how's about this one....Sarcastic Journalist at shenuts.com (previously sarcasticjournalist.com).

She blogged anonymously only going by SJ and would not even mention what state she lived in. She only mentioned that she worked at a newspaper somewhere in the U.S.

She did poke fun at people she worked with but gave them nicknames (smelly man..goat boy - not the actual names, but you get the idea).

Another employee found her blog somehow and reported her to the newspaper. They fired her right there on the spot. To add insult to injury, she was 7 months pregnant, lost her health insurance, and was denied any unemployment due to "employee misconduct."

I mean, if a person is going to blog anonymously on his or her own time, make comments about friends, family and co-workers amongst other things, and STILL gets fired...something is WRONG.

Sure, ask the employer, "May I blog from home?" How about, "Is it okay if I take a shit at home before I get to work?"

What the fuck? Where does it end?

Of course, all of this is coming from a person who used company email (inadvertently copied to my supervisor..YIKES) to say, "I hate this fucking place," and was promptly fired.

It was my fault, of course, totally, but it's still funny.

Agreed, the Bill Of Rights are limitations on government powers. Here is a scenario: You throw a party at your house on the weekend, you tell an off-color joke. On Monday your boss calls you in, he/she has heard about the off colored joke and they fire you. They have the right to do that. They are private enterprise, not government.

Just because they have the right doesn't make it right. What I do on MY time with MY shit should be of no concern to the company I work for. I don't GIVE A FUCK what anyone says.

Now, the airline chick; if she was fired because of the pics than tough shit. She was on company time, wearing a company uniform, lollygagging on a company plane etc . . . Duh.

Nah, what's bullshit, for me, are the people getting shit-canned while blogging or saying shit not related to the company they work for. They get fired simply because some pencil pushing fuckstick in personel didn't like it or it wasn't PC.

I believe a company should be able to fire a worker for ANY reason said company deems fit.

So, you care more for corporate rights than personal rights.

Niice.

That's about the dumbest damn thing I've ever heard. The notion that a company has any business in what we do at home or anywhere else that has nothing to do with, or no bearing on the company is absured.

If what an employee does effects the company in a negative way then yeah, but for reason??

Sheeeeit...

I've been reading you a long time Acidman and I have a question. Looking back, could you, or would you, of done it any other way?

Do you have regrets? What would you of handled differently?

there isnt a blogger alive who needs a blogger's bill of rights.

Er, technically, there isn't a human being alive who needs any kind of "bill of rights." If he takes the right precautions, keeps his head down and doesn't make waves, he can keep his miserable life, his laughable "liberty," and what bits and pieces of worthless personal property (read, "the clothes on his back") as long as The State decides he wants them.

Or until The State decides it wants them. But when it's The State deciding, aren't they pretty much the same thing?

You know, Rob, I think RIGHTISRIGHT has a good point.

If we want every person (read black, mexican, white, poor, rich, woman) to have employment rights based on worthiness, then the Blogger Bill of Rights stands no chance.

It's one or the other, and you can't pick and choose. Either you support the EEOC or you don't, and this includes bloggers.

Are you willing to give the guv'ment this power?

well, mcghee, i suppose if you want to immediately jump to the extreme, there is some validity to your point.

unfortunately, none of us are anywhere NEAR the extreme, least of all rob and the delta lady. and we arent on a slippery slope either. the use of common sense is not the equivalent of "keeping one's head low" and the spectre of the "state" determining our every move and/or thought is not justification for bad behavior.

Mr. Helpful, you're the one who brought "need" into it. I was merely pointing out where basing the discussion on "need" would take us.

...we arent on a slippery slope either.

Not yet.

This is a great idea, Acidman. Should these laws be passed and enforced by the state or federal gubmints, or both, for good measure? And let's not forget the important role labor unions can play in enforcing our right to blog whatever we please and while remaining in the employ of Corporation X.

Power to the people!

Hardly a conservative idea. If I own a company, I'm within my rights (though not within the law) to fire any person for any cause. It's MY company. I hired YOU. I can FIRE you. If not, then it's not really my company, now is it?

So much for liberty, freedom, etc.

Now hang on a minute.

The Bill of Rights (the original) are a set of DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE rights. That is, they lay out the rights that everybody inherently possesses, rights that many of the framers felt were so obvious they didn't even need to be stated. They are restrictive clauses in that they specify which rights the government can't interfere with, no matter what.

Never mind today's reality for the moment - Declaratory and restrictive were the original intentions, and the paragraphs prededing the BoR make that very clear.

The primary purpose of government is to block one individual from infringing on another individual's rights,

A company cannot rightfully tell me what to do in my own time and on my own dollar, unless those actions directly affect the company. If my blogging is going to be under the dictums of my company, than that company had damn well better pay me for my blogging time and expenses.

This is a problem with the law, but not in a way that anyone's mentioned yet.

Thanks to various employment laws, including but not limited to sexual harassment law, an employer can be sued for all sorts of things that their employees might do or say - even though, Constitutionally, they have every right to do or say them. This makes them more likely to respond to any situation that any of their other employees might take exception to - such as an employee shooting off his mouth in public about, really, anythiing at all controversial - by firing the employee and demonstrating to a potential future jury that they took the "offense" seriously and took action to prevent a "hostile work environment" from being created.

Yes, it seems far-fetched in some of these cases - but then so do some of the successful lawsuits.

Clear out that bullshit, and employers will go back to having no reason on Earth to care what you do in your off-hours (as long as you don't give away secrets or badmouth the company or coworkers, etc., etc....)

Thanks for your support, Gutrumbles! We bloggers have to stick TOGETHER!!!

-Q of S