Monday, July 27, 2009
Books Borders Against Blogging
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Used Book Blog reports that Borders is striking a blow for free speech*:
Borders employees are claiming that they are being pressured into signing a non-blogging contract that essentially puts a gag on any writing about new policies and procedures implemented by the distressed book chain. Here’s what one employee said.Borders is now trying to get the employees to sign a non-blogging contract, and several employees have been fired or put on probation for writing and producing videos in response to the “make books” controversy.
The post goes on to explain why blogs (and Twitter) and booksellers are a match made in heaven. You should read the whole thing.
And if any Borders employee has a copy of this non-blogging contract, I'd love it if you would e-mail me a copy.
*Sometimes I wish there was HTML for sarcasm.
Share via
2
*Sometimes I wish there was HTML for sarcasm.
That's funny - I was just thinking of writing a post on another blog this morning using <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.. Forgot about actually doing it till I saw this post, though..
That's funny - I was just thinking of writing a post on another blog this morning using <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.. Forgot about actually doing it till I saw this post, though..
3
Constant, you seem like exactly the kind of virginal livejournal nerd who would type "< / sarcasm>" after an oh-so-clever little witticism. Don't shy away from it; embrace that awful attempt at humor.
4
I don't think badmouthing or spilling the beans on the inner workings of your employer is technically protected under "free speech" rights.
The government can't control your right to express yourself in words, but your employer certainly can. Blogging about your dissatisfaction is just another passive-aggressive way of feeling like you're making a difference, just like this slog post I'm making now ... oh the irony.
That said, it sucks to be stuck in a job you don't like, or with a company you don't like, and not have an outlet for your ideas that won't get you fired or put on an "improvement plan".
The government can't control your right to express yourself in words, but your employer certainly can. Blogging about your dissatisfaction is just another passive-aggressive way of feeling like you're making a difference, just like this slog post I'm making now ... oh the irony.
That said, it sucks to be stuck in a job you don't like, or with a company you don't like, and not have an outlet for your ideas that won't get you fired or put on an "improvement plan".
5
Hmm, seems like it's time for me to chat up some of my Borders contacts. If I get anything I'll be sure to pass it on to you Paul.
6
At a previous employer, we used the Yahoo message board about our company in the finance section for company gossip.
7
I hate companies that try to gag their employees. I have been fired for those opinions before, heh.
9
I used to be a an HR person (lame!) and this is how corporate communications always seemed to work:
CEO: We don't want our trade secrets/secret ingredient leaking to competitors, so make sure every employee signs an NDA.
HR: Okay.
Later...
HR: Employees are complaining about our benefits/employment practices/other shitty thing online. It's making it hard for us to hire people. Can we improve/change some of this stuff?
CEO: Can't we use the NDA to fire these people?
LAWYER: No. The NDA doesn't cover this stuff. You need a "No Blogging" policy if you want to fire people over it.
CEO (to HR): Do it. Then find out who's in violation and write them up.
HR: Really?
CEO: Yes. We need to protect our brand.
HR: Could we address some of the complaints too?
CEO: No, just get this blogging policy in place.
HR: Okay.
THE END
CEO: We don't want our trade secrets/secret ingredient leaking to competitors, so make sure every employee signs an NDA.
HR: Okay.
Later...
HR: Employees are complaining about our benefits/employment practices/other shitty thing online. It's making it hard for us to hire people. Can we improve/change some of this stuff?
CEO: Can't we use the NDA to fire these people?
LAWYER: No. The NDA doesn't cover this stuff. You need a "No Blogging" policy if you want to fire people over it.
CEO (to HR): Do it. Then find out who's in violation and write them up.
HR: Really?
CEO: Yes. We need to protect our brand.
HR: Could we address some of the complaints too?
CEO: No, just get this blogging policy in place.
HR: Okay.
THE END
10
Under Canadian copyright law, if you file it with the Canadian authorities first, their laws supercede US laws.
Mind you, the ISP needs to be located there and you have to be a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, but that might help.
Same thing for the entire (and I do mean all of) the EU.
IP laws are still national in origin and subject to the founding conventions, not the US-based law firms views on these matters.
Mind you, the ISP needs to be located there and you have to be a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, but that might help.
Same thing for the entire (and I do mean all of) the EU.
IP laws are still national in origin and subject to the founding conventions, not the US-based law firms views on these matters.
12
I was employed by Borders in the early 2000s when the book industry was beginning to take a hit. My position was cut, but I got to stay on as a bookseller. I left before my pay rate changed down to the lower rate.
They began some disgusting micro-managing rules where they wanted to account for everything you were doing. They did not appreciate my disapproval, but I was never officially reprimanded. This was before blogging, but it seems like an update to any general non-disclosure agreement. If you tie this in with the cutting of the free coffee and the monthly certificate, I can see why it could be frustrating. Some people I worked with used the certificate to buy food in the now closed cafe because they were broke and hungry.
One of the best parts of those days was when a cute and nice (and viciously funny) editor of an alternative weekly used to come up and do some writing.
They began some disgusting micro-managing rules where they wanted to account for everything you were doing. They did not appreciate my disapproval, but I was never officially reprimanded. This was before blogging, but it seems like an update to any general non-disclosure agreement. If you tie this in with the cutting of the free coffee and the monthly certificate, I can see why it could be frustrating. Some people I worked with used the certificate to buy food in the now closed cafe because they were broke and hungry.
One of the best parts of those days was when a cute and nice (and viciously funny) editor of an alternative weekly used to come up and do some writing.
13
I have trouble feeling sorry for someone who feels his rights are violated because his employer won't let him badmouth the company on the Web.
Hate the company but can't do anything to change it from within? Then quit, and you can say what you want. But if you keep taking a paycheck then STFU.
Hate the company but can't do anything to change it from within? Then quit, and you can say what you want. But if you keep taking a paycheck then STFU.
15
Voluntarily signing an agreement not to blog about privileged company information is not a violation of your rights to free speech. It may be part of a dick move micromanagement strategy, but it is not an attack on free speech.
16
@15: It's not an attack on your constitutional right to freedom of speech, which only protects people from legal restrictions on speech.
But it sure as hell is a restriction on your freedom of speech. Technically speaking, you could voluntarily sign away lots of other rights, too, as parts of a contractual agreement. Should no one be upset about these trends just because the US Constitution doesn't expressly forbid this?
Yes, everyone understands the point you're making. It's a very obsequious and obedient position to hold, though. Not sure it suits all of us.
But it sure as hell is a restriction on your freedom of speech. Technically speaking, you could voluntarily sign away lots of other rights, too, as parts of a contractual agreement. Should no one be upset about these trends just because the US Constitution doesn't expressly forbid this?
Yes, everyone understands the point you're making. It's a very obsequious and obedient position to hold, though. Not sure it suits all of us.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS