In case you care (unlikely), I just cancelled my friendster account; supporting (in any sense) a clueless corporation isn't high on my list of priorities.
Not mentioning my employer by name continues to be a good idea, although I think everyone who reads this knows who they are. My basic policy: if you want me to bitch about them, you'll have to buy me a beer. Corporate secrets: two beers. The pre-conversation wirecheck will be rudimentary and not at all creepy.
Posted by Bill Stilwell at August 31, 2004 08:15 AMYou won't even mention your company's name on your blog, yet you support Joyce ? Not sure I see the logic there.
If you support Joyce, then blog about your company.
If you don't blog about your company, then you're supporting the clueless corporation.
It's crazy! It's like I support someone's right to do what they want on their weblog while also supporting my right to do what I want on mine! So illogical!
Posted by: Bill Stilwell on August 31, 2004 8:42 AMIt depends on 'how' you want to talk about your employer, mike. Although I support Joyce in the misfortunate circumstance she now finds herself in, I doubt also that it is wise (in retrospect, now I guess) to mention the name of your employer in a way that could be perceived as 'negative' to the company's business and/or interests.
As an outsider reading her blog, I didn't notice any malicious intent. She simply stated the obvious and attempted to ignite a healthy discussion around an interesting tech subject. She didn't belittle her employer or divulge sensitive corporate data. I saw no reason for her firing other than possibly some earlier beef between her and the employer.
My point, mike, is that one could support Joyce and learn what not to do or simply avoid if at all possible...
I think what people are missing is that if you don't know what is in the NDA/confidentiality agreement she signed, then it doesn't matter if what she posted looks malicious, secret, or public record. She signed it, and that is when you complain. Not later, after you get caught violating those terms.
Posted by: mike on August 31, 2004 10:15 PMMike.. probably. But also the point is that if the company can fire an employee for such a little infraction, it gives the rest of us relatively sane people bad impression about the company...
Ultimately, it is the company's sole decision who to let go and why. In this case, however, we are simply reflecting on a practice that didn't seem just.
peace! i'm heading off to bed ;)
Posted by: Vlad Bogdanov on August 31, 2004 11:43 PM