Fear, uncertainty, and doubt at Microsoft:
Posted by DeLong at October 29, 2003 06:35 AM | TrackBackeclecticism > Of blogging and unemployment: The day started like any other day -- get up, dink around for a bit, bus into work, and start working through the stack of jobs. Just shy of an hour after I got in, my manager came in and asked me to step into his office when I had a chance. Sure, no biggie, and I headed over as soon as I finished the job I was setting up. "Okay, here's the first question. Is this page," and here he turned his monitor towards me, letting me see my "Even Microsoft wants G5s" post from last Thursday, "hosted on any Microsoft computer? Or is it on your own?"
"It's on mine. Well, it's on a hosted site that I pay for, but no, it's not on anything of Microsoft's."
"Good. That means that as it's your site on your own server, you have the right to say anything you want. Unfortunately, Microsoft has the right to decide that because of what you said, you're no longer welcome on the Microsoft campus."
And that simply, as of about 2pm today, I once again joined the ranks of the unemployed. It seems that my post is seen by Microsoft Security as being a security violation. The picture itself might have been permissible, but because I also mentioned that I worked at the MSCopy print shop, and which building it was in, it pushed me over the line. Merely removing the post was also not an option-- I offered, and my manager said that he had asked the same thing -- but the only option afforded me was to collect any personal belongings I had at my workstation and be escorted out the door. They were at least kind enough to let me be escorted out by one of my co-workers, rather than sending security over to usher me out, but the end result is the same.
More frustrating for me is that, having read stories here and there on the 'net about people who had for one reason or another lost their jobs due to something on their weblogs, I thought that I had done what I could to avoid that possibility. To my mind, it's an innocuous post. The presence of Macs on the Microsoft campus isn't a secret (for everything from graphic design work to the Mac Business Unit), and when I took the picture, I made sure to stand with my back to the building so that nothing other than the computers and the truck would be shown -- no building features, no security measures, and no Microsoft personnel. However, it obviously wasn't enough. So, I'm unemployed. I am somewhat lucky in that I'm not technically unemployed -- I am still on the roster for my temp agency, who has been very good to me so far (and hopefully will continue to be), but as their ability to place me anywhere does depend on the current job market, it's not a foolproof guarantee of employment coming in quickly. I've put a call into them and let them know of the situation and that I'm available and willing for whatever can be found, so with any luck, they'll be able to find a placement for me. However, it appears that it's also time for me to start hitting the streets and shopping my resume around again.
Wish me luck.
This is why I, as a Borg employee, avoid talking about work at all. I also publish under a pseudo.
Posted by: Unseelie on October 29, 2003 07:05 AMSo at first I thought the poster had done something obviously really wrong, or obviously embarassing like taking a picture of G5s being used on the MS campus (worst case: people using the G5s and not the snazzy Win XP machine next to it). But look at what he posted:
http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/even_microsoft_.html
This is just a picture of the new Macintoshes on the back of a truck and on a pallette! Yes, I'm sure it violates the "don't post photos of anything you see at work without permission" rule. But it doesn't strike you like a humongously big deal...unless you immediately can the poor copy clerk who posted it, giving him nothing but free time to blog about the situation.
Seriously, I can't imagine any way to have handled this that will be more controversial or embarrassing to MS then the method they chose. If they tell this guy just to knock it off, remove the photo that he shouldn't have taken and don't make a big deal about it, nobody would have cared, since the readership of this dude's blog is probably the same as most people's: not very high.
But now it's been posted and re-posted quite widely, and, yup, it's now the moment's Top Story over at:
I rate the chances at about 50/50 that it will be mentioned within a day somewhere in the traditional media, and then millions of people will be get the chance to get pissed off about it. As far as failed damage control goes, this will get at least a 6 on the open-ended (and logarithmic) Ridicule Scale. Maybe a million times as many people will become aware of the original post as the result of one HR decision about a copy boy.
Posted by: Jonathan King on October 29, 2003 07:05 AMThis is why I, as a Borg employee, avoid talking about work at all. I also publish under a pseudo, and I never blog from work.
Posted by: Unseelie on October 29, 2003 07:20 AMWow, Brad, that sucks. Good luck.
Posted by: PigInZen on October 29, 2003 07:33 AMWow, Brad, that sucks. Good luck.
Posted by: PigInZen on October 29, 2003 07:34 AMIf Democrats ever want to become the majority party again, they would want to start addressing issues such as this.
Especially for temps, but also for many full-time and even self-employed people, the rules of work are impossible. Based on figures that appeared in Science magazine, I estimated that in a cohort in the workforce, very roughly 5% of the workforce will be discharged inappropriately-- many of them for refusing to commit crimes as the cost of employment.
Some will be fired for wanting to join a unions. Some will be fired for refusing to have sex with the boss. Some will be laid off in flagrant violation of the Plant Closing Act. And so on.
Some of them-- the ones who refuse to commit crimes-- may never work again. They will lose their marriages, their health, their sanity, their lives. The stories in the book The Whistleblowers are heartbreaking.
Having been on the other side of the issue, I know one also has to be able to fire employees. There will be people who don't come to work, people who come to work but don't do it, people who steal, people who abuse equipment, people who abuse co-workers. Business conditions may suddenly decline. But at this point, employers have all the protections and employees have none.
For the self-employed, the problems are usually the tax system (the paperwork burden is ridiculous and could probably be dealt with by a standard exemption) and the issue of collecting from employers (the court system is ludicrous). The costs of legal work to, among other things, deprive employees of any rights are also daunting.
And don't get me started on the H-1B system and how it's used to drive down wages and deprive American workers of any job security.
The Democrats have absolutely no clue. A senior Senate aide asked me about the H-1B issue and when I explained the reality, he was horrified. But Democrats up and down voted for it anyway. Talk to congresspeople about SE taxes or employment law and their eyes become like saucers. But they don't do anything once they're back in the Beltway.
Is it any wonder that so many people have stopped voting or have started voting for Republicans in the mistaken notion that at least they'll let you keep that money you pay in taxes?
Posted by: Charles on October 29, 2003 07:51 AMwell it seems like he was most likely a temp, in which case it doesn't seem like a big thing, maybe could even be considered justified, I mean really a temp comes in, starts posting pictures of the place on his weblog. I don't think I would do that. Hell I wouldn't even discuss where I worked until I was hired full-time.
Posted by: bryan on October 29, 2003 07:56 AMAn alternate header for this would have been: Disloyal Microsoft Employee Terminated.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 29, 2003 07:58 AM1. The boss may not always be right, but he is always the boss.
2. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Posted by: DON MAJORS on October 29, 2003 08:29 AMIn what way was the employee's action disloyal?
Posted by: Steven Rogers on October 29, 2003 08:39 AMDisloyal? In what way? His post was factually correct and Microsoft's use of Macs - and IBM as/400s for that matter - hardly a secret.
Posted by: Steven Rogers on October 29, 2003 08:45 AMI think his headline was what got him in trouble. Implying that Microsoft didn't believe in its own products, though his "fired" post in offers a more innocent explanation and explains that, of course, Microsoft would use G5's they develop for Mac, etc.
I think he didn't realize how his picture would take on a life of its own.
Posted by: KevinNYC on October 29, 2003 08:59 AMHe committed Truthspeak. Clearly, he is an UnAmerican Disloyalist. Steven, just for questioning that, you went on the list of Evul Librul PC Com^H^H^HTerrorSymps.
Posted by: Barry on October 29, 2003 09:34 AMThis proves two things. That microsoft has a reasonable security policy on not allowing photos of things at work ... and that their lack of a sense of humor on the issue is hurting them.
Like the guy said, if they'd just asked him to remove the offending picture, no one would have noticed it.
"That microsoft has a reasonable security policy on not allowing photos of things at work ... and that their lack of a sense of humor on the issue is hurting them."
If this related to product development or some competitive edge, it'd be a reasonable security policy. As it doesn't (except in a very indirect sense), it is not a *reasonable* security policy.
Posted by: Barry on October 29, 2003 12:15 PMPatrick Sullivan
Never bother to read anything with your name, but did not catch it fast enough. What a rotten mean-spirited twerp your are.
Posted by: Emma on October 29, 2003 12:46 PMIt's excessive, but the guy's an idiot. I wouldn't have fired him, but I would have put him on my list: "has extremely poor judgement, likely to cause major screw-up—watch carefully".
Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 29, 2003 12:58 PMI think Patrick and Emma should be fired. They both deserve it, surely. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 29, 2003 01:05 PMPatrick Sullivan: regarding "Disloyal Microsoft Employee". I suspect that in your world there is no such a thing as a "disloyal employer" and that "loyalty" is purely a one-way relationship? Please do prove me wrong.
Posted by: Tom Slee on October 29, 2003 01:09 PMWho cares what you think?
Posted by: Microsoft on October 29, 2003 01:26 PMWho cares what you think?
Posted by: Bill Gates on October 29, 2003 01:28 PMWho cares what you think?
Posted by: Bill Gates on October 29, 2003 01:28 PM" Never bother to read anything with your name, but did not catch it fast enough. What a rotten mean-spirited twerp your are."
Posted by: Emma on October 29, 2003 12:46 PM
" Nothing polite can be said about such analysis"
Tom Slee, the solution is the same when the company is the disloyal party; i.e. the employee fires the employer. I've done it, how about you?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 29, 2003 04:13 PM"Patrick Sullivan
Never bother to read anything with your name, but did not catch it fast enough. What a rotten mean-spirited twerp your are."
Posted by: Emma on October 29, 2003 12:46 PM
Emma, you're cruel:) Utterly truthful, though.
1. The boss may not always be right, but he is always the boss.
2. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
What is this? Shorter Republican Party platform?