Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In France, Fired For Writing To MP Against 3 Strikes

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the nous-sommes-desolees dept.

Censorship 379

neurone333 sends along the cause célèbre of the moment in France: a Web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, sends an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's "three strikes and you're out" proposal, known as Hadopi. His MP forwards the email to the minister backing Hadopi, who forwards it to TF1. The author of the email, Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, is called into his boss's office and shown an exact copy of his email. Soon he receives a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the [company's] strategy" — in a private email sent from a private (gmail) address. French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar. Hit the link below for some background on the ties between TF1 and the Sarkozy government.
The Irish times has an explanation for the incestuous relationship between his government and TF1: "TF1's owner, the construction billionaire Martin Bouygues, is godfather to Mr Sarkozy's youngest son, Louis. Mr. Bouygues suggested to Mr. Sarkozy that he ought to ban advertising on TF1's rival stations in the public sector, which was done in January. Laurent Solly, who was deputy director of Mr. Sarkozy's presidential campaign, is now number two at TF1. Last year, TF1 sacked Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the station's star presenter for the previous 21 years. Poivre had angered Mr Sarkozy by saying he 'acted like a little boy' at a G8 summit. He was replaced by Laurence Ferrari. Mr. Sarkozy reportedly told Mr. Bouygues he wanted to see the young blond on the news."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Better off not working for them... (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895711)

He's better off not working for them if:
A) They employ such tactics
B) His beliefs actually do strongly differ with the company's

Now the question is under French law can he sue? If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?

Re:Better off not working for them... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895735)

How do you sue a company that is basicly in control of the government?

Threaten to sue the law changes to say its impossible to sue that company!

Re:Better off not working for them... (0, Troll)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896225)

Actually , what happens is the following :

He will win the case now , then 5 years later , they will change the law, and countersue to get the money back , plus interest over the 5 years.

It's been done that way before.

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

emj (15659) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896471)

No it hasn't, please give one example. You can not be sentenced for actions which are not illegal.

Re:Better off not working for them... (3, Interesting)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896695)

It's been done that way before.

Citation needed!

Re:Better off not working for them... (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896259)

This is why Thomas Jefferson thought corporations represented a danger to liberty. Corporations control the politicians, not us.

Also if this precedent is allowed to stand, what's next? "I heard from colleaques you voted Libertarian." "Um, yeah I didn't like either McCain or Obama." "Well I'm sorry but this company doesn't support third parties since Homeland Security has designated them as terrorist-friendly organizations, so I'm terminating your employment due to incompatible non-politically correct views."

Gee. It reminds me of being a serf, with the corporation as the lord. You depend upon the lord for your survival, so don't you dare express an opinion contrary to the lord's opinion, else you'll be removed. Classical liberalism ("the people are the ultimate authority") is dying a slow death in the face of more-and-more power grabs.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0, Troll)

AlmondMan (1163229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896417)

Thomas Jefferson also thought that a secular state was a good idea, and the other founding fathers were a type of atheists, yet the USA is now a fundamentalist religious state.. way to tarnish their memory :|

Re:Better off not working for them... (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896489)

The founding fathers were not atheists. They were nearly-all Protestant, with a few being Deist (believed in God but not church doctrine). Don't spread mythology about them being atheists.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Insightful)

AlmondMan (1163229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896527)

Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic.
Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for some more facts on the subject. Your founding fathers abhored the idea of religion in charge, and I'm sure they would be completely aghast with the current state of the country they helped build.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896539)

Secular and atheist aren't what you think they are in this context.

The concept wasn't secular as much as government control and control of the government. This is why the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and not "no government entity can express anything religious".

The concept was that the government could express religious morals and values insomuch as it was a reflection of the people but no binding to those religions could exist further then the representative or government official. In Jefferson's letter to a church as a governor, he spoke about the wall of separation in an attempt to explain this concept to a worried pastor who thought his church was going to be outlawed. This wall of separation has been exaggerated and grabbed by the courts and some idiots actually think the term wall is in the constitution. But by all means, Neither Jefferson or any of the founding fathers wanted a strict secular state. They wanted a state that reflected the people and could change with the reflections of the people.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2)

AlmondMan (1163229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896591)

I never implied any connection between atheism and secularity. Only that they did not wish for religion to control the country, and seeing the US now, in a state where atheists are demonized and it's political suicide to declare that you are not a strictly pious man, is not something they would have liked to see.
Sure, a government and country that changes with its people, but the quote that started this was about corporations, and how is a church actively lobbying in the nature of US churches not equal to a corporation? Just because it's religious it should get special treatment? Because it's "god's will"?
My point being it's somewhat hypocritical invoking the founding fathers in such a way when other things they said are conveniently forgotten. Why shouldn't the corporations get the power when they really want it? After all, the corporations are the people, too.

Re:Better off not working for them... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896823)

The concept was that the government could express religious morals and values...

But then there's the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the founding fathers had wanted the federal government to "express religious morals", they could have laid that out as something the government was supposed to be doing.

Regardless of what the founding fathers wanted, I personally don't want government officials spouting off religious nonsense in any kind of official capacity. It's not even remotely a necessary function of government so the government shouldn't be doing it.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Insightful)

brouski (827510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896295)

How do you sue a company that is basicly in control of the government?

Threaten to sue the law changes to say its impossible to sue that company!

Is the company in control of the government, or is the government in control of the company?

Re:Better off not working for them... (5, Informative)

rarel (697734) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895757)

Now the question is under French law can he sue? If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?

He absolutely can sue. There's a special court for employer/employee disagreements called the Prudhommes, and he will probably sue TF1 for wrongful termination.

I don't know much about law myself, but his lawyers should have a field day with this. He would have to screw up the case royally to lose it: It was a private email address and a private communication which his employer should never have heard about, and secondly, it is forbidden by law to fire someone on political grounds in France.

In theory this shouldn't affect his future professionally, however seeing how the world works, I'm not so sure.

Re:Better off not working for them... (-1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895941)

Well the only parties that could have posted this story is ... the politician, the employer and the ... employee. So I guess the employee has chose the even more dangerous part of letting the media know which means he has probably royally screwed his court case and is going for the big kill.

I wish him the best ...

Re:Better off not working for them... (4, Interesting)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896209)

He can and will. Here's a better source [ecrans.fr] (in french).

In a nutshell, his lawyer's case is as the parent said, and quoting her: "This is discrimination, a felony of opinion, it is just scandalous."

It will be intresting to follow this case. I'd be very happy if someone can do something against TF1.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0, Troll)

SecondaryOak (1342441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896223)

That's informative, but are you sure it will still be considered "private e-mail" if it was sent from a company address and signed (explicitly) as a company employee?

Re:Better off not working for them... (3, Interesting)

Beretta Vexe (535187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896253)

It was send from his private e-mail address, he used his name and explain why he was so concern by this law because of his job. Nothing wrong here.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896321)

He probaby won't get much from the Prudhommes, it is not like in the anglo-saxon world where million dollar payouts are not unheard of.

It will make it hard for him to get another job unless he has some friends who will hire him.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896373)

When the case is settled he should go directly after the top brass (both TF1 and Sarkozy), exposing whatever secrets and dirt he might have accumulated over the years. That would be a fair payback, especially if they end up without a job and maybe without a family if the dirt involves extramarital excapades and similar.

Maybe the result for him would be an inability to find work in France, there's a whole world putside France where he's bound to find someone who'll hire him. Or he simply could change profession. In any case, revenge would be ever so sweet.

Re:Better off not working for them... (4, Interesting)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895771)

I don't know if he can sue, but under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] , which France has ratified, it is illegal to discriminate someone because of their political views.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0, Troll)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895811)

The UN UDHC has no force of law. It's a utopian document that no government in the world would implement fully.

Re:Better off not working for them... (5, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895867)

It is not a UN document. The human rights are enforced by the human rights court in Haag. They are pretty well enforced in all countries that have signed them. It can even override the supreme court in the signing countries.

Note, the US have not signed the human rights declaration since the US disagrees with human right number 1: The right to live, AND with the concept of a foreign court that can override the government.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896115)

Yes, he can take it all the way to the EU court of justice and it's not without precedent for a difference between employer and employee to make it all the way to that level. See Bosman Ruling [wikipedia.org] .

There's no way this guy is going to loose if he's willing to spend the time and effort to fight it. But he might have mouths to feed in the meantime.

Wrong Court (1)

andersh (229403) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896431)

No, this is not a case for the "EU Court of Justice" but the "European Court of Human Rights".

One is a part of the EU, the other is a non-EU Pan-European court for the European Human Rights Convention.

And the ECHR court does not accept cases that have not been tried all the way to the top in the domestic system. And even then it has to be the last option for the plaintiff.

Re:Better off not working for them... (3, Informative)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896735)

You are confusing the European Court of Human Rights (relevant to this case, irrelevant to the USA) with the International Criminal Court (which the US hasn't signed up to but which is irrelevant to this case)

Re:Better off not working for them... (4, Informative)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895905)

Except that ECHR, which ratifies the UN UDHC in 99% of areas, HAS been incorporated into all EU member states law. This does make it illegial to discriminate on basis of political expression.

They government also broke the french DPA (no doubt, it is again similar to UK law) by forwarding on the email, which was by default considered private.

Prediction: lawyers have complete field day suing the employer for large, large amounts of money.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0, Redundant)

Eevee (535658) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896009)

They government also broke the french DPA (no doubt, it is again similar to UK law) by forwarding on the email, which was by default considered private.

[citation needed]

With the usual disclaimers about not being a lawyer, not being French, and not being a French lawyer--Why would this be considered private? In essence it's not a personal communication between two people, but rather between a citizen and his government. I'd expect the MP as part of normal duties to forward concerns of citizen to the appropriate department.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896275)

I'd say the Human Rights Act (or French equivalent) has something to say again. There is a right to privacy. Certainly, this is dependent on what is considered reasonable, and it's perfectly reasonable for the MP to have forwarded the email to the minister responsible for the law. However, it violates any expectation of privacy if this communication between a private individual and the government makes it outside the government.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896279)

How about the forwarding by the department to his employer?

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896411)

They government also broke the french DPA (no doubt, it is again similar to UK law) by forwarding on the email, which was by default considered private.

[citation needed]

With the usual disclaimers about not being a lawyer, not being French, and not being a French lawyer--Why would this be considered private? In essence it's not a personal communication between two people, but rather between a citizen and his government. I'd expect the MP as part of normal duties to forward concerns of citizen to the appropriate department.

Indeed, not only can he sue the television channel (and there is absolutely no doubt he is going to win the case), but he could also sue his MP and the government, and he would also win. According to the french law about the protection of private life (which must be quite similar in the whole EU), nobody has any right to forward a private e-mail (as a matter of fact, you could also sue someone for just saying he saw you in a public place yesterday).

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896441)

I'd expect the MP as part of normal duties to forward concerns of citizen to the appropriate department.

Is the head of a private TV network an "appropriate department"?

If I had send such a mail, do you think it would have been forwarded to the same persons?

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896791)

the interesting thing here is that the article says the government passed the email along as informational. Probably what happened was that the government was in contact with the network over the rejection or implementation of the 3 strikes law and it was passed along as an example of a compliant or the TV network got CC'd a copy of some communications without realizing that the email in question was burring 10 replies down.

I have seen this happen in other private companies in the past where after a several month dialog by email transpires, you start seeing miscellaneous messages in emails where two people emailed back and forth to collaborate before responding to you with an answer. My favorite was a choice one email session where they couldn't reprovision a block of IP's on a separate subnet between two buildings and the sales staff went drinking with the engineers or something. As near as I can tell, someone got some but they also forgot that their lack of understanding to why I needed separate subnets didn't make it any less important which they also indicated in the email. (BTW, the subnet issues was because of some VPN software that wouldn't work properly between ip ranges on the same subnets. We have two applications that were specifically tuned to work with the VPN appliance we were using and couldn't upgrade or change anything without a large investment of time and money.)

Anyways, I'm not sure that passing along the email and identifying information was actually on purpose as the post and most of the replies seem to insinuate. I think it's more of an ignorance instead of malice thing until you get to the TV network who shouldn't have used the information to fire the person over.

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896461)

I think the problem is not that the MP forwarded the e-mail, but that the Culture's Minister forwarded it to TF1. (I am french, but not a french lawyer)

Re:Better off not working for them... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896815)

In essence it's not a personal communication between two people, but rather between a citizen and his government. I'd expect the MP as part of normal duties to forward concerns of citizen to the appropriate department.

Yes, passing it to the government department is probably fine. The government passing it to his employer, however, was completely uacceptable. I'm having trouble believing that there's anyone who can't see that.

Re:Better off not working for them... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895775)

"They employ such tactics"

That is how power games are played, in every country. Find ways to undermine opponents. But unfortunately so many of the general public (non-technical) still seem to believe, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide from political and corporate people. Knowledge is power and power is the ability to manipulate others, even if that means getting someone fired.

Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895933)

My understanding (from a friend who works in France) is that in France, if you fire someone, various employee protection laws make you pay a lot more severance benefits than you would in the same situation in the US. For this reason French companies are much more careful about their hiring practices, and there are some French workers who stick around as parasites, working the absolute minimum necessary, because it doesn't pay for the company to fire them.

So this guy probably will get a lot of severance pay even if he doesn't sue.

Of course, I don't live there and so this information might be out-of-date or incomplete.

Re:Probably gets a *lot* of severance pay (5, Insightful)

Beretta Vexe (535187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896355)

French here

What's your friend describe is a "mise au placard". It's a specific way to fire somebody without really firring him.
It's extremely wrong in french for your managing staff motivations when you start to fire people without serious reasons and it's pretty hard to prove and convince every body that some body don't actually do as expected. So you don't fire him but progressively put him in a position where he don't have responsibility, interesting works, no computer, no phone, etc... and you simply wait that he resign by himself.
If he resign he isn't cover by the social protection law, so it's cheaper for you, better for you managing staff, etc...
The only problem is went you push it to far ( excessive work load, harassment, etc ) and the employ commit suicide ( Renaud technocenter serial suicide at work )

The "mise au placard" have nothing to do with this case where the employ was fired for "important fault". In this case the employer say "you committed an important fault in regard of the company, you are fired, you will not get the social protection".

Driving a truck drunk = important fault
sending a mail to his MP = ?

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

Pastis (145655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896087)

> B) His beliefs actually do strongly differ with the company's

"keep your friends close but your enemies closer"

Sometimes one has to change a corporation from the inside.

Re:Better off not working for them... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896191)

Now the question is under French law can he sue? If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?

Yes, he can sue his employer. In France you need to have a real motive and some element to support your decision before firring an employer under CDI ( unlimited in time contract ).

TF1 will regret it, because they will probably lose and will be asked how they get this e-mail ( violation of correspondence privacy ) and some politician will probably be under the fan when the s... hit it.

In any case it's bad for the government and the three strike law project. They gave us a martyr even before the law actually passed.

P.S. Sorry for the poor English, i'm another French fagot on /.
 

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896359)

He's better off not working for them if:
A) They employ such tactics

Yes, like you're better off not writing your MP if your president happens to be married to a big media activist.

Re:Better off not working for them... (1)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896627)

B) His beliefs actually do strongly differ with the company's

No, it differs from the director's.

Now the question is under French law can he sue?

This is obviously illegal.

If he can, the next question is will it make him less employable suing an ex-employer?

No, I suppose most of employers actually hate TF1, so he would look like a hero. And specially if he works for IT, lots employers are certainly against the 3-strikes law.

Re:Better off not working for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896653)

In America, you would make so much off that lawsuit that it wouldn't make a difference whether you were less employable.

Unfamiliar? (5, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895729)

"French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar."

It's not so unheard of outside of France either, believe it or not.

Re:Unfamiliar? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895813)

It is unfamiliar to us because of our godawful press.

Re:Unfamiliar? (3, Interesting)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896031)

For a country that has a reputation for socialism, this sounds a lot like fascism.

BTW, I would have thought that after the telco immunity vote, the bailouts, secret copyright treaties, and other such nonsense that the US would be familiar with corporations being entangled in govt.

If the political pendulum swings *too* far . . . (0)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896663)

. . . to the left or the right . . . it makes a full circle over the top and lands back on the other side. Too much socialism turns into fascism; too much fascism turns into socialism.

And you'd better believe that's Obama's vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896251)

Hey, let's can the CEO of GM, just for starters!

Re:Unfamiliar? (1)

JCWDenton (851047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896485)

Plenty of examples out there of course but here's one involving /.'s old friend, the United Fruit Company. The UFC lobbied the US government to support the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

After the expropriations began in 1953 the UFC began lobbying the U.S. government in an attempt to draw them into their confrontation with Arbenz. The U.S. State Department responded by, amongst other things, successfully seeking approved cuts in economic aid and cuts in trade, with devastating effect to Guatemala, since "85% of Guatemala's exports are sold in the country and 85% of their imports come from the U.S." Internal U.S. State Department documents stated that the cutoff would have to be done "quietly" because this was "a violation of the Non-intervention agreement, to which we are party... If it became obvious that we were in violation of this agreement, other Latin American governments would rally to the support of Guatemala

Source [wikipedia.org]

Re:Unfamiliar? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896531)

"French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar."

It's not so unheard of outside of France either, believe it or not.

      We are getting some very educational examples of it right now, in fact.

        Brett

Thanks France! (4, Funny)

ejtttje (673126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895731)

Wow, and I thought our (US) politicians were corrupt... thanks for showing us how it's done, France!
Maybe we can show your newly unemployed web executive how to be a litigious bastard!
It's great to share cultural differences, I feel all warm and fuzzy now!

Thank you, US. (1)

andersh (229403) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896453)

Hey, they thanked the US for the inspiration a long time ago!

Remember, they sent that statue to New York to remind you how much they liked your ideals.

P.S. The French don't use the Anglo-American Common Law system, so the similarities end here (with regards to litigation).

.

Re:Thanks France! (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896643)

What about Halliburton? I'm fairly sure only offering contracts to the company the VP used to be CEO of is much worse than the standard run of the mill corruption! At least the US is still #1 in some things!

In Soviet France... (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895753)

...freedom fries YOU!

Re:In Soviet France... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896035)

Modérez le parent en haut !

Re:In Soviet France... (4, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896369)

It's actually quite telling that a country that took a stand so strongly against invading and imposing outside will on a country's freedom is entirely failing at understanding and dealing with the more subtle corruptions of big media and government.

Re:In Soviet France... (1)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896547)

That was not the same president. Chirac was just stealing money, it had few to do with freedom. If Sarkozy was president at that time, France would have been engaged in war.

Off with their heads! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895763)

Time for the French to start sharpening the blades on all the old guillotines - the only suitable punishment for Mr Sarkozy and his cronies is a proper beheading.

Re:Off with their heads! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895879)

Mod parent up! (posting as AC because I'm french).

Re:Off with their heads! (4, Interesting)

mad flyer (589291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895895)

Parent is not flamebait. Parent is unfortunately spot on.

This president is a shame for France and an embarassment... FOR MANKIND... It's an half drunk idiot with the IQ of a toiletbowl broomstick.

He played the "small people" card during the campain and now play with all the vulgarity of a new rich the "people" card. The incarnation of the 3B Booze Babes Backchich. He's tightening the immigration law to a point where his parents (who are not French) would not have been allowed to stay. Promoting family value as much as family members. Have an ill informed opinion on everything. The posterchild of the "if i'm here that must be because I'm good for the job". Now ALL the previous governement are remember with nostalgia. This dwarf should not even be a janitor as he might find way to abuse the little power he got on the toilet paper stockpile.

Re:Off with their heads! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895925)

It could be worse. You could have Silvio Berlusconi as President. Or Gordon Brown.

Re:Off with their heads! (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896047)

Wow, didn't know Brown was that bad. In America we have something called "no bid contracts" to ensure that government doesn't get too cozy with corporations.

Re:Off with their heads! (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896271)

Or George W.

Re:Off with their heads! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895995)

Sarkozy (noun):

  • A malodorous amalgamation of Tony Blair and Silvio Burlusconi
  • The figurehead for US imperialism in France

Someone was telling me the other day about Sarkozy trying to speak in a working class accent. Similar I guess to Tony Blair favouring Estuary English over received pronunciation. I can't find any articles on it, although I have only searched English language.

Re:Off with their heads! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896705)

I think the proper punishment for Obama is to assassinate him. Sadly, guillotines will be out of the question, so time to oil the sniper rifles or get hold of the TNT. Every one of his supporters should be rounded up and executed after that.

Does that upset you to hear? Well, I'm sorry. You started it.

...ways that Americans might find unfamiliar??? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895815)

Really? And how about, say, a US corporation repeatedly found guilty of monopoly abuse and never sentenced to anything but a slap on the wrist? I'm sure slashdotters can come up with dozens of examples!

Re:...ways that Americans might find unfamiliar??? (1, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895937)

Americans are so convinced of the virtue of entrepreneurship they are willing to give corporations and their corrupt ways a far wider leeway.

In America, 'individualism' means believing greed is a virtue, the same as everyone else. There are plenty of people who think that in France as well, of course, but there is considerably more cynicism regarding that worldview outside America.

Re:...ways that Americans might find unfamiliar??? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896281)

What you call "greed" I call "putting the food on the table". A desire to gather money to feed, shelter, and clothe my family is personal responsibility, not greed. And putting any excess money into a retirement plan, instead of spending it, is just good ole' common sense.

Re:...ways that Americans might find unfamiliar??? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896515)

because it's so much harder to feed your family and have a good retirement in europe than it is in america....

Of course you will be modded down . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896415)

. . . by all the Young Libertarians who gasp at any criticism of greed, and believe there is no greater freedom than being spread face down and legs apart by the Benevolent Corporations.

Re:...ways that Americans might find unfamiliar??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896037)

Halliburton?

Of course this is also illegal in France (5, Informative)

jolorant (1366065) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895881)

Just like in any other european country, this lay-off is most certainly illegal and can be appealed by the email's author. That's what labor law is there for.

Of course people got sacked for expressing opposing opinions long before the internet existed. French roots of labor law and freedom of speech date back to the revolution in 1789, UK workers have already fought for those in the 16th century, in Germany those rights have existed before the third reich since the 1849 revolution.

This is not really a "your rights online" article, but should be tagged "your rights in capitalism" - you have them, so use them.

European Law (3, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896403)

Even if it is not illegal under French law it almost certainly is something you could take to the European court of human rights since EU law takes precedence over national laws.

You're fired! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27895929)

I was once fired through a friend that received the message from my boss through Skype, because I didn't come to work on time. We didn't have a schedule, we agreed verbally that we could come in at whatever time we wanted as long as we were there for eight hours a day. But that's irrelevant, because they had to use proper documents to fire me and they needed proof that I had broken a written agreement or a law and I could have dragged them through courts for years and that would have just destroyed their business, so I just stayed there for a couple of weeks until I found another job.

Most stupid decision ever! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895971)

TF1 had no legal right to sack the guy. This has been pretty much agreed on in all the comments.

As a result of him being fired, what was only a polite message to his MP urging opposition to the proposal has become part of a fairly significant national news story which clearly paints the media as the bad guys and those opposing the law as the innocent victims.

TF1 really cocked this one up.

Well, on the bright side . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27895977)

. . . he only got fired, instead of being shot. In countries with a "State News Agency," The press is just another department of the government anyway. Criticizing the government may be hazardous to your health, but the journalists know that, and would never dare to do so.

Here it seems to be an indirect "family" relationship, in the Soprano sense of the word, which the poor journalist didn't know about.

I don't think you'll be hearing much criticism of Sarkozy on TF1 any more.

Re:Well, on the bright side . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896065)

Yes, look how friendly the BBC are to the government...

Or alternatively, we could look at the "Independent Military Experts" hired by many of the "private" news channels in the US, many of whom turned out to be on the Pentagon's payroll.

The independence of the media depends on many things more than ownership. Even where there is no state media, independence can be compromised by things like access to state officials, the expense of trying to investigate without access and the complexity and difficulty of some stories where only government employees know what is going on.

TF1 is going to regret that (5, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896007)

They fired him for "public statements;" but as far as I can tell, he never made any public statements, he only wrote, privately, to his MP.
This kind of incident is great for us fighting this law; it produced some more ammos for the opposition in parliament, and it made the gov't look like the assholes they are.
On top of that, it's proof positive -- if it was ever needed -- of the collusion between the gov't and the major media.

Re:TF1 is going to regret that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896045)

We're sooooooooooo living in the worst banana republic in the world...

to add to the injury, Laurence Ferrary was Sarkozy's mistress before he got elected..

we're so sorry for this president of our, I still can't believe he was elected...

putain 2 ans.........

Djamé

Re:TF1 is going to regret that (5, Informative)

Alarash (746254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896227)

I read an interview of the MP in question. She said that he never explicitly asked for this correspondence to be considered 'private'. Apparently by default the (e-)mails sent to MPs are considered 'public'. She also said that his letter was well constructed and contained good arguments, so she forwarded it to the Minister backing the bill to "challenge" her (more like to give her some time to come up with plausible counter-arguments). Then it found its way to TF1 HQ for some reasons.

Re:TF1 is going to regret that (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896393)

I read an interview of the MP in question. She said that he never explicitly asked for this correspondence to be considered 'private'.

Certainly, but it would be good form to keep the name and address private. If this is indeed the case, I wonder whether we will see a change in this sort of policy?

Re:TF1 is going to regret that (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896487)

I don't think the MP did anything fundamentally wrong here. She made a slight error in judgement perhaps in expecting the minister to keep it confidential but that's quite understandable. You should be able to trust ministers.

The minister had no right to give it to TF1. He made the mistake.

Good old monarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896205)

Not only our beloved president banned advertising on channel of the public sector but, with the same bill, the executive power (understand Sarkozy himself) is now in charge of dismissal and appointment of the CEO of the public television and radio.

I'd sue the ministers as well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896239)

Forwarding a private letter to a third party is a giant privacy violation, I hope he will sue and win against his previous employer and the ministers that forwarded his emails. A good lawyer should be able to secure him some good money and give the cause a good publicity.

Let me be the first to say.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896257)

So what? Don't work in France.

Re:Let me be the first to say.. (5, Funny)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896605)

So what? Don't work in France.

That's what the French do.

At-will employment (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896267)

Although Americans may be unfamiliar with the entanglements of government and business, many of us are accustomed to being "at-will" employees, which means we can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it isn't discriminatory. The bigger story here would be that the elected official passed the message along. Hopefully the incident would be fresh enough in memory to oust them at the next election.

unauthorized copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896303)

Why has no one suggested he file charges of unauthorized copying of his e-mail?

I feel for the guy but.... (2, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896367)

How is this any different than in most states in the USA, which have "at-will" employment where an employee can apparently be fired for any reason that isn't illegal?

Re:I feel for the guy but.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896423)

How is it any different?

Because EU countries don't have "at-will" employment as you have described.

Re:I feel for the guy but.... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896469)

Firing someone for political affiliation is illegal even in "at will" states.

Even the most intrenched of business sell-outs campaign and try to court public opinion, and will act to protect those who support them.

Re:I feel for the guy but.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896707)

How this could be seen, really, is that the company has an intended future direction, and this employee's attitude conflicts with that direction... on the company's part, this amounts to them being unable to feel that they can trust this particular employee to follow through with certain tasks that they might want to offer him, and a company can understandably not want to keep an employee around that they feel they can no longer trust. Or is it also illegal to fire an employee who simply happens to say "I hate my job"? While I'm sure most jobs are like that, is it actually _illegal_ for a company to fire a person for saying that?

Sarkozy is a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896397)

I am not surprised at all ! After all what else could be expected from from Mr. Sarkozy and his bullshit government ? I hope the poor guy who got fired appeals, hell, I even hope he makes millions in compensation and I don't even know him. This sort of attitude is spreading like a virus and if it is not stopped in its tracks soon enough it will become common practice all over the place. In my opinion this is a scandal that deserves some serious public exposure.

sabaki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896503)

In these hard times it seems that corruption is the rule, not the exception.

Btw, does many of you folks know this website ?
Nice selection of Tech related breaking news

http://www.infowars.com/category/science-technology/

Happens in Norway as well (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896529)

The previous head of the national oil company, Eivind Reiten, privately submitted a view to the EU that he thought private interests should be able to buy property rights to waterfalls.

This is heavily against the ruling Labour Party's politics, and their council representative Jan Bohler said in an interview that they were going to get rid of him for that reason. He is now gone.

It's a funny state and funny state of mind when the government considers itself rightfully able to remove business leaders who don't agree with their politics.

French puzzles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896571)

I'm French, I like my President, I like his government, and I hate this Hadopi cr*p.

Also let's hope that the firing is just the decision of his *sshole boss, not some order or recommendation from above, as I still like to believe that freedom of speech happens in my country (actually, it's unevenly allowed or toleratedâ¦)

Unofficial Email? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27896579)

This line concerns me:

Soon he receives a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the [company's] strategy" â" in a private email sent from a private (gmail) address.

this isn't an official email address, I personally would just personally turn up to work and if they asked me about any email I would say I haven't received anything official. But I like to cause trouble.

Re:Unofficial Email? (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896657)

He wasn't fired in an email from a private address; he was fired because the management found out about the email he sent privately from his (non-company) gmail account.

Only difference is degree (-1, Troll)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896683)

If El Jeffe Obama can fire the CEO of General Motors, and Sarko just fires a web designer, doesn't that make France look quite a bit less along the path of dictatorship than the US?

WRONG-O! (5, Informative)

mmell (832646) | more than 5 years ago | (#27896841)

Obama didn't fire anybody at General Motors.

What he did was to make it plain that General Motors would not be considered for further TARP funding if they continued to utilize the services of the CEO who bankrupted the company in the first placed.

Perfectly acceptable here in the United States. Note that there has not been a popular revolt or backlash against this. Evidently, President Obama's action in causing GM to ditch their loser of a CEO was (apparently) neither illegal nor immoral in the opinion of the majority of United States citizens.

(Incidentally, until recently I was a Republican. I actively disapprove of many of the things our current President advocates. This particular example isn't one of them)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?