This is something that I wanted to comment on a while ago, but didn’t get round to it.

If one looks at this post at Woolamaloo you can see that Joe Gordon has been sacked from Waterstones simply “because he kept an online diary in which he occasionally mentioned bad days at work and satirised his “sandal-wearing” boss” (Guardian Unlimited, 12 January 2005).

What does this mean for bloggers everywhere? I could potentially be a victim like Joe Gordon simply because I post about RAD, my employer. Does that mean I’m bringing my employer into “disrepute”? I don’t say anything derogatory about RAD – I could say a lot of bad things, but I don’t, because I respect that some things should remain confidential. However, Gordon didn’t say bad things about Waterstones. He simply satirised his work colleagues and the work he did. No one would be able to identify just who or what he was talking about that easily.

This issue is quite timely. I’m currently researching for an essay with the following title:

You can see here that I am required to discuss an employee’s right to privacy. The Woolamaloo case is certainly relevant here (and will allow me me to bring a bit of topicality into my assignment! )). Essentially, what it all boils down to: how do you achieve an equal balance between an employer’s right to protect his own interests, while ensuring that an employee’s basic human rights are not infringed, including Article 8, which is to the right to private and family life, his home and correspondence?

Personally, I think Waterstones have gone too far. If Gordon was posting to his blog in working hours, thus preventing him from doing the work he was paid to, then they *might* have a reason to dismiss him, but all posts were made outside working hours. Go figure.

I will be keeping my eye on this case, to see whether Gordon takes Waterstones to an employment tribunal. At present, an appeal was held on 25 January 2005, and Gordon is awaiting a decision.