A question of policy

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1480150]

Note - by "public" here, I mean to people outside of the company, like journalists or similar, not openly to people inside of the company.

Comments

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

But Nutt isn't an employee.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

No, but it would probably result in a disciplinary.

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

Where's your option for "I am my own employer"? :)

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I've said 'yes and this is reasonable' -- but in fact the answer is 'no'. It is explicitly misconduct for civil servants to make statements in public of this kind (while identifying themselves as civil servants) and if you were outrageous enough about it you might be sacked. But in fact in most of the examples I can think of people were not actually sacked. A good example was the civil servant blogger a couple of years ago; a junior member of staff who caused a mild sensation and was given a severe dressing down, but kept their job. If I had done the same thing I would be at much greater risk of sackage because honestly, I should know better.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Badly framed question.

(I am my own employer, and I regularly play devil's advocate with myself in public.)

On the David Nutt thing: he's a scientist, on what is supposedly an advisory panel intended to feed unbiased scientific opinion into the Home Office's processes. He's not an employee but an external advisor whose credibility depends on the perception of his impartiality. Firing him for doing exactly what he's supposed to do, i.e. offering opinions impartially? Not clever: to external third parties it indicates that it is the Home Office that lacks impartiality (and common sense), not the advisor.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Also, having googled (I've been out of the country for three days); Chairmen of advisory councils are neither civil servants nor special advisors, and their roles are not 'jobs' in the sense that most people would think of them. There is also a considerable distinction between serving on advisory committee, and chairing one.

I think this Times comment piece is quite good: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6899953.ece

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I suspect I would - or rather, that I'd be subject to a disciplinary procedure that would, on repeat offences, lead to sacking. In my previous place, it was my job not to express my opinions *at* work, because I was meant to be gathering other people's opinions, but I was pretty much fine out of work.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think it's unreasonable to be sacked on a first offence unless you are really burning your bridges. But it's all a bit qualatative and dependent on your job.

The David Nutt thing of course is totally different, but that's already been addressed here.

[ladysisyphus.livejournal.com]

One of my jobs would; the other two wouldn't. But universities tend not to care what their adjunct faculty/grad students have to say about them.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I had a friend who was working for a company that provided services to councils - basically popping in to give food and companionship to elderly folks. He told me that they were billing the council that he was spending 30 minutes with each client, but he was expected to visit 6 an hour (!) Now, he threatened to make this public and he was sacked. In my opinion the sacking was morally wrong. Was it reasonable? Well, it was consistent with rationality and financial success, but not with probity.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I'm an academic, so have quite a broad leash for making whatever statements I like (within the law) so long as I make it clear they are my views not my employer's, and don't use their resources to do so.

If I was baselessly abusive about them - and managed to do so in a way that the powers that be actually noticed - I'd expect to get a bit of a hard time about it, but sacking me would take an awful lot of work. If I was them I'd just use management discretion to minimise the damage and make my life hard.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I probably would get fired, and they'd probably be justified as my job entails hearing a lot of confidential information and publically airing grievances would likely compromise some of that. (Also, part of the company is publically-owned and I could be accused of stock manipulation depending upon what I said and how I aired my concerns.) If I managed to circumnavigate all those, I'd get a talking-to mainly for not bringing my concerns to the attention of either my boss (in most cases) or the internal "compliance hot line" (in case it was about misbehaviour by my boss or the issue wasn't being addressed) instead.

-- Steve's fortunate to have a fairly short decision chain and a boss with good ethics, so concerns get addressed rather quickly and he's not likely to have to "go public".

Re: question of policy

[wolfieboy.livejournal.com]

At least as long as I didn't try to say that I was representing my company. If I tried to pass myself off as a company rep and said such things then yes, I should lose my job. Heck if I say I'm a company rep and say things the company agrees with, I should lose my job...

Re: question of policy

[wolfieboy.livejournal.com]

Oh. Lack of context. Excuse the yank here.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

By 'wrong' do you mean inaccurate, morally reprehensible or that I disagree with it?

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Don't know about my current employer (an Incredibly Big Megacorporation ) but I'm not going to chance it. Previous employers (Manchester Mental Health & Social Care Trust) sacked a nurse/union leader, Karen Reissman, for publicly saying nursing staff hadn't had their legally mandated pay rise (which we hadn't) and for saying there weren't enough beds for the patients (which there weren't - we regularly had 21 patients on an 18-ward bed). Led to two years of legal fighting and several one-day strikes. I supported Reissman.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

If I was employed to give advice, and I gave that advice to the company and then repeated it in public, I would find it wholey unreasonable to be sacked.

[draconid.livejournal.com]

As a civil servant I've pretty much signed a contract that says I won't do this. We have a specific whistle-blowing policy, so if I think something is particularly wrong I should use that.

However, in the specific instance you're referring to, then no, he shouldn't have been sacked. He's there as an external advisor, not an employer.