Dear Waterstones, You are Rotten

[tamaranth]

Text of email just sent to manager@edinburgh-westend.co.uk [EDIT: this bounced]; manager@edinburgh-georgestreet.waterstones.co.uk; manager@edinburgh-eastend.waterstones.co.uk -- addresses from landsmand

You've Lost a Customer!

Actually, your particular stores haven't lost me as a customer, since I live in London. But I'm determined not to shop at Waterstones until the Joe Gordon situation is resolved: I'm sure my annual spend of £400 or so won't make a *huge* dent in your profits, but I also suspect I'm not alone in my decision to boycott a store that treats its employees so shabbily.

Setting aside the whole 'free speech' issue, your response to Mr Gordon's weblog -- which occasionally published negative comments about you, his employers -- was heavy-handed in the extreme, and I will be surprised if the industrial tribunal upholds it. A more appropriate response, surely, would have been to inform Mr Gordon that you were aware of his comments, and *request* him either to stop making negative remarks, or to remove any words or phrases which might identify his employer.

If he had been updating his 'blog from work, during working hours, you might have had some legal right to order him to stop. From my understanding, this is not the case.

I am appalled that one of Britain's leading booksellers has behaved in such a repressive manner: I shall not be shopping at Waterstones (or HMV) unless and until you apologise to Mr Gordon, reinstate him in his previous position (you've lost a great resource there: his knowledge of genre fiction is widely praised) and compensate him for loss of earnings. Of course I'd prefer this to happen without the intervention of the industrial tribunal: but either way is good.

Yours sincerely

Me

Comments

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

*applauds*

[gummitch.livejournal.com]

I've done much the same myself.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

I'm writing not to the Edinburgh store manager, but to the MD of Waterstone's, on the basis that he is more likely to be concerned by the damage being done to his company's reputation by one of his store managers.

His address is:

Mr Brian McLaughlin
Managing Director, Waterstone's
Capital Court
Capital Interchange Way
Brentford
Middlesex
TW8 0EX

MC

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Except that nationally Waterstones have said 'yes, he was sacked. It was a local decision by a manager. We have an appeals process with two separate rounds of appeal. Can't comment if and until that process is complete.' I mean, what else could they say? What else could they do? It's a big company, they have a system. I'm sure that the blogging mob wouldn't be content unless the company summarily reversed the decision without due process, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. Especially as, you know, you've really only heard one side of the story.

The only alternative would be to say 'store managers aren't able to sack their staff' -- and if you say that then you get into a sort of paralysis of management where local managers aren't allowed to make any significant decision because of the risk of them making the wrong decision.

Letters of support are fine. Letters that say 'Waterstones is crap because of this' or 'I'm boycotting Waterstones forthwith' seem over the top to me.

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there's more to it than is apparent: but until Waterstones come out with some proof that shows that Joe Gordon isn't telling the (whole) truth, we won't know it. I'm working on the assumption that he is not lying about:
- the stated reason for dismissal (unsavoury comments in a non-work environment)
- the lack of due process

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

It's true that so far we've heard one side of the story. But the essential facts of the matter do not seem to be the subject of dispute; indeed, since the central issue is material published in a public journal, it is hard to see how they could be. About the only way that events could be significantly different to the way they have been presented is if Joe is lying about not having been given any form of previous warning or about his offer to remove the offending material being rejected. Since both Charlie Stross and Ken MacLeod know Joe and vouch for his integrity, I am inclined to believe his account of his dismissal.

I don't disagree that what Joe did was rather foolish. What is a cause for concern though is the entirely disproportionate response of Waterstone's, which seems to convey a control-freak attitude at variance with the company's self-promoted reputation as a bookseller that values free speech. I mean, if this was Wal-Mart, nobody would be surprised, but Waterstone's?

Also, the reason I'm writing to express my concern (not attack or abuse) to the MD is that I don't think a letter to the store manager would help. If you read Charlie's account from Joe of events, it looks rather like the manager doesn't like sf or employees who promote it, and went digging to find something to hold against Joe.

Of course managers need to be able to take decisions - often difficult and serious ones - that affect their staff. But it's hard to say, without descending into libertarianism, that they should be free to do so in a manner that rides roughshod over their employee's rights. Yes, there is the prospect of Waterstone's own appeal process, and the Employment tribunal beyond that. But no manager with half a brain pushes matters toward such formal procedures before trying to resolve them informally first... unless they have an agenda that's probably not in the employee's interest.

MC

[daveon.livejournal.com]

What astounds me is the sheer volume of negative PR this incident will generate for a blog that probably was only read by a few hundred people...

Now it's a national and international news story.

Reply From Waterstones!

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

"Dear [tamaranth]

Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately we cannot comment on this matter as it is confidential between the company and the employee.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact me, all comments are getting forwarded to the appropriate department.

Yours sincerely, [a name]"

I pity that poor woman. Or, as I suspect, that poor software robot. She must be very busy.