There was no professional relationship between the author and Waterstones. I don't see how it has anything to do with them if one of their employees acted this way on her own time.
Self-Pubbed Author Trolled by a Waterstones Employee
- Thread starter Jess Haines
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 746
- Reaction score
- 120
I'd also like to hear the other side of this story.
As others have said, retail employees put up with so much on a daily basis that the situation as described shouldn't have even pinged on the employee's radar.
I can't help but suspect something happened to make this personal. I can't imagine that the employee was repeatedly trolling the author because s/he took umbrage on behalf of their employer.
As others have said, retail employees put up with so much on a daily basis that the situation as described shouldn't have even pinged on the employee's radar.
I can't help but suspect something happened to make this personal. I can't imagine that the employee was repeatedly trolling the author because s/he took umbrage on behalf of their employer.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
Maybe, "Here's a hundred quid, mate. Be a good sport an' go on Amazon an' pan my book, eh?"
This guy's publicity effort worked just fine. He got an article in the Guardian!
This guy's publicity effort worked just fine. He got an article in the Guardian!
Large book stores aren't taking a moral highground against self-publishing or anything like that. If they think it'll sell, they'll stock it. If they don't, they won't. That usually means they'll stock local interest stuff, such as local history or collections from local writing groups. But sometimes an author with a general novel can have success.
Well I suppose he got what he wanted out of the Waterstones, they did in the end get him a lot of publicity.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 8,142
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Location
- In cahoots with the other boo-birds
- Website
- www.staciakane.com
NOTE: All of this info is to my knowledge; i.e. I do not speak here "officially" as an AW mod, nor do I claim special knowledge of policy. All of the below is info gained from being a regular member here; it is info any regular member can/would have. Do not take this as a mod stating policy.
We ban for "guestbook sliming," which is--used to be, since very few people have guestbooks on their sites anymore--showing up at, say, a PA author's website to post comments about how PA sucks, they're stupid for going with PA, their book probably sucks, etc. etc., and/or just being insulting in general (I use PA authors as the example because that's where the rule comes from).
I can't say whether that applies to Amazon or Goodreads or whatever else. And even then a blanket rule cannot cover all of the possible permutations.
But in general we as a community do not approve of trolling, and we do not approve of trolling innocent authors simply because they made a publishing decision we feel isn't a beneficial one--again, PA is (I believe) where the rule came from. Of course bad reviews do not automatically equal trolling, and commenting on situations does not automatically equal trolling, etc. etc.
Do you want to be in a community with trolls?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
If the story as published in the Graudin is correct, then the employee's connection with the author originated in the workplace. Further, the employee was identified as someone who worked for Waterstones, which then creates a connection between the bookseller and their behaviour. Once Waterstones were dragged into it, it became their business.
Well, we all need someone to throw stones at and feel superior too.
In all seriousness though, so long as they behave here, I'm not that bothered what they get up to elsewhere.
But more on point, we aren't talking about AW, we are talking about a business which has to adhere to employment laws. Is it really ok for a business to fire someone based on their behaviour outside of that business? I don't believe it is.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
Well, we all need someone to throw stones at and feel superior too.
In all seriousness though, so long as they behave here, I'm not that bothered what they get up to elsewhere.
But more on point, we aren't talking about AW, we are talking about a business which has to adhere to employment laws. Is it really ok for a business to fire someone based on their behaviour outside of that business? I don't believe it is.
Hey, we got a diktat from the CEO a while back telling us that we couldn't discuss a particular movie on our social network accounts. Out personal ones.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,151
- Reaction score
- 951
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Website
- www.teriegarrison.com
Well, we all need someone to throw stones at and feel superior too.
In all seriousness though, so long as they behave here, I'm not that bothered what they get up to elsewhere.
But more on point, we aren't talking about AW, we are talking about a business which has to adhere to employment laws. Is it really ok for a business to fire someone based on their behaviour outside of that business? I don't believe it is.
First of all, did anyone say the employee was fired? I thought Waterstone's said they'd taken action. It couldn't just as easily have been a verbal or written warning. Or did I miss something?
The company I work for has very strict guidelines on how we use social media hosted by the company -- guidelines that don't apply to non-employees using the same media. I don't see why Waterstone's shouldn't also. Hypothetically, if, for example, they already had in place a policy that employees aren't allowed to create sock-puppet accounts on the Waterstone's site, then an employee who did so would be in violation of the policy, regardless of the reason. It all depends on what their policies are.
No, no-one said any such thing. All this came from me replying to someone who said they *shoud* be fired. Sorry.
Social media *hosted by the company*. Last time I checked, Amazon wasn't hosted by Waterstones.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Employers are trying to have more influence on social media use in general. I would never sign something about my general internet use. But there are guidelines for my job that I have read that basically said, 'don't say nasty things about us' and 'don't do stuff that will reflect badly on us'.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,151
- Reaction score
- 951
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Website
- www.teriegarrison.com
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 7,063
- Reaction score
- 1,643
Employers don't own us; they rent our time. I think an employee who got fired for leaving malicious reviews on a book could have a very good case for a wrongful dismissal suit.
After all, the employee's not demonstrating criminal behaviour, just a bad temper and some lack of class. None of it stops him or her from being a good employee.
The only thing about this matter that should concern the company is that the employee's actions have been tied to the company in the media. The company might ask the employee to use a pseudonym in future, but they really don't have any right to dictate how the people who work for them behave in their off-hours.
After all, the employee's not demonstrating criminal behaviour, just a bad temper and some lack of class. None of it stops him or her from being a good employee.
The only thing about this matter that should concern the company is that the employee's actions have been tied to the company in the media. The company might ask the employee to use a pseudonym in future, but they really don't have any right to dictate how the people who work for them behave in their off-hours.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,632
- Reaction score
- 1,204
- Location
- London, UK
- Website
- torgoblog.blogspot.com
It appears the reviews may well have been written without any first-hand knowledge of the book. So they're deceptive and spiteful and might suppress sales of the book (though I doubt it was selling like hot cakes even before the reviews went up.) There's no way I would condone one of my colleagues doing something like that, and I don't think 'please use a pseudonym when you're fraudulently trashing a writer's work online' really cuts the mustard.
I don't know if you can legally fire someone for this, but to me it speaks of bad character.
Many companies have a clause in the contract or employee guide that states that the employee is expected to avoid "behavior unbecoming" both on and off the job.
Employers also can and do expect that employees not attack the company in public, including the social media. In health care, one must also be very careful not to discuss patient information, even if the patient's name isn't stated. I've known people to be reprimanded or fired for all of the above.
In general, the expectation is that you don't shit where you get paid. Or, if you do, expect repercussions.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 7,063
- Reaction score
- 1,643
Oh, I agree completely.
The writer might have been an ass, but the employee may well be his match.
As far I understand it, the employer has not fired her. It was one person in this thread that suggested she should be fired, and I responded to that post. Wish I hadn't now - seems to have spawned a horrible derail of misunderstanding...Oh, I agree completely.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
Eh, no, I don't think they should be fired. But if you bring your employer into disrepute, you have to expect them to sit up and take notice.
Waterstones have fired a guy for stuff he wrote on his personal blog. It was about the business, though he anonymised it. There was a bit of a stink about it back then. I'm guessing once it came out that the reviews were from an employee the author met at a Waterstones store whatever clause in the contract they pulled on the blogger could have applied again.
- Status