Intel eMail Law Suite

Here's an article that appears on M$NBC's website:

Intel case tests e-mail as free speech

Former worker prosecuted for electronic trespassing
By Allyce Bess
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Aug. 14 — When Ken Hamidi was fired from Intel Corp. in 1995 after a long workers’ compensation battle, he didn’t go quietly. Mr. Hamidi, 55 years old, spent the next two years criticizing the company in e-mails sent to thousands of co-workers. Convinced he was a victim of age discrimination, Mr. Hamidi even publicized his campaign by dressing as a cowboy and going on horseback to distribute printed versions of his messages to employees entering Intel’s Folsom, Calif., facility, where he once worked. Now, the California Supreme Court will determine whether the former employee’s e-mail is a form of electronic trespassing, as Intel claims, or an expression of free speech.

Complete Story

If I behaved that way every time I was fired, eventually there
would be no one left willing to hire me.

I like the labor law we have here in Virginia, known as
"the right to work". Among other things, an employer can
fire you "without cause". That means, if your boss wants
to give your job to his brother-in-law, he just says "It's been
nice working with you, mr green, good luck in the future
and don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on your way
out."

It sounds callous, but it's infinitely better than the
situation where he has to come up with some bogus
justification to fire you. Then he would have to falsely
accuse you of something in order to get rid of you.

Why can't people take a hint? If they don't want you,
why would you want to stay?
:cool:

Yah I can see that point to. We have the same law here in CT. But this guy might have a ligitimate point in that he may have been fired becasue of this Workman Comp case. I have also seen employee who with six months of being on a job they have a Worker Comp case and it has happened on three or four different jobs in a row. So where do you call it fair practice. I can see letting the guy go but if he was injured legitly on company time then they have a rght to take care of the guy...

We don't have that law in my home state, Kentucky, and I'm actually glad we don't. If you perform well at work, then your dismissal should have to be for a justifiable reason related to your job performance, not based on the whims of management. Don't get me wrong....I feel an employer should have the ability to fire an unsatisfactory employee, but there should be criteria in place to prevent that employer from dismissing someone to replace them with a brother-in-law or someone they are hiring as a 'political' type of favor. IMHO, allowing even the possibility of that pattern of behavior in the workplace is wrong. I have noted that a lot of employers here hire people on the condidtion that the first 90 days is a probationary period, and employment may be terminated by either party for any reason. That seems to work pretty well, as you should be able to guage an employees performance in a three month period. Admittedly there are abusers who will 'lay down' after three months, thinking they are secure in there jobs. An efficient system of tracking performance will, however, quickly identify these abusers and steps can then be taken to improve their performance or begin a probationary period that can result in termination.

I would also note that the 'right to work' law actually has more of an effect on blue collar workers than it does the white collar workers, IMHO. Using the construction industry as an example, in Mr. Greens home state, or in our neighbor to the south Tennessee, a carpenter working on a state funded job earns a princely wage of around 10 to 12 dollars an hour. In a state without the RTW law, that same carpenter doing the same job can earn 18 to 30 dollars an hour. I realize that to some of you that may sound outrageously high, but you must also consider that in that particular industry work is not always done on a full time basis...especially in northern states. Please understand also that this is presented only as an example, not as an argument against RTW.

As for Mr. Hamidi, more power to him. The tactic Intel used was a cheap one, and it looks like it would have been more economical for them to have bought him out with a nice early retirement package instead of ushering him out the door for "incompetence". Corporate america does have a bad tendancy to remove older, higher paid employees (and injured ones as well) and replace them with younger ones who are paid lower wages due to their lack of experience. I look forward to seeing Palemoons take on this one. :)

Ditto for Tennessee. It has the "right to work" law in effect. However they do have recourse in the court system though. They give the employer the right to fire you at anytime for almost any reason, but allow the employee to file a wrongfull dismissal suit in court if you can show cause that the termination was malicious or harmfull.

As far as the Intel thing. I think he had the right to voice his opinion as long as it's not defamitory. Two sides always exist to every story. From what I have read so far. This guy has every right to be mad and voice his opinion.

Actually, there are 3 sides to every story (IMHO). Theres Mr. Hamidi's side, Intel's side, and the truth, located somewhere in the middle of the other two.

If I recall he lost his case and his employment prospects will not look that hot. Free speech is that but thousands of emails more or less spam is a bit beyond free speech. Don't get me wrong he has the right but did show poor judgement in what he did. If he made a point I fail to see it as a matter of fact I believe a personal vendetta like this against an employer under the free speech banner erodes free speech done in a resposable way over vaild issue's and they get lost among personal gripes like this. One must pick their wars well and if you do be as ready to be defeated as much as you are ready to win.