5 ms·

> The court ruled that Mr T was exercising his "freedom of expression" by refusing to participate in the company's social activities, and that performing this "

> The court ruled that Mr T was exercising his "freedom of expression" by refusing to participate in the company's social activities, and that performing this "fundamental freedom" could not be a reason for his dismissal. It makes me upset that something basic like not wanting to drink lots of alcohol with your co-workers has to be justified with a legal framing of "freedom of expression". And Mr. T was fired in 2015, it took 7 years for this case to be concluded in the French court system. Not that French is an important qualifier, I fully expect the American legal system to take that long as well. It also makes me upset that the media's framing it as being not "fun". In actuality, most people don't have the funds, the time, and the gumption to go through with a legal battle. You of course need to find a new job, but in the meantime you have financial obligations, and those don't wait 7 years to be satisfied.

frereubu 4y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but it took so long because it went all the way to the Court of Cassation, the French equivalent of the Supreme Court.
- pmezard 4y ago
  IANAL, but closest French equivalent to Supreme Court is Conseil Constitutionnel. Cours de cassation is about breaking judgments because they were not made to the letter of the law. They do not pronounce general opinions about the law itself.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    I think this is a case where the French parliamentary system doesn't map onto American institutions very well. IIRC, the Conseil Constitutionnel intervenes at the time of ratification of a law; it's a forward-looking body, unlike the US Supreme Court that judges law ex post facto (like the Cours de Cassation).
roflc0ptic 4y ago
Right. You can only imagine the amount of fury that would drive a person to follow through on a thing like this. I mean, kudos to him for his success here against professional depravity, but litigation is awful, and often it’s better to just let the bastards win.
- thrill 4y ago
  "often it’s better to just let the bastards win" The bastards count on this and relish it.
ketzu 4y ago
> the media's framing it as being not "fun" This seems to be a direct quote from the defendant ('specifically his refusal to adhere to the company's "fun" value') not a framing of the media. At least not more than your own: > something basic like not wanting to drink lots of alcohol with your co-workers (Of course after-work activities should never be mandatory, otherwise they'd be work, and the practices in this case especially seem terrible.)
matrix_overload 4y ago
Unpopular opinion: life is too short to waste it working with people you don't like. If your team is a bunch of assholes, just find a different company that will be less miserable, shake hands and bid farewell.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I may like them, but still not want to go out and drink with them. In fact, in my over 35 years of work, the number of co-workers I wanted to go drink with is precisely zero. That doesn't mean I didn't like them.
- marmetio 4y ago
  Many people live somewhere without other employment options and can't relocate. Otherwise, yeah, that's the obvious solution.
  - throwawayfrench 4y ago
    Thankfully remote work resolves this problem.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - marmetio 4y ago
      Really? Another "just do X" comment? Again, great when it's an option, but not as common as your own experience might suggest.
- HeckFeck 4y ago
  We've a way to go if this is an unpopular opinion. Stay and put up is terrible advice. Rotten companies deserve to fail.
  - CodeMage 4y ago
    On the contrary, anywhere this is a popular opinion is a place the has a long way to go. "Just find another job" either assumes that everyone can do this or that those who can't don't deserve a better environment. The former is not true, the latter is a form of discrimination.
bjourne 4y ago
France has strong labor unions. Likely, it wasn't Mr. T who handled the case but his union's lawyers. They may even have decided to litigate rather than settling out of court to create a precedent that would cover future labor disputes.
la64710 4y ago
Well I have been in many meetings where folks would continuously drop F bombs just to shut others up or to be strongly opinionated. Many years ago these behavior would have been deemed as unprofessional , now in some places people don’t bat an eyelid when these happens. I see this culture as toxic which ultimately harms full inclusion.
- GiorgioG 4y ago
  Depends on the place, circumstance, people, i.e. context. I (and my teammates) regularly drop F-bombs when troubleshooting/debugging issues with coworkers I've worked with for 5+ years. Nobody bats an eye. Do we do it in all-hands meetings? Of course not. Having said that, being a jerk intentionally to shut someone up is unacceptable in a meeting regardless of whether it's done with swearing or not. Inclusion doesn't mean treating everyone like fragile butterflies. My neighbor is a 3rd level support agent for an enterprise storage hardware company that's very well known. He's been there for decades as has most of his team. They recently hired a new agent who took offense to my neighbor and one of his long-time coworkers chirping at each other (in good fun) on a team meeting call. No one took offense except this new person who took it straight to HR. It didn't take long for this new person to get on everyone's bad side and was then let go. Learn to read the situation.
  - la64710 4y ago
    What you call fragile butterfly is called being professional. Learn to distinguish.
    - GiorgioG 4y ago
      And that's why culture-fit matters. There are places that are 'uptight' professional and others that are much more relaxed (most fall somewhere between the two.) No judgement of either environment types.
- mancerayder 4y ago
  What's non-inclusive specifically about F-bombs? It might not be great decorum, but that seems a bit heavy.
omginternets 4y ago
>Not that French is an important qualifier, I fully expect the American legal system to take that long as well. I appreciate your noble intent, but "French" actually is an important qualifier. American courts are quite expedient relative to their French counterparts, especially in civil matters. I would expect such a case to take 3 years in the US, tops. More to your point, this is where France's workplace protections are generally pretty good. It's hard to fire workers for anything other than gross negligence or incompetence, and the courts are generally biased in favor of the employee (which comes with its own set of problems, to be sure).
696WzRGsnUOI 4y ago
The same reason people don't report sexual harassment - and there is another reason on top of that: whistle blowers are potentially going to blow their career. Damages should be in the millions. Especially when the pattern is going to be younger people get harassed, so they have more career left.

frereubu 4y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but it took so long because it went all the way to the Court of Cassation, the French equivalent of the Supreme Court.

pmezard 4y ago
IANAL, but closest French equivalent to Supreme Court is Conseil Constitutionnel. Cours de cassation is about breaking judgments because they were not made to the letter of the law. They do not pronounce general opinions about the law itself.
- omginternets 4y ago
  I think this is a case where the French parliamentary system doesn't map onto American institutions very well. IIRC, the Conseil Constitutionnel intervenes at the time of ratification of a law; it's a forward-looking body, unlike the US Supreme Court that judges law ex post facto (like the Cours de Cassation).

roflc0ptic 4y ago

Right. You can only imagine the amount of fury that would drive a person to follow through on a thing like this. I mean, kudos to him for his success here against professional depravity, but litigation is awful, and often it’s better to just let the bastards win.

thrill 4y ago
"often it’s better to just let the bastards win" The bastards count on this and relish it.

ketzu 4y ago

> the media's framing it as being not "fun" This seems to be a direct quote from the defendant ('specifically his refusal to adhere to the company's "fun" value') not a framing of the media. At least not more than your own: > something basic like not wanting to drink lots of alcohol with your co-workers (Of course after-work activities should never be mandatory, otherwise they'd be work, and the practices in this case especially seem terrible.)

matrix_overload 4y ago

Unpopular opinion: life is too short to waste it working with people you don't like. If your team is a bunch of assholes, just find a different company that will be less miserable, shake hands and bid farewell.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I may like them, but still not want to go out and drink with them. In fact, in my over 35 years of work, the number of co-workers I wanted to go drink with is precisely zero. That doesn't mean I didn't like them.
marmetio 4y ago
Many people live somewhere without other employment options and can't relocate. Otherwise, yeah, that's the obvious solution.
- throwawayfrench 4y ago
  Thankfully remote work resolves this problem.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - marmetio 4y ago
    Really? Another "just do X" comment? Again, great when it's an option, but not as common as your own experience might suggest.
HeckFeck 4y ago
We've a way to go if this is an unpopular opinion. Stay and put up is terrible advice. Rotten companies deserve to fail.
- CodeMage 4y ago
  On the contrary, anywhere this is a popular opinion is a place the has a long way to go. "Just find another job" either assumes that everyone can do this or that those who can't don't deserve a better environment. The former is not true, the latter is a form of discrimination.

bjourne 4y ago

France has strong labor unions. Likely, it wasn't Mr. T who handled the case but his union's lawyers. They may even have decided to litigate rather than settling out of court to create a precedent that would cover future labor disputes.

la64710 4y ago

Well I have been in many meetings where folks would continuously drop F bombs just to shut others up or to be strongly opinionated. Many years ago these behavior would have been deemed as unprofessional , now in some places people don’t bat an eyelid when these happens. I see this culture as toxic which ultimately harms full inclusion.

GiorgioG 4y ago
Depends on the place, circumstance, people, i.e. context. I (and my teammates) regularly drop F-bombs when troubleshooting/debugging issues with coworkers I've worked with for 5+ years. Nobody bats an eye. Do we do it in all-hands meetings? Of course not. Having said that, being a jerk intentionally to shut someone up is unacceptable in a meeting regardless of whether it's done with swearing or not. Inclusion doesn't mean treating everyone like fragile butterflies. My neighbor is a 3rd level support agent for an enterprise storage hardware company that's very well known. He's been there for decades as has most of his team. They recently hired a new agent who took offense to my neighbor and one of his long-time coworkers chirping at each other (in good fun) on a team meeting call. No one took offense except this new person who took it straight to HR. It didn't take long for this new person to get on everyone's bad side and was then let go. Learn to read the situation.
- la64710 4y ago
  What you call fragile butterfly is called being professional. Learn to distinguish.
  - GiorgioG 4y ago
    And that's why culture-fit matters. There are places that are 'uptight' professional and others that are much more relaxed (most fall somewhere between the two.) No judgement of either environment types.
mancerayder 4y ago
What's non-inclusive specifically about F-bombs? It might not be great decorum, but that seems a bit heavy.

omginternets 4y ago

>Not that French is an important qualifier, I fully expect the American legal system to take that long as well. I appreciate your noble intent, but "French" actually is an important qualifier. American courts are quite expedient relative to their French counterparts, especially in civil matters. I would expect such a case to take 3 years in the US, tops. More to your point, this is where France's workplace protections are generally pretty good. It's hard to fire workers for anything other than gross negligence or incompetence, and the courts are generally biased in favor of the employee (which comes with its own set of problems, to be sure).

696WzRGsnUOI 4y ago

The same reason people don't report sexual harassment - and there is another reason on top of that: whistle blowers are potentially going to blow their career. Damages should be in the millions. Especially when the pattern is going to be younger people get harassed, so they have more career left.