GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
You're confusing the issue of those who forwarded the email with those who merley recieved it. I don't think that's helpful. Nor is making extreme comparisaons with accusations of murder - my analogy was appropriate. You're looking at this from an uncritical perspective of how to impose the current rules. I'm looking at it in a from a critical perspective of questioning those rules, who they benefit and how they might possibly be challenged - who runs the workplace?
(edit: don't bother writing a massive post in reply, not interested in a barney)
sorry only just seen this...
it's a different thing though isn't it work rules will support the bosses and there's no doubt that unscruplious people will use something like this to make signifcant workforce cuts at a time of ressession by using any old excuse to throw them overboard.
that we're not in disagreement about. I don't think.
my thoughts are this is likely to prove to be however a situation where others have asked for this to be forwarded to them (as in the case i detailed above) and that this might be part of a wider action from staff which isn't reported...
equally we don't know the reasons why staff were suspended so in essence it boils down to your thinking there's something inhertently distrust worthy about employers and bosses (which i don't entirely disagree with) and my assumption that few companies would risk a massive unfair dismissal charge against them if they were to shift a number of employees over receiving an email which was unsolicited...
i can't see any company or group in these times of financal hardship wanting to expose themselves to more financal strain by way of potential court cases, instead of going through the sanctioned (i was going to say propper but it isn't really propper) process for removing staff or making redudancies.
it'd be fiscal sucide.
has there been any follow up on this?
more info etc?