Well, it's almost been a year since being laid off by Doug and Netshops. Hope everyone who was let go in the past 12 months has been able to move on and have found a satisfying position.
To those still employed by Netshops keep your resume updated and keep your eyes open for the next opportunity to come. When it does, jump on it! After all, we can't all open an ice cream shop with a Netshops owner. If I did, I wonder if I'd be exempt from future layoffs....
As always, any info you want to share can be submitted as comment here or emailed to me.
Stay classy Netshops.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Netshops taken off Wikipedia
I wonder if it was someone's job on the SEO team to monitor the Netshops Wikipedia page. If so why they didn't see that it was nominated for deletion and has, in fact, been deleted?
Netshops no longer on Wikipedia
Just a tip for whomever it was that was supposed to maintain the page. If you have a meeting scheduled with Doug in the next couple of days and he says "I think we need to go in a different direction" just get a box.
Also, I've heard that the warehouse was not sold, but almost the entire warehouse staff has been replaced....how many employees were out there? 15? 20? (I'm sure some of those were temps or part timers so they won't be counted against the federal layoff numbers, but they're still out of a job, one way or the other so they count just as much as a full timer in my opinion.) That would take the total number of Netshops employees laid off to over 100 this year alone.
Those of you still there - do you still believe in Doug's long term, 'scaleable' plans? Seems to me 'scaleable' really means 'layoff employees and reduce the scale of the workforce'. Maybe that's just me though...
As always, keep your resumes updated and keep the rumors coming!
Netshops no longer on Wikipedia
Just a tip for whomever it was that was supposed to maintain the page. If you have a meeting scheduled with Doug in the next couple of days and he says "I think we need to go in a different direction" just get a box.
Also, I've heard that the warehouse was not sold, but almost the entire warehouse staff has been replaced....how many employees were out there? 15? 20? (I'm sure some of those were temps or part timers so they won't be counted against the federal layoff numbers, but they're still out of a job, one way or the other so they count just as much as a full timer in my opinion.) That would take the total number of Netshops employees laid off to over 100 this year alone.
Those of you still there - do you still believe in Doug's long term, 'scaleable' plans? Seems to me 'scaleable' really means 'layoff employees and reduce the scale of the workforce'. Maybe that's just me though...
As always, keep your resumes updated and keep the rumors coming!
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
6 month anniversary, laid off by netshops
So its been 6 months. I know I've moved on to bigger and better things. More opportunity with [shock!]actual potential to move up in a company[/shock!]! Hope everyone else in the Netshops Layoff Class of '07 is moving on in a similar fashion. (Maybe that'll be the theme for Doug's next sync meeting...)
A special message for Doug, Tina, and all the other management who participated in the layoffs - both here in Omaha and those that took place in Duluth:
A special message for Doug, Tina, and all the other management who participated in the layoffs - both here in Omaha and those that took place in Duluth:
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Simon's identity?!? Netshops shill trying to get ahead.
I've heard that "Simon" - the person defending Netshops for so long was really Joey S. (However you spell his name. Whatever. It is what it is.)
Poor Joey. Always passed over for promotion - not even good enough to be made Andrew's assistant, dealing with transportation issues. Y'know, just my opinion, but I think it was your sh!tty attitude that held you back. If you didn't have such a big head and had actually been open to criticism, you might've have moved up.
Maybe sucking up to management by causing trouble on this blog was your ticket to moving up? I sure hope so - you need something to justify your sad existence...
Poor Joey. Always passed over for promotion - not even good enough to be made Andrew's assistant, dealing with transportation issues. Y'know, just my opinion, but I think it was your sh!tty attitude that held you back. If you didn't have such a big head and had actually been open to criticism, you might've have moved up.
Maybe sucking up to management by causing trouble on this blog was your ticket to moving up? I sure hope so - you need something to justify your sad existence...
Monday, July 23, 2007
Response from transition team member - Temps running Thralow.net sites
Kind of a lengthy response, but I can understand how they might be upset. Keep in mind, to my knowledge, I've never heard from this individual before, whereas I have heard from the other person/persons providing info on Netshops - thus the reason for my belief that this individual was someone spinning the story for Netshops. (Wouldn't be the first time someone from the company has tried to stir the pot here, right 'Simon'?)
Anyway, here it is:
This individual is right about a couple of things.
I have no way of knowing that any of this information is true. All I'm doing is relaying info that is passed to me. Consider this a gossip/rumor blog if it makes you sleep better at night.
Also, it isn't Dan Thralow's fault those of you from MN lost your jobs. I'm sure Doug shook his hand and said something like 'we'll keep your people and take good care of them, blah blah blah' - he kept you for all of 6 months to get through the holiday and then let you go when he needed the lift for his bottom line. Doug and Netshops is who you should be upset with - not Thralow. Once he sold the company, it was out of his hands. (Of course, some would say he shouldn't have sold the company to Netshops, based on Doug's previous history of laying people off, but that's a different story....)
Another interesting piece of information was revealed in the above email. Temps are running the Thralow sites. Now, I don't know if that means they're handling the customer service calls or they're actually managing the sites themselves. I suspect they're only in call center roles. Regardless, weren't temps part of the problem last holiday season? Lack of knowledge, lack of enthusiasm, and just there to make a quick paycheck - those aren't the Netshops employee qualifications I remember. Maybe cheaper labor, fewer benefits to provide and more profit as a result is worth the loss on customer service related issues.
Course, that could be why Netshops loses so much money from the call center end of things. Or it could just be the call center management doesn't know what they're doing....
Anyway, here it is:
I can assure you that I am not a Netshops shill. Please do not assume that because I said that the information you received from your previous source was
incorrect it means that I am from NetShops and want to cover something up. I have very few positive things to say about NetShops and am very happy to be back in
Minnesota. I am most upset by the fact that you made assumptions on my legitimacy based upon unsubstantiated information you received from your previous source.
I would be interested to know who gave you that information and how they can "prove" that it is true. Of course I do not expect you to give me that information but I would suggest that you ask them to prove it.
There are still quite a few previous Thralow employees who still cannot let this go. We were all very lucky to work for Dan. Blaming the loss of their job on him
and giving out false information is not going to get their jobs back.
We all know that NetShops is not going to be able to run our sites like we did...come on, they have temps doing our jobs! Three weeks of training as compared to years and years of experience with the reps we had
running the show, having supervisors from other departments come to oversee things when they had less training than the temps that were on the phones did...the list goes on!
I would prefer that if you had any questions that you ask me directly before posting assumptions on your blog. I am happy to be truthful with you!
This individual is right about a couple of things.
I have no way of knowing that any of this information is true. All I'm doing is relaying info that is passed to me. Consider this a gossip/rumor blog if it makes you sleep better at night.
Also, it isn't Dan Thralow's fault those of you from MN lost your jobs. I'm sure Doug shook his hand and said something like 'we'll keep your people and take good care of them, blah blah blah' - he kept you for all of 6 months to get through the holiday and then let you go when he needed the lift for his bottom line. Doug and Netshops is who you should be upset with - not Thralow. Once he sold the company, it was out of his hands. (Of course, some would say he shouldn't have sold the company to Netshops, based on Doug's previous history of laying people off, but that's a different story....)
Another interesting piece of information was revealed in the above email. Temps are running the Thralow sites. Now, I don't know if that means they're handling the customer service calls or they're actually managing the sites themselves. I suspect they're only in call center roles. Regardless, weren't temps part of the problem last holiday season? Lack of knowledge, lack of enthusiasm, and just there to make a quick paycheck - those aren't the Netshops employee qualifications I remember. Maybe cheaper labor, fewer benefits to provide and more profit as a result is worth the loss on customer service related issues.
Course, that could be why Netshops loses so much money from the call center end of things. Or it could just be the call center management doesn't know what they're doing....
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Update - Thralow.net sites not struggling? Netshops warehouse for sale?
I received an email from someone saying they were part of the 'transition' team and the information about Thralow was not correct.
Unfortunately the individual did not go into details. If they'd like to provide some additional information, I'd be happy to correct any misinformation. (I've received another email from the original person saying they can confirm the info though... so is this in fact true? Maybe the person on the 'transition' team is again, a Netshops shill trying to put things in a positive spin?)
Another email I received this week states the Netshops warehouse has either been sold or is up for sale. Again, I don't know if this is fact or not - just relaying what I've heard. Supposedly it comes from someone higher up the chain who was impacted by the layoffs.
So, the warehouse - Doug's jewel and a bragging point when talking to potential vendors "We have our own 10 bajillion square foot warehouse with 12 docks to handle product on a seasonal basis" could be up for sale. Wonder why?
Thralow sites may or may not be doing well. Optics versus wine racks. Which do you think is going to take more time to learn about? Which do you think would be a more technical sale?
Here's how I'd imagine a Telescopes.com customer service call would go:
Customer 'I'd like to look at the Netshops Nebula in quadrant alpha delta beta zed. Will this telescope let me do that?'
Netshops rep 'Ummm... let me submit a product question and we'll get back to you.'
Now the Wineracks.com call:
Customer 'I need a wine rack to hold 26 bottles.'
Netshops rep 'I've got one here - it says it is MDF'
Customer 'What is MDF?'
Netshops rep 'Ummm... let me submit a product question...'
Unfortunately the individual did not go into details. If they'd like to provide some additional information, I'd be happy to correct any misinformation. (I've received another email from the original person saying they can confirm the info though... so is this in fact true? Maybe the person on the 'transition' team is again, a Netshops shill trying to put things in a positive spin?)
Another email I received this week states the Netshops warehouse has either been sold or is up for sale. Again, I don't know if this is fact or not - just relaying what I've heard. Supposedly it comes from someone higher up the chain who was impacted by the layoffs.
So, the warehouse - Doug's jewel and a bragging point when talking to potential vendors "We have our own 10 bajillion square foot warehouse with 12 docks to handle product on a seasonal basis" could be up for sale. Wonder why?
Thralow sites may or may not be doing well. Optics versus wine racks. Which do you think is going to take more time to learn about? Which do you think would be a more technical sale?
Here's how I'd imagine a Telescopes.com customer service call would go:
Customer 'I'd like to look at the Netshops Nebula in quadrant alpha delta beta zed. Will this telescope let me do that?'
Netshops rep 'Ummm... let me submit a product question and we'll get back to you.'
Now the Wineracks.com call:
Customer 'I need a wine rack to hold 26 bottles.'
Netshops rep 'I've got one here - it says it is MDF'
Customer 'What is MDF?'
Netshops rep 'Ummm... let me submit a product question...'
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Funny story - Netshops pay sucks
Man walks into a bar with a leprechaun on his shoulder...
Wait.
Wrong story.
Waaaay back when, I was interviewed and hired by Netshops, I negotiated for a number of things - higher pay, more vacation, etc. Regarding pay, I was told they couldn't match what I was currently making, but if I was with the company for a year and was promoted, they'd bump me up to what I'd been making pre-Netshops.
Silly me, I believed them.
When it was time for my review, I met all of the requirements discussed in my interview. I got a raise, but it was well short of what I'd been making in the past. I convinced myself (and my family) that it was ok, because the benefits and the 'fun' of working at Netshops outweighed the pay I wasn't getting.
Then I got laid off.
As you know, I've had a new job for quite a while now. Funny thing is, I'm making more now than I was before I started at Netshops. So I guess I owe Netshops management a thank you. Thank you for lying to me about my future pay increase, thank you for laying me off. I'm better off now for the experience and I no longer have to worry about being laid off once every 6 monhs.
Current members of management still have to though...
Karma's a bitch.
Wait.
Wrong story.
Waaaay back when, I was interviewed and hired by Netshops, I negotiated for a number of things - higher pay, more vacation, etc. Regarding pay, I was told they couldn't match what I was currently making, but if I was with the company for a year and was promoted, they'd bump me up to what I'd been making pre-Netshops.
Silly me, I believed them.
When it was time for my review, I met all of the requirements discussed in my interview. I got a raise, but it was well short of what I'd been making in the past. I convinced myself (and my family) that it was ok, because the benefits and the 'fun' of working at Netshops outweighed the pay I wasn't getting.
Then I got laid off.
As you know, I've had a new job for quite a while now. Funny thing is, I'm making more now than I was before I started at Netshops. So I guess I owe Netshops management a thank you. Thank you for lying to me about my future pay increase, thank you for laying me off. I'm better off now for the experience and I no longer have to worry about being laid off once every 6 monhs.
Current members of management still have to though...
Karma's a bitch.
Quick update - Thralow.net site sales down, Netshops letting Thralow reps go
Just want to pass on a very interesting email I received the other day:
Wow. If this is true, I can just hear the spin coming out of Doug "Well, its taking some time for us to understand the product and the market. We've never done optics before, so it might be a while before it is profitable for us. We started out with just Hammocks and turned it into 150+ stores - and we can do it with these stores too. It will just take time. We knew that going in and expected it." While behind closed doors, upper managers are very carefully answering questions, for fear they'll hear Doug utter those famous words "We need to go in another direction" and they'll be packing a box before the day is thru. (Kind of like he did with Vince and Dale....)
Thralow site telephone sales are down 80% since Netshops took over. Dan Thralow was fired by Netshops. They also fired one of the Thralow transitional employees without cause and he had to sue them for his severance. They have only one Thralowite left down thereand that took a six figure severance to buy his loyalty.
Wow. If this is true, I can just hear the spin coming out of Doug "Well, its taking some time for us to understand the product and the market. We've never done optics before, so it might be a while before it is profitable for us. We started out with just Hammocks and turned it into 150+ stores - and we can do it with these stores too. It will just take time. We knew that going in and expected it." While behind closed doors, upper managers are very carefully answering questions, for fear they'll hear Doug utter those famous words "We need to go in another direction" and they'll be packing a box before the day is thru. (Kind of like he did with Vince and Dale....)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Another reorg?!?
Wow. That didn't last long.
Is another layoff on the horizon? Buyers on the chopping block? Hmm...
Is another layoff on the horizon? Buyers on the chopping block? Hmm...
Friday, May 18, 2007
Optics vendors concerned/not shipping orders?
I just got an email regarding problems Netshops is having with various optics vendors.
Maybe I should explain. Several of the ex-Thralow site vendors are concerned about Netshops handling of their product. I'm told the two biggest sunglass vendors are not shipping product. Problem? Hell yes! I'll bet Doug is spinning circles on his Segway right now. I pity the site manager of the optics sites. Good luck surviving the year. Better update that resume. (I predict Sync 08 Doug sez "We suffered some losses in the optics & Thralow sites. We didn't understand the categories, but we're starting to get them and we're making strides. We are a little off pace to make our IPO this year, but Amazon is aware of us." Sound familiar?)
I've also been told some of the sports optic vendors have set very low credit limits. Reportedly, the sport optic and sunglass vendors have very strict standards for how their products are sold. Netshops does not pass any of their tests.
Any of the current or past Netshoppers who have been through a holiday or two will know low credit limits = constant credit hold = delayed orders = pissed off customers. Pissed off customers = more calls. More calls to an understaffed & overworked call center = more temps to fill the gaps. More temps = less product knowledge and more 'order takers'. More order takers = more mistakes. More mistakes = more pissed off vendors. Pissed off vendors = orders not being filled. Circle of life at Netshops I guess.
We may see several key vendors drop the accounts, sooner rather than later. One vendor has already predicted that Netshops will run the sites into the ground. Much like I've been saying since I heard about the Thralow reps being let go.
Might be a good time for CSN or another competitor to get an optics related site going... (Nice site by the way CSN. Very professional & easy to navigate. It looks like all your links work - something Netshops should look into.)
Maybe I should explain. Several of the ex-Thralow site vendors are concerned about Netshops handling of their product. I'm told the two biggest sunglass vendors are not shipping product. Problem? Hell yes! I'll bet Doug is spinning circles on his Segway right now. I pity the site manager of the optics sites. Good luck surviving the year. Better update that resume. (I predict Sync 08 Doug sez "We suffered some losses in the optics & Thralow sites. We didn't understand the categories, but we're starting to get them and we're making strides. We are a little off pace to make our IPO this year, but Amazon is aware of us." Sound familiar?)
I've also been told some of the sports optic vendors have set very low credit limits. Reportedly, the sport optic and sunglass vendors have very strict standards for how their products are sold. Netshops does not pass any of their tests.
Any of the current or past Netshoppers who have been through a holiday or two will know low credit limits = constant credit hold = delayed orders = pissed off customers. Pissed off customers = more calls. More calls to an understaffed & overworked call center = more temps to fill the gaps. More temps = less product knowledge and more 'order takers'. More order takers = more mistakes. More mistakes = more pissed off vendors. Pissed off vendors = orders not being filled. Circle of life at Netshops I guess.
We may see several key vendors drop the accounts, sooner rather than later. One vendor has already predicted that Netshops will run the sites into the ground. Much like I've been saying since I heard about the Thralow reps being let go.
Might be a good time for CSN or another competitor to get an optics related site going... (Nice site by the way CSN. Very professional & easy to navigate. It looks like all your links work - something Netshops should look into.)
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Duluth centers closing down this week.
Some previous customers of Telescopes.com have concerns about the changes and how it wil impact customer service. Rightfully so. This is exactly the type of reaction I've predicted all along on many of the specialty Thralow related sites. They're way too technical for Netshops reps and supervisors to handle. Especially when they're high at work...
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Apology to Caleb (but Netshops still sucks)
Caleb, I'm sorry if you think I have an issue with you. My issue is with Netshops' management and the hiring decisions they make. You aren't the first employee they've had who has obviously had a substance abuse problem. You wrote about your experimentation. Others wore it on their sleeve. And on the front of their shirt. And smelled like they bathed in it the night before. MyFaceJournalBlogs are great for finding pictures of Netshops employees stumbling drunk while out and about in the city.
Anyway, hopefully you get my point - you Caleb, are just an example of the poor decisions being made by someone in upper management. Whether it comes directly from Doug, HR or Tina, it doesn't much matter when it impacts employee morale and potentially the customer's experience. I have no problem with you and I hope you succeed in your career with Netshops. (Just be sure you keep your resume updated.)
If you're impaired while at work it will affect your decisions when dealing with customers. No way around it.
Being impaired at work should not qualify one for a promotion. Unfortunately in the past at Netshops, it has. One of the past customer service supervisors was complained about on a regular basis because the stench of alcohol trailed behind him like a cloud as he walked the floor. Eyes watered and noses were assaulted on a daily basis. Complaints were ignored because management didn't want to deal with the problem. Another supervisor came to work drunk on many occasions. His red nose and cheeks were common every weekend morning shift he worked. While a nice guy, if Netshops really cared about their employees, someone from management would have talked to him about AA/treatment of some sort. Yes, it is a tough topic to discuss with the employee, but better for all involved that he get some help. Instead, I've heard he was laid off. Great way to get rid of a problem Netshops management. Rather than council the employee and help them with a problem, its easier (and probably cheaper) to lay them off, putting the ex-employee in the perfect frame of mind to drink to excess and giving them more time to devote to a destructive pattern of self abuse. Some really good decision makers you've surrounded yourself with there Doug. Top notch staff.
Based on Caleb's blog, it appears Caleb has the opportunity to continue the trend of supervisors who walk the floor and make decisions on how to handle customer service issues while impaired. Good for him, bad for the customer. Some of the people who were let go over the past year as a result of the layoffs were pretty vocal about the need for random drug testing. (Generally speaking, those asking for it had observed the problems in the call center - the call center wasn't the only area with problems - it was a problem throughout the entire company, just most visible in the call center. This is because there weren't any cubicle walls to hide behind. Since starting this tangent of the blog, I've had reports of many 'lunches' where alcohol was consumed. Unfortunately, this isn't against company policy. It's tough to go against company policy when there isn't a policy in place forbidding an activity. Kind of like dating someone who's beneath you on the org chart, right Tina?) But I digress.... The vocal employees were ignored and released in the next round of layoffs. It's too bad because they only wanted what was best for the company.
Good thing the customer isn't what Netshops is focused on.
Next time, we'll talk about employees who excel at doing nothing all day and somehow retain their positions at Netshops. As always, send your insider info along to me via email - laid_off_by_netshops@yahoo.com - the source will be confidential unless you tell me otherwise!
Anyway, hopefully you get my point - you Caleb, are just an example of the poor decisions being made by someone in upper management. Whether it comes directly from Doug, HR or Tina, it doesn't much matter when it impacts employee morale and potentially the customer's experience. I have no problem with you and I hope you succeed in your career with Netshops. (Just be sure you keep your resume updated.)
If you're impaired while at work it will affect your decisions when dealing with customers. No way around it.
Being impaired at work should not qualify one for a promotion. Unfortunately in the past at Netshops, it has. One of the past customer service supervisors was complained about on a regular basis because the stench of alcohol trailed behind him like a cloud as he walked the floor. Eyes watered and noses were assaulted on a daily basis. Complaints were ignored because management didn't want to deal with the problem. Another supervisor came to work drunk on many occasions. His red nose and cheeks were common every weekend morning shift he worked. While a nice guy, if Netshops really cared about their employees, someone from management would have talked to him about AA/treatment of some sort. Yes, it is a tough topic to discuss with the employee, but better for all involved that he get some help. Instead, I've heard he was laid off. Great way to get rid of a problem Netshops management. Rather than council the employee and help them with a problem, its easier (and probably cheaper) to lay them off, putting the ex-employee in the perfect frame of mind to drink to excess and giving them more time to devote to a destructive pattern of self abuse. Some really good decision makers you've surrounded yourself with there Doug. Top notch staff.
Based on Caleb's blog, it appears Caleb has the opportunity to continue the trend of supervisors who walk the floor and make decisions on how to handle customer service issues while impaired. Good for him, bad for the customer. Some of the people who were let go over the past year as a result of the layoffs were pretty vocal about the need for random drug testing. (Generally speaking, those asking for it had observed the problems in the call center - the call center wasn't the only area with problems - it was a problem throughout the entire company, just most visible in the call center. This is because there weren't any cubicle walls to hide behind. Since starting this tangent of the blog, I've had reports of many 'lunches' where alcohol was consumed. Unfortunately, this isn't against company policy. It's tough to go against company policy when there isn't a policy in place forbidding an activity. Kind of like dating someone who's beneath you on the org chart, right Tina?) But I digress.... The vocal employees were ignored and released in the next round of layoffs. It's too bad because they only wanted what was best for the company.
Good thing the customer isn't what Netshops is focused on.
Next time, we'll talk about employees who excel at doing nothing all day and somehow retain their positions at Netshops. As always, send your insider info along to me via email - laid_off_by_netshops@yahoo.com - the source will be confidential unless you tell me otherwise!
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
How to get high at work and get promoted at the same time
I'm glad you're all happy I'm posting again. Good to see you missed me. And for those reading from their desks at work, I'd try Nebraska Workforce, Monster.com, or CareerLink instead of reading this. It'll benefit you more in the long run if you start looking now.
On to Caleb and his Live Journal. He's got this high at work thing down. For all those who enjoy the ganja, you should take tips from him - and get your application in to Tina. She's hiring, since they're understaffed and the big Father's Day holiday push is in full swing. (Who's getting laid off in July this year? Can I get in on the office pool even though I'm no longer there?)
Caleb, I wonder, since you pulled the posts that I copied and linked to on your LiveJournal page, do you still have a job? (Buy Tina some shoes or a Coke and you'll be ok. Just ask Paulette.) I've heard you do, but you probably shouldn't be posting blog entries from work anymore. (Just FYI.)
Since you pulled those two posts (good thing I thought to copy them for posterity, idnit?) here are a couple more hits from Caleb's bong.
Well, you got your wish. Someone ran across your internet blog. Congrats. So, this bong smoking thing, I'm seeing a pattern here. Do you want to be on the executive board for Netshops? We think you have potential to grow with the company.
Here's another 'hit' from the past.
Did I say 'hit'? Almost, like from a bong?
Hope you get that promotion you so obviously deserve. Yet another brilliant choice by Netshops management. Excellent evaluators of talent and potential I tells ya!
Oh, and me? Yeah, my new job is great. Fuck you Netshops.
On to Caleb and his Live Journal. He's got this high at work thing down. For all those who enjoy the ganja, you should take tips from him - and get your application in to Tina. She's hiring, since they're understaffed and the big Father's Day holiday push is in full swing. (Who's getting laid off in July this year? Can I get in on the office pool even though I'm no longer there?)
Caleb, I wonder, since you pulled the posts that I copied and linked to on your LiveJournal page, do you still have a job? (Buy Tina some shoes or a Coke and you'll be ok. Just ask Paulette.) I've heard you do, but you probably shouldn't be posting blog entries from work anymore. (Just FYI.)
Since you pulled those two posts (good thing I thought to copy them for posterity, idnit?) here are a couple more hits from Caleb's bong.
OMG MORE blogging? [Sep. 16th, 2006|01:30 pm]
One would think that having so much freetimeat work would suck a whole lot, but NO! I can sit here and write disjointed little nothings in internet blogs that will get run across by someone at some point. YAY!
So I spent last night in the apartment of some girl I don't know very well smoking out of a bong and watching the Boondock Saints... It was, believe it or not, decent. I may do it again tonight if the whole Spinal Tap thing doesn't pan out. I wanna go seet Spinal Tap at the Dundee tonight, but I want COMPANY GODDAMNSITALLTOHELL! Tired of amusing myself. I need NEW people to pick on. Joins me, people. Joins me....
link post comment
Well, you got your wish. Someone ran across your internet blog. Congrats. So, this bong smoking thing, I'm seeing a pattern here. Do you want to be on the executive board for Netshops? We think you have potential to grow with the company.
Here's another 'hit' from the past.
...Like Gargling With Bong Water [Sep. 16th, 2006|07:28 am]
It's been an all-together eventful week. I wanna be sleeping, but those who ration my monetary notes say I gotta be here at work.
You ever half-sleep for an entire night? It's exhausting. You lay in bed, not really sure if the noise you just heard was real or not. Maybe that's just me. I do have a lot that goes 'bump' in the night. The coffee's broken and it's not waking me up.
I wonder if I can trade myself in for a better model. I have to remember to ask my mom if she kept the warranty.
My initial thoughts this morning are like this: I'm going to THIS IS SPINAL TAP this evening, and whoever would like to come is totally fuckin' invitied. It is a sure-fired jolly time of Caleb-like proportions.
I'm really very bored with all of this and wish that I had someone to talk to or hang out with. But I don't. OH, ABBA-ZABBA! YOU'RE MY ONLY FRIEND! And the internet. The good old reliable internet.....
link post comment
Did I say 'hit'? Almost, like from a bong?
Hope you get that promotion you so obviously deserve. Yet another brilliant choice by Netshops management. Excellent evaluators of talent and potential I tells ya!
Oh, and me? Yeah, my new job is great. Fuck you Netshops.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
I'm back.....
So I've taken a month off to think about the purpose of this blog.
I've also gotten a job.
Has my opinion changed? No. The blog is still relevant. A quick search of Netshops related items on the ol' net showed me that. Want proof?
The Caleb's LiveJournal blog
Oooh. That was good. Promote Caleb! He certainly cares about the company - at least, as far as his paycheck. If he's promoted, he can handle all the calls from customers complaining about their fishy smelling barstools. He could be the fishy smelling barstool store expert. ....Gotta check to see if anyone owns that domain name and grab it before Doug does....
How about this one:
Yes, you read that right. He's 'rabling due to being high and at work.' Obviously a good choice of someone to promote and keep with the company.
The people who make decisions at Netshops still don't have a clue. I've run into a number of ex-Netshoppers recenly and I'm amazed by the people laid off back in February. People with talent. People who knew what the hell they were doing. People who worked their asses off for Doug, Julie, and Mark (and the investors who drive everything Doug, Julie and Mark do). People who were single and people who had families to take care of.
Is it any wonder many of the people who were with the company at the beginning have left to pursue other opportunities? I should have recognized it sooner, but I was, unfortunately happy and trusting of Doug and Co. Silly me.
So, for those of you still at Netshops, start looking. Update that resume. Get your name out there to friends and family - let them know you need a new job. Start contacting temp agencies. Get them working on finding you a new job.
Of course, if you want to be promoted, you need to be high and blogging while at work.
I've also gotten a job.
Has my opinion changed? No. The blog is still relevant. A quick search of Netshops related items on the ol' net showed me that. Want proof?
The Caleb's LiveJournal blog
New and Unimproved. [Apr. 22nd, 2007|08:32 am]
[ mood | jubilant ]
[ music | Crazy Train - Ozzy ]
Seeing as I have some time before my shift starts, I figured I'd do some blogging, because that's just the kind of time-wasting, internet driven guy I am.
I'm still working at Netshops. Things are getting hectic here. We're understaffed due to our last lay-off. I honestly don't see how I can waste as much time at work as I do and still be working for the company. They fired a large number of people who were far more qualified than I for the position I hold, however I guess I'm better at PRETENDING to care about my job than they were. And, truth be told, I DO care, but only so far as my paycheck is concerned.
I'm moving out of my house on the first. I think I might just be becoming a pro at this whole "organizing, packing and getting the hell outta there" thing. On the plus side, I'm really happy with the apartment I got. It has 200 feet more floorspace than the living area of my house does, plus pool, gym and daycare nearby. It'll be good.
They talked to me yesterday about how I might be forced into taking a promotion, which sucks. The way they put it to me was basically as follows: "Well, if you DON'T take the job, we'll just change your job description so that you're doing the job anyhow." Those fucking fuckers.
So the place I work at is basically an online mall. One store in particular is fairly popular "www.Barstools.com"
A few weeks ago I get this call from a customer, and the conversation was as follows:
"Thank you for calling Barstools.com. My name is Caleb. What can I do for you today?"
"I need to return my barstool. It's defective."
"Alright, sir. If you could please, describe the nature of the defect your item has sustained?"
"Every time I sit down, the stool makes it smell like fish."
".......Excuse me?"
"Fish, damn it! Every time I sit down, it smells like fish. I need to return it."
How, exactly, do you handle that situation? We obviously didn't accept the return based on the grounds that the customer smelled fish every time he sat down, but he sounded so earnest that I believe him.
God. Tired. Cigarette. Laterz.
Oooh. That was good. Promote Caleb! He certainly cares about the company - at least, as far as his paycheck. If he's promoted, he can handle all the calls from customers complaining about their fishy smelling barstools. He could be the fishy smelling barstool store expert. ....Gotta check to see if anyone owns that domain name and grab it before Doug does....
How about this one:
Public Display of Infection [Feb. 24th, 2007|07:14 am]
[ mood | high ]
[ music | A Cacophony of Thoughts ]
...You end up taking advantage of yourself. Playing to your own weaknesses, fully aware of what they are. You give in to the quick-fix. The heartbreak. The car wreck, the graveyard, the prison and tobacco... the booze... Then you wake up one day to find yourself on a bar stool at the bottom of the social heap talking to women whose mouths are crimson and gaping like the war wounds your father described when he was alive and drunk and you were a child. This is no place to be.
So you get a job, get a car, get a life, get an education, get wise and get to church. You play and pray and pay and do all the things they say you gotta and your life is still shit. Another approach.
You stop giving a shit and get hooked on the carefree abandon of despair. Drive fast, drink hard, stay awake or else you'll miss it. Find a dangerous lady with a smile colder than a die-hard Catholic at a Democratic convention, then use her to get over the last lady who confined you to the prison of her arms. Your will dies screaming and you slide farther into the pit.
All this dramatic nonsense leads to hurting the same way sex leads to hate and you find yourself back at the bar wondering why you can't wake up in your dreams. It comes down to the things that can't fuck you over: Old cars, old hats, cigarettes, friends long gone whose memories make you smile. That is, until you realize that you ain't the king of anything. All the dreams you planted as a child grew into weeds and nothing is more heartbreaking than having to trim them down.
Rambling due to being high and at work. Later, muddafuckahs.
Yes, you read that right. He's 'rabling due to being high and at work.' Obviously a good choice of someone to promote and keep with the company.
The people who make decisions at Netshops still don't have a clue. I've run into a number of ex-Netshoppers recenly and I'm amazed by the people laid off back in February. People with talent. People who knew what the hell they were doing. People who worked their asses off for Doug, Julie, and Mark (and the investors who drive everything Doug, Julie and Mark do). People who were single and people who had families to take care of.
Is it any wonder many of the people who were with the company at the beginning have left to pursue other opportunities? I should have recognized it sooner, but I was, unfortunately happy and trusting of Doug and Co. Silly me.
So, for those of you still at Netshops, start looking. Update that resume. Get your name out there to friends and family - let them know you need a new job. Start contacting temp agencies. Get them working on finding you a new job.
Of course, if you want to be promoted, you need to be high and blogging while at work.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Netshops and unemployment benefits
Are you getting your unemployment benefits yet? If you're still unemployed due to the layoff, you should be by now - unless you had a huge vacation balance and got a larger severance package than I've heard of.
Someone emailed me about a discussion they had with a representative from the Nebraska Workforce Development office. I'm going to post the email because it goes into detail about the situation. (All names have been removed to protect the innocent.)
Is anyone else having this problem? Have any of you out there heard of similar issues with Workforce? Please let us know!! (As always, I won't post your info or your emails unless it's ok with you.)
Someone emailed me about a discussion they had with a representative from the Nebraska Workforce Development office. I'm going to post the email because it goes into detail about the situation. (All names have been removed to protect the innocent.)
Apparently, severance pay for a number of Netshops employees was not reported accurately (whether by the individuals or by Netshops is unclear). This has resulted in some former Netshops employees being overpaid unemployment benefits. The adjudicator said that Netshops has been a nightmare to work with during this. The end result of this is that there are people who have been receiving benefits when they, apparently, were not entitled, and will have to pay whatever they have received back to the state.
The initial misunderstanding seems to have come from confusion regarding vacation pay and sick pay. The state differentiates between the two, and Netshops does not, so Workforce was unsure how to pay out benefits. Then, with the severance, the former employees were asked if they received anything, but Netshops was to provide the amount, and this wasn't done in a timely manner, according to workforce.
Workforce stated that they contacted Netshops numerous times in an attempt to clarify, but Netshops did not get back in a reasonable amount of time.
I certainly don't think that Netshops was intentionally trying to screw us over, but their slow response time to Workforce's inquiries amounts to the same thing, at least for some of those involved in the last round of layoffs.
Not sure, if you can use this in the blog or not, but my attempts to get any sort of accurate information from Workforce has been slowed by weeks by Netshops lack of timely response.
Is anyone else having this problem? Have any of you out there heard of similar issues with Workforce? Please let us know!! (As always, I won't post your info or your emails unless it's ok with you.)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Netshops not on Omaha's Best Places to Work list for 2007
Congrats Doug! You've taken a company that was on the list 2 years running and dropped them from the list. Is that the 'scalability' you were hoping to achieve with this recent round of layoffs? The 'efficiencies gained'? Who needs another award to clutter the office?
Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.
I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.
Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007
Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators
Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp
Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.
Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.
I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.
Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007
Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators
Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp
Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Resources for employees laid off by Netshops
Here are a few resources:
Fired-layed off-downsized employees handbook
Gifts for laid off employees
Oh look. Dilios has been updating Netshops' Wiki entry... I wonder how long it will be before it gets changed back to accurately reflecting the 'multiple rounds of layoffs' Netshops has gone through...
Corporate accounting scandals
Why would ^ that be here....
Unemployed, underemployed or anxiously employed? Take a look at UnitedProfessionals.org
Oh, by the way, the job fair next week at the Holiday Inn Central - it is mostly for journalisim/news media professionals. The next job fair for the rest of us unemployed (or underemployed or anxiously employed - like most of Netshops workforce right now) is April 10th. Circle the date. Like I mentioned - some of you owe me drinks and I don't drink cheap liquor.
Fired-layed off-downsized employees handbook
Gifts for laid off employees
Oh look. Dilios has been updating Netshops' Wiki entry... I wonder how long it will be before it gets changed back to accurately reflecting the 'multiple rounds of layoffs' Netshops has gone through...
Corporate accounting scandals
Why would ^ that be here....
Unemployed, underemployed or anxiously employed? Take a look at UnitedProfessionals.org
Oh, by the way, the job fair next week at the Holiday Inn Central - it is mostly for journalisim/news media professionals. The next job fair for the rest of us unemployed (or underemployed or anxiously employed - like most of Netshops workforce right now) is April 10th. Circle the date. Like I mentioned - some of you owe me drinks and I don't drink cheap liquor.
Response to Dilios's comments
I was going to respond as a comment, but thought that there was enough in the response that was better in the main section of the blog, instead of being buried in the comments.
Dilios: I never tried to come off as 'objective' - not sure where you got that idea. I've got an issue with the way Netshops does business. I have issues with the way they treat their customers and the way they treat their employees. Shocking? Probably not. Would I have a different perspective if I'd survived this round of layoffs? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I'd have been asking - as I did after the last round of layoffs - if this was the end of the reorgs and job cuts. I wouldn't expect to get a response. I didn't last time - why would this time be any different?
Back then, I was simply a concerned Netshopper. This time, I've been laid off by Netshops. Drastically different situations, different response.
I eagerly await the results of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce's 'Best Places to Work' survey this year. Is Netshops on the list? Maybe they should open the survey up to employees laid off both from Omaha and those being let go from Duluth? How would they fair then? Makes you go Hmmm....
If I was 'layed-off' and not really fired??? Maybe you missed the entry about how prior to being laid off, I was an 'above average' employee - according to each review I'd gotten. (Yes, before you ask, I had more than one. I had to ask, prod and pry my managers to get them completed, but I got them. That's more than I can say for some folks employed by Netshops.)
Who said I was trying to 'stop' anything? If someone looking at Netshops as a potential employer sees this blog and reconsiders their application, or if one potential affilliate pulls their ads OR if one investor decides not to go forward with Netshops, then I've accomplished something. Can you say the same thing about your daily activites? How will your opinion change when you're let go without notice or reason? (Don't think it can't happen - anyone there is fair game.)
Yes, layoffs hapen. Generally they are a sign of a company that is either struggling to stay afloat or a company that's trying to look more profitable than they really are.
Look at it this way - let's say 1st quarter 2007 profits were down. Sequoia (or any other investors for that matter) isn't happy. Call center supervisors were being paid somewhere around $30,000 per year. Let's use that as our median salary - some folks laid off made more, some probably made less. $30k/12 (months) = $2500/month, yes? Ok. 1.5 months into the year, they've paid out approx $3750 per employee. 60+ employees were laid off. Those 60 employees would have cost Doug & Co $1,800,000 in salary. Since they were laid off and some received severance pay,we'll say 60 x $3750 = approx $225,000 in salary paid out. That's a savings of $1,575,000 - quick and easy profit. Who's going to make up the difference & do the added work of those 60+ employees? You are Dilios. You and those employees still there, getting a good laugh at this blog. Although, none of you are any more productive than those who were laid off, since you're spending HOURS each day reading this, rather than doing your job....
Ironic, isn't it?
Dilios: I never tried to come off as 'objective' - not sure where you got that idea. I've got an issue with the way Netshops does business. I have issues with the way they treat their customers and the way they treat their employees. Shocking? Probably not. Would I have a different perspective if I'd survived this round of layoffs? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I'd have been asking - as I did after the last round of layoffs - if this was the end of the reorgs and job cuts. I wouldn't expect to get a response. I didn't last time - why would this time be any different?
Back then, I was simply a concerned Netshopper. This time, I've been laid off by Netshops. Drastically different situations, different response.
I eagerly await the results of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce's 'Best Places to Work' survey this year. Is Netshops on the list? Maybe they should open the survey up to employees laid off both from Omaha and those being let go from Duluth? How would they fair then? Makes you go Hmmm....
If I was 'layed-off' and not really fired??? Maybe you missed the entry about how prior to being laid off, I was an 'above average' employee - according to each review I'd gotten. (Yes, before you ask, I had more than one. I had to ask, prod and pry my managers to get them completed, but I got them. That's more than I can say for some folks employed by Netshops.)
Who said I was trying to 'stop' anything? If someone looking at Netshops as a potential employer sees this blog and reconsiders their application, or if one potential affilliate pulls their ads OR if one investor decides not to go forward with Netshops, then I've accomplished something. Can you say the same thing about your daily activites? How will your opinion change when you're let go without notice or reason? (Don't think it can't happen - anyone there is fair game.)
Yes, layoffs hapen. Generally they are a sign of a company that is either struggling to stay afloat or a company that's trying to look more profitable than they really are.
Look at it this way - let's say 1st quarter 2007 profits were down. Sequoia (or any other investors for that matter) isn't happy. Call center supervisors were being paid somewhere around $30,000 per year. Let's use that as our median salary - some folks laid off made more, some probably made less. $30k/12 (months) = $2500/month, yes? Ok. 1.5 months into the year, they've paid out approx $3750 per employee. 60+ employees were laid off. Those 60 employees would have cost Doug & Co $1,800,000 in salary. Since they were laid off and some received severance pay,we'll say 60 x $3750 = approx $225,000 in salary paid out. That's a savings of $1,575,000 - quick and easy profit. Who's going to make up the difference & do the added work of those 60+ employees? You are Dilios. You and those employees still there, getting a good laugh at this blog. Although, none of you are any more productive than those who were laid off, since you're spending HOURS each day reading this, rather than doing your job....
Ironic, isn't it?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blogging and your rights
A couple of people have emailed me with concerns about what Netshops will do with their comments on this blog.
The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.
Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.
Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...
The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.
Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.
Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
