Waterstones come out as GC and fire TRA for social media post

Genuine question -- would you get the books back if Gaiman is found to be innocent? Or would you feel 'no smoke without fire'? (Don't want to derail the thread though!)

I think part of her problem is that she wasn't just an average employee who worked at Waterstones, and said something bad on social media. Her job was social media for Waterstones. Her job was to promote new books.
She bit the hand that fed her, it slapped her right down.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out don't say stupid stuff on social media if you job is social media.

It's a difficult question though, thinking more about it. I do think the problem she had was implying she would do this with bookshop books and doing it on a platform she'd so heavily linked to her employer.

Is there something about the ripping up that's particularly offensive? Because people on here are saying it's awful to destroy books, but surely most avid readers go through books quite quickly and don't keep them all. I suppose most get donated rather than destroyed, but would it be as bad if she had just said she'll bin them? I love books but bin the ones I don't like, or whose authors I disagree with. Just this weekend I've gotten rid of my Gaiman and Alice Munro books due to news about the authors.

Obviously the difference is I'm not tweeting Gaiman to tell him this in my capacity as a bookseller. I don't know what the contract said, but a blanket ban on opinions or tweeting at authors does seem a bit Draconian.

Especially if she refused to walk back on what she'd posted. Judging by her woe-is-me video, I suspect she wouldn't back down and very much believes that what she posted to the author was her right to say so. She really should've better read the social media usage clause in her contract.

This post needs more exclamation marks.

This. If she'd apologised, and recognised that however much she disagreed with someone's stance that chucking their books and crowing about it was not appropriate with the job she had, I'd have maybe had some smidge of sympathy for a hard lesson learned.

But slagging her off, setting the TRA mob on her and her (previous) employer, nope. She hasn't learned anything, she still thinks she's in the right, I think she still believes GC authors should have their books taken off shelves and chucked away. That they have no place, no voice, and she has morals and is righteous for doing it.

We all know what would happen if an employee of Waterstones tweeted they were going to chuck a trans or trans rights author's books in the bin. The TRAs would want blood, and would be celebrating with glee when they got sacked.

One could argue that tit for that gets us nowhere, but scores of women have been targeted and then fired or reprimanded into silence for being GC. It's high time the bullies got a taste of their own medicine.

The irony of this post. Have you read a synopsis of Vox, 🍎?

And just look at the state of this thread. Anyone would think this wasn't about helping women at all (this is supposedly a feminism/women's rights forum) and people here are just out to inconvenience anyone who doesn't share gender critical views (including women) then celebrate if anything bad happens to those who aren't gender critical as a result. This place isn't women looking out for women. It's people with gender critical views looking out for people with gender critical views.

There are plenty of people on this thread expressing concern for anyone losing their job.

Plenty have questioned whether Waterstone's response is reasonable and proportionate (whilst acknowledging that we have no idea what this individual's contractual terms were, we don't know whether they had already had warnings, we don't know how Waterstone's would describe what happened etc).

People have also, rightly, said that a bookseller admitting to ripping up trans books should also face disciplinary action. (I am not aware of any examples of this happening though.)

No one is celebrating this person losing their job. No one. There is, however, a degree of hubris here. Many women have lost their jobs for saying sex exists, including in the publishing industry... (See for example recent X posts by the woman who published Kathleen Stock's book Material Girls.)

If I were a betting woman, I'd guess that, far from being the model employee who is the absolute bestest at selling books, Tilly is actually a total PITA whose card was already marked with HR and a clear instance of gross misconduct was the ideal opportunity to get rid of her.

I agree that I don’t know where she could have been redeployed in Waterstones. I guess though she will be best employed in an activist bookshop.

I think many of us could empathise with the employee you represented.

If a bookshop employs you, then the first golden rule is you must love books and handle them with care. By talking about ripping up books - whether it’s her own private collection or Waterstone’s stock - Tilly demonstrates a total disregard for books as aesthetically beautiful things. It’s also authoritarian censorship and it begs the question, what does she do with books she disapproves of in store? Does she hide them? Does she handle them roughly? Does she give a dirty look to any member of the public wishing to purchase a ‘problematic’ title?

If you worked in a pottery shop and discovered one of the ceramicists held views you disagreed with, and you said you looked forward to smashing up their pots - again, you’re showing a disregard for the aesthetic beauty of a product you are supposed to be trying to sell. Doesn’t matter if you’re smashing up pots in your private collection, you’re showing a lack of care.

For what it’s worth I don’t think Tilly should have been fired so abruptly, I think a written warning and the chance to retract her comment - and learn from it - would have been more helpful to all concerned, but she seems to be doubling down in her defiance.

Yes , I take your points. In the case I represented the guy was doing quite hard work outdoors when the line manager drove up and rebuked him for not wearing his Hi-Vis vest. So yes , an instant, unpremeditated response no doubt! Nightmare to defend though. But I don't know how I would represent the book binner. It's hard to know where she could be redeployed even , in Waterstones?

Good analogy.

Noone is literally going to pour Cola down the sink just because you said so, and people are capable of deciding what soda to drink for themselves regardless of such statement. If this was all that was said and it was reported Asda would probably give an informal telling at the worst.

@@Rightsraptor, who was Linehan talking about? It's clear the woman who was fired is included in his definition of "worst people in the world". Yes Graham, if you so say [rolls eyes]

https://archive.ph/iu60n

And just look at the state of this thread. Anyone would think this wasn't about helping women at all (this is supposedly a feminism/women's rights forum) and people here are just out to inconvenience anyone who doesn't share gender critical views (including women) then celebrate if anything bad happens to those who aren't gender critical as a result. This place isn't women looking out for women. It's people with gender critical views looking out for people with gender critical views.

OP: Fantsatstic news, Christina Dalcher has sucessfully managed to get this TRA fired from their job

Comment 1: Great news!

Comment 2: Brilliant!

Comment 3: My goodness, that clip..."poor little me" [referring to the fired woman]

I'm not an HR person, but I think if you've done something that very obviously brings your employer into disrepute, or breached the terms of your contract, then you can be sacked.

I didn't think this was how UK employment law worked, you can't surely be told you're fired straight out like that. Unless she was on probation and they told her they weren't going to permanently offer her a job, or there have been two other incidences on her employment record with this company.

Are there any HR people who could comment?

And this person is very aware of the difference in social media power too. Remember they disparaged the author’s low follower count. That is a narc move.

@ColinMyWifeBridgerton but this lady isn’t any old employee. She posts a lot of book reviews etc and has done videos at her place of work as part of her social media presence.

I agree if I am an anonymous Asda employee and I tweet “Coke should be poured down the sink, Pepsi is better” then I probably shouldn’t lose my job.

But if publishers get onto Waterstones saying “ hey, your high profile employee with tens of thousands of followers on the subject of books thinks certain books should be ripped up” - it gives Waterstones a problem.

Could be worse, when dd was in an online class for college i commando crawled across the room behind her, fondly imagining that i couldn’t be seen

oh and i gave her a kiss when she was typing not realising she was in a lecture because i couldn’t see people on the screen

technology and me are not friends

No. There have been several years of #NoDebate. Net result is that the TRAs have not managed to hone their argument as to why they are right and anyone vaguely GC is wrong and a stinky pop-poo

I think you are being kind. It was not just a case of 'no debate', it was more often then not orchestrated social media pile ons, going after your employer and doxing your personal details for having the audacity to not meekly fall at the alter of the new trans religion. The zealots saw it as their new role to police correct think and use bullying tactics if needs be such was their confidence in their moral superiority and that they were on the right side of history. That is beginning to unravel somewhat as a raft of employment tribunals have rules in favour of gender critical women and organisations are now sitting up to the fact that maybe allowing TRAs to scream their views on company time is legal liability and that they need to actually follow the law and not what Stonewall recommends.

I disagree though. I think the guy you defended could have justification and obviously did or was considered to be reacting against the power imbalance or any number of things. Likely as an immediate reaction.

This person has a side gig as a social media influencer and is obviously an activist. I would argue that they thought more about this reaction than the person you helped. I would suggest that this was nothing but deliberate and for social credit. Because of the video that came after the termination. It takes effort to produce a video like this. I take that as an indication that the two are more dissimilar than similar, if you know what I mean.

I saw this on Twitter last night, but what’s the background re the writer she was publicly trashing?

Like others, I’m not a fan of people losing their jobs for their opinions. Too many feminists have suffered in this way and we can’t protest that, while being comfortable about this. I think Waterstones should have given her a stern warning and a disciplinary hearing so she stops being a bigot on SM.

Yeah I mean, if they have a clause saying anything on social media that doesn't look good for the company isn't allowed, so be it. She should have checked her contact. I Personally don't agree with that sort of clause but obviously she's the one who signed it!

As an old shop steward and all round leftie hack I hate to see people lose their jobs.

But this is up there with the guy I represented at a hearing who had told the boss to ' Fuck off'. In front of witnesses. Somehow we saved his job. Thank goodness there was no social media back then.

I will now never read that user name any differently. Considering the proselytising style posts from that poster, perhaps that is what was meant.

If people think Waterstones are biased, will they buy their books there?

Wanna bet who buys and reads more books? Young social media focused activists or slightly older dinosaur shaped old crones?

Those huge publishing deals for books pushing diversity, are known not to have been too commercially successful.

Do Waterstones want to be associated with people who advocate books being destroyed and all that is linked to historically (which the well read are more likely to connect to)? I think not.

I don't think it's pro-GC. I do think it's a simple savvy business decision.