Council worker sacked over pronouns

[mcduffy]

Can't do a share token as telegraph

The worker has lost a tribunal

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/17/gender-critical-council-employee-sacked-over-pronouns

A “gender critical” council worker was sacked after protesting the use of pronouns on his email signaturee_.
James Orwin was left furious when Caroline Lacey, the council’s chief executive, invited employees to “consider adding pronouns to your email signaturee_, should you wish to do so”.
In “protest”, Mr Orwin, an IT project officer, changed his email footer to “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” rather than he/himm_.

Would it be a fair analogy to say, it's like if a manager had suggested people might like to put Bible verses they find encouraging in their email signatures, and he put Luke 13:28,And there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
?

Or John 11:35 might be more apt.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Maya case has actually led to more firings.

A misunderstanding of it may have led to some thinking they are "invincible" and can't be fired, so they act like the gentleman being discussed.

"Wait, what do you mean the Maya case doesn't cover me, does that mean I can't sue the Council for a million pounds?"

Sorry if this has been said earlier in the thread but this decision should be a warning re the many threads there have been on FWR about being asked to include pronouns at work, should I agree.

And on many threads, posters have suggested very amusing alternatives.

However this court outcome seems to suggest that what we might find an apt response on FWR could get us the sack if put into practice at work.

Did you see my question @Christinapple ?

If your hypothetical male engineer transitions to a woman, what is he identifying with? What makes him think he's a woman?

Remember Bill?

She had no choice but to sack him because she didn't like his choice of pronouns. And/or said choice made the policy look ridiculous. Which it is .He was invited to display pronouns. He accepted the invitation. She sacked him. Pour encourager les autres. And because she can. This nonsense is a sociopaths dream. Not that she is necessarily a sociopath - maybe just a well meaning dupe unsuited to management.

I mean, there's cutting your nose off to spite your face, and then there's this!

It's admirable to be principled, but that has to be tempered with being sensible, i'd wager.

The Judge wasn't buying that either.

Touché.

I found the judgment tough to read because the Claimant stipulated that he didn't want to be referred to as he/him.

Definitely! 🎯

"It probably would have been a better strategy to put something like ze/zir and then complain to HR and threaten to sue every single time a colleague got it wrong."

HR aren't stupid. If it's obvious one is taking the piss over something trivial like subtle optional info in an email sig they will just end up without their job. Or they will keep their job but end up disliked by their boss and colleagues which won't make their job very fun.

Signature pronouns aren't really a big deal and losing your job over them will hurt you more than your employer. Workers are replaceable, fired troublemakers will be forgotten in a day.

Signature pronouns aren't really a big deal and losing your job over them

The lack of logic never stops...

Pikapikapikachu11 · Yesterday 07:40

It means:

Fuck
Off
And
Die

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 09:49

Fo/Ad - in homage to Green Day’s epic Fuck Off & Die?

Chaotic Discord did it 20 years before Green Day and it was common usage well before that.

Regardless of whether you think the email sign off was ‘dickish’ or just ‘ factual’, I think the salient point is that the council went so far as to sack him over it. That seemd an extreme reaction. What’s that quote about if you want to know who has power, look for those you can’t criticise.

I agree that it was a knee jerk reaction from senior management.
Sacking him is way, way over the top for an employee not doing as he was asked - for something as benign as this.

It's not like he was stealing, or abusive to other members of staff, or anything else that could see you being disciplined by your LM, etc.

I also agree with you that they overreacted because of the subject matter, and because a couple of people had said the magic word of 'transphobia'.

Except they invited people to use pronouns. But then only the ones they deem appropriate:
The treatment – all arising from hi’s refusal to remove the email signature – was because he used a provocative email sign off that was not acceptable to [the council].”

He was open about them being a protest and not actual pronouns. He wasn't "using the wrong pronouns" for himself.

He was being deliberately provocative. If i worked with young mums I wouldn't put "breast is best" on my email sign-off even if I thought it was factually true.

I have written many posts on here about how I think pronouns are problematic but acting in this way isn't "using inappropriate pronouns" and it's disingenuous to say that was what he was sacked for. He accepted that they could be offensive.
"The only way to challenge this policy, the claimant believed, was
to adopt deliberately provocative pronouns."

I'm not making the argument that either party acted brilliantly, I'm just saying that this wasn't "oh i happened to choose genuine pronouns and management didn't like them".

He was asked not to use them on emails until management had discussed but he said he "couldn't". He expected to be sacked for it.

He also said that using "other" or not using any pronouns "denies me my right to equality in the workplace."

You may think people's beliefs are illogical and laughable but in a professional workplace you can't call them "garbage" which is what he did.

I think if he'd simply have asked what the problem was with his signature, sat back and waited for a reply in writing before using them, he would've had a way better position and could actually have backed the council into a corner. Or asked more questions about them and gotten into an actual dialogue.

The tribunal did have a few interesting points. Worth reading

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66952029a3c2a28abb50cf74/Mr_J_Orwin_v_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_Council_-6000146-2022-_Final.pdf

Yes, that bit of the judgement is interesting!

Yes, they didn't agree that mentioning chromosomes etc would harm anyone. The decision was more about his wilful disobedience.

I have been wondering what might have been defensible, whilst still not being pronouns. I think I might have gone with 'I do not have the right to dictate how others refer to me'.

If believers are allowed, encouraged indeed, to express their belief in their email footers, non-believers should be too.

(And of course non-belief is a belief in its own right in this case, thanks to Forstater)

It had to be the SLT's approved nonsense.
Nonsensical neo-pronouns were a-ok.
But, his tongue-in-cheek, pronouns weren't.

I have been wondering what might have been defensible, whilst still not being pronouns. I think I might have gone with 'I do not have the right to dictate how others refer to me'.

He was encouraged not to display any if he didn't want to.

I would have asked for clarification on what each set of pronouns would be interpreted as conveying about me, and what is the best way of telling people that I am male but don't have any masculine or male gender identity.

You can't choose how you want to be referred to if no-one can tell you what it's saying.

I dont think he should have been sacked.

Surely an employer cant compel and employee to do something that is against their beliefs.

Isn't that what the Forstater case proved.

Disobedience to adher to something that isn't relevant to the actual work and is just virtue signalling isn't the same as for instance for following health and safety procedures relevant to work to be carried out.

Its not different to (I think) the National Trust who told volunteers they have to wear rainbow lanyards.

Maybe he should contact the FSU and mount an appeal.